[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep-cc-review] Issue #3: P.12 Example in the Registy
<Quote> >>Chiusano2: Did you mean 1 Association Type or 2? >> >> mm2: Assocation Type 2 - DerivedFrom </Quote> I like that - keeping it simple. I'd like to propose that when a "derived" ACC (ex: OfficeAddress. Details) is created from a "base" ACC (ex: Address. Details), that we stipulate that the derived ACC copied from the base ACC, and changes made as necessary. A "DerivedFrom" association would be created between the 2 ACCs. Such changes made may include the addition of BCCs or the deletion of BCCs (not the changing of definition of BCCs, because that would break interoperability). Unless anyone voices an alternative approach, we'll go with that. Thanks, Joe Monica Martin wrote: > > >Chiusano1: <Quote1> > > > > > >>QUESTION: Do we need 2 new Association Types here - "ExtendedFrom" and > >>"RestrictedFrom"? Or just simply one Association Type named > >>"DerivedFrom?" If so, should we handle this the same as W3C Schema? > That is, an extension would contain only the additional BCCs, and a > >>restriction would contain the BCCs from the "base" ACC that are being > >>carried over. > >> > >>mm1: I would prefer Association type. > >></Quote1> > >> > >>Chiusano2: Did you mean 1 Association Type or 2? > >> > >> > mm2: Assocation Type 2 - DerivedFrom
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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]