Re: [regrep-cc-review] Association Core Components - Represent with Associations

[Farrukh Najmi <farrukh.najmi@sun.com>]

Diego Ballvé wrote:

>>The only item left to clarify is: Do you and other team members agree
>>with our adding a slot to the "ASCC Association" to hold the Object
>>Class Qualifier?
>>    
>>
>
>No, not to the (RIM) Association. Use the ASCC ExtrinsicObject instead.
>(Is it what you mean??) We agreed on not to add Slots to RIM Association
>for clarity and I think it makes sense. And since we also agreed on
>unifying ASCC with AssociationCCProperty, ASCC would contain (as Slots):
>
>- Object Class Qualifier 
>- Property Term
>- Cardinality
>
>  
>
Forgive me if I have lost some contextual backbround....

It seems to me that the natural CCRIM mapping would indeed be to map 
ASCC Association to a RIM Association augmented with Slots. It seems 
unnatural to map to an ASCC ExtrinsicObject instead. This seems to be an 
exaple of a generic pattern that Nikola should include in hius generic 
patterns documentation. So I am leaning towards Association with Slots 
approach.

BTW on the subject of Slots please consider defining Slot names to be 
URNs similar to the way I described it in a recent User Defined URL 
proposal.

Thanks.

-- 
Farrukh