CCTS Spec RIM Mappings - [S35] to [S43]

["Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>]

Team,

Here is the next set of CCTS requirements for us to cover - please see
my comments marked with <JMC>. Please provide feedback on these
comments. 

Thanks,
Joe

[S35] Business Contexts are a particular category of Registry Classes.
As such, all stored Business Contexts shall include the following
Attributes:

- Unique Identifier
- Version
- Dictionary Entry Name
- Definition
- Usage Rule

<JMC>
We can consider a Business Context to simply be a Classification Schema
in the registry - for example, the "Geopolitical Context" classification
scheme.

No special representation is required in CCRIM.
</JMC>

[S36] Business Contexts shall contain the combination of values for all
approved Context Categories so as to define a unique and meaningful
Business Context.

<JMC>
We can interpret this as "Business Contexts - which are represented in
the registry as classification schemes - shall contain the pertinent
classification nodes for a particular Context Category". So for example,
Geopolitical Context can contain nodes for countries, states/regions
within countries,etc.

No special representation is required in CCRIM.
</JMC>

[S38] Stored Classification Schemes shall include the following
Attributes:

- Context Category
- Name
- Definition
- Primitive Type
- Hierarchy

<JMC>
We can simply use our current classification scheme mechanism as is,
with no modifications to it. Regarding the attributes:

- Context Category: Would be represented by the Name attribute below;

- Name: Would be the classification scheme name - RegistryObject.name;

- Definition: Is this necessary? Our ClassificationScheme class does not
currently have this attribute, and we've been doing fine so far;

- Primitive Type: CCTS describes this as the "Primitive Type that is
used for the representation of a Context Value in the Classification
Scheme.". Is this necessary? 

- Hierarchy: CCTS describes this as "Indicator describing whether the
Classification Scheme supports a hierarchical description of the
Context.". Is this necessary, given that our classification mechanism is
hierarchical in nature?
</JMC>

[S39] Context values shall describe a possible value of a particular
Context Category.

<JMC>
This is represented by the ClassificationNode.code attribute in our
current registry architecture.

No special representation is required in CCRIM.
</JMC>

[S40] Stored Context values shall be defined as one of the eight
recognized types.Business Process Context value, Product Context value,
Industry Context value, Geopolitical Context value, Official Constraints
Context value, Business Process Role Context value, Supporting Role
Context value or System Capabilities Context value.

<JMC>
This is handled by the fact that a classification node belongs to a
given classification schema that represents one of the "8 recognized
types".

No special representation is required in CCRIM.
</JMC>

[S41] Stored Context values may belong to a particular Classification
Scheme.

<JMC>
For us, this is actually "Stored Context values MUST belong to a
particular Classification Scheme.".

No special representation is required in CCRIM.
</JMC>

[S42] Stored Context values that belong to a particular Classification
Scheme that allows a hierarchy, may have a hierarchical "contains"
relation with another Context Value belonging to the same Classification
Scheme.

<JMC>
The CCTS does reference this "contains" relation anywhere else (as far
as I could see). But here's an example that I think illustrates this:

- We'll focus on the "Geopolitical Context" context category

- We have a node for Naples, and one for Italy

- We want to signify that "Naples is a province of Italy"

What is the best way for us to do this using our existing registry
mechanisms? Is there anything prohibiting us from creating a "Contains"
Association between the 2 classification nodes?
</JMC>

[S43] Stored Context value (s) shall include the following Attributes:

- Value
- Meaning

<JMC>
The "Value" attribute is represented by the ClassificationNode.code
attribute in our current registry architecture.

Is the "Meaning" attribute (CCTS describes as "Description of the
meaning of the corresponding value.") necessary for us to represent?
</JMC>
begin:vcard 
n:Chiusano;Joseph
tel;work:(703) 902-6923
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:www.bah.com
org:Booz | Allen | Hamilton;IT Digital Strategies Team
adr:;;8283 Greensboro Drive;McLean;VA;22012;
version:2.1
email;internet:chiusano_joseph@bah.com
title:Senior Consultant
fn:Joseph M. Chiusano
end:vcard