RE: [regrep-cc-review] CCTS Spec RIM Mappings Revisited: [S8] to [S18]

[Diego Ballvé <diego.ballve@republica.fi>]

Chiusano Joseph wrote:

> <Quote1>
> I still think that Properties should be stored as RIM Associations
> between an Aggregate and its children (Basic/Association).
> </Quote1>
> 
> I don't believe that RIM Associations would be able to hold the
> attributes required for CC Properties (Property Term and Cardinality).

"slots" is an attribute of RIM RegistryObject and since RIM Association
is a subclass/extension of it, Associations also have Slots. See "7.5.9
Attribute slots" on RIM 2.5 specs.

Btw, this is how Republica's prototype works, storing Property Term
and Cardinality in the Association.

> 
> <Quote2>
> Sustaining the Associaton approach for Properties, you have no
> ObjectType for them - ObjectType is Association.
> </Quote2>
> 
> Hmmm...I wonder if treating Associations as Objects (even though they
> are RegistryObjects) could potentially be confusing.

Could be confusing if you are not used to the idea, although it should
be explained in the bindings specs. Anyway I like the suggestion you
presented in the other mail - unifying property and cc. Lets think
about it for a while.

Diego