[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: New ObjectType Hierarchy (ebRIM Change)
Minor point which I am sure is consistent with the intent of the picture.... I assume Non-CCTS will not be an explicit node in ObjectType tree and should therefor be shown as <Other Non-CCTS types>. -----Original Message----- From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com] Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 11:13 AM To: Farrukh Najmi Cc: Diego Ballvé; CCRev Subject: New ObjectType Hierarchy (ebRIM Change) Team, Based on all input, the following represents our new ObjectType hierarchy: Object Type | RegistryObject | RegistryEntry | ExtrinsicObject | | __CCTS__ Non-CCTS | | | | ACC ASCC BCC etc. (all others) This would be considered an ebRIM change. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Thanks, Joe Farrukh Najmi wrote: > > +1 on Diego's suggestion. > > One other minor correction is that ExtrinsicObject is under > RegistryEntry in ebRIM. > > BTW I am on vacation and infrequently online. > > -- > Regard, > Farrukh > > Chiusano Joseph wrote: > > >[Would like Farrukh and Nikola's input] > > > ><Quote> > >Though I'd add one more layer, the "CCTS Objects" or whatever name we > >decide for, between Extrinsic Object and ACC/BCC/etc. > ></Quote> > > > >I can definitely see the value in that. So our hierarchy would look as > >follows (I guess the "other" Extrinsic Objects would be "Non-CCTS", but > >am open to better terms): > > > >Object Type > > | > >RegistryObject > > | | > >Registry Extrinsic > > Entry Object etc. > > | | > > CCTS Non-CCTS > > | | | | > > ACC ASCC BCC etc. (all others) > > > >Farrukh and Nikola, what do you think of this? > > > >Joe > > > >Diego Ballvé wrote: > > > > > >><Quote> > >>In a nutshell, Diego has taken all of the CCTS object types (12 in all) > >>and classified them as follows: > >> > >>Object Type > >> | > >>CCTS Objects > >> | | | > >>ACC ASCC BCC etc. > >> > >>Farrukh and Nikola have proposed: > >> > >>Object Type > >> | > >>RegistryObject > >> | | > >>Registry Extrinsic > >> Entry Object etc. > >> | | | > >> ACC ASCC BCC etc. > >> > >>Farrukh and Nikola's approach was accepted on our TC call yesterday. Is > >>everyone (especially Diego) comfortable with this representation of Core > >>Component Object Types? > >></Quote> > >> > >>Comfortable, yes. Though I'd add one more layer, the "CCTS Objects" or > >>whatever name we decide for, between Extrinsic Object and ACC/BCC/etc. > >> > >>Reason is to separate CCTS ExtrinsicObjects from other specs > >>ExtrinsicObjects that might appear later. > >> > >>Diego > >> > >>Ps. Sorry for missing the TC calls, but the time is not so good for > >>me. I could attend if I would be really needed. > >> > >>You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep-cc-review/members/leave_ workgroup.php > >>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]