[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [regrep-cc-review] Renaming "Data Types" (Was Re: [regrep-cc-review] [Further Consideration] Re: [regrep-cc-review] Help with clarifying registry handling of CCTS)
I have to second Mark's comment. I've seen the results of this kind of thing all too often. They aren't pretty! They cause more confusion than they cure.
Sally
-----Original Message-----
From: CRAWFORD, Mark [mailto:MCRAWFORD@lmi.org]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 10:12 AM
To: Chiusano Joseph; MACIAS, Paul; Diego Ballvé; CCRev
Subject: RE: [regrep-cc-review] Renaming "Data Types" (Was Re:
[regrep-cc-review] [Further Consideration] Re: [regrep-cc-review] Help
with clarifying registry handling of CCTS)
Joe,
I really wish you would avoid renaming. This is a classic trap that standards efforts fall into. Despite the note, people will be confused as to what you mean. Better to have a note that reinforces that a datatype is a restriction as identified in its CCTS definition.
Mark
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 8:19 PM
> To: MACIAS, Paul; Diego Ballvé; CCRev
> Subject: [regrep-cc-review] Renaming "Data Types" (Was Re:
> [regrep-cc-review] [Further Consideration] Re: [regrep-cc-review] Help
> with clarifying registry handling of CCTS)
>
>
> Given the general confusion around the concept of Data Types,
> I've been
> toying with the idea of renaming them for our Technical Note as "Core
> Component Type Restrictions" (CCTR), which is what they really are. I
> think that much of the confusion stems from the fact that folks
> (justified or not) think of a "Data Type" as a primitive type such as
> string, integer, etc. while our Data Types are much richer.
>
> I will include clear instructions within the Technical Note regarding
> this mapping (Data Type --> CCTR). If anyone has a strong objection to
> this*, please let me know.
>
> Thanks,
> Joe
>
> *"because it's not that way in the CCTS spec" will not be
> considered to
> be an acceptable objection. ;)
>
> Chiusano Joseph wrote:
> >
> > <Quote>
> > A registry manager may want to ensure that the contextual
> definitions of
> > concrete BCCs like "Invoice.Tax.Amount" and
> "Budget.Tax.Amount" do not
> > stray too far from a common definition for "tax.Amount".
> > </Quote>
> >
> > Well said, Paul. Further supporting that, it's also possible that a
> > registry manager could add Slots to "Tax. Amount" for
> further metadata
> > attributes as needed, so it would be important to have a single
> > representation of "Tax. Amount" in the registry that could
> be utilized
> > in various scenarios.
> >
> > Joe
> >
> > "MACIAS, Paul" wrote:
> > >
> > > Joe,
> > > Thanks for clarifying the registry representation. That
> was a big help.
> > >
> > > Joe and Diego,
> > > I think I agree with Joe's concept of the abstract BCC
> entry. If I'm understanding correctly, I like the idea that
> the abstract BCC will allow for a single generic definition
> for concepts such as "tax.Amount". A registry manager may
> want to ensure that the contextual definitions of concrete
> BCCs like "Invoice.Tax.Amount" and "Budget.Tax.Amount" do not
> stray too far from a common definition for "tax.Amount".
> > > Thought?
> > >
> > > -Paul
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 9:08 AM
> > > To: Diego Ballvé
> > > Cc: MACIAS, Paul; CCRev
> > > Subject: Re: [regrep-cc-review] [Further Consideration] Re:
> > > [regrep-cc-review] Help with clarifying registry handling of CCTS
> > >
> > > Thanks Diego - the list has been quiet only because we've
> completed our
> > > analysis of the CCTS spec. As questions come up during my
> work on the
> > > Technical Note, I'll forward them as appropriate to
> solicit feedback.
> > >
> > > According to CCTS, "Tax. Amount" should be a BCC rather
> than a Data
> > > Type. Here is some supporting information:
> > >
> > > (1) P.12 Example:
> > >
> > > "BirthDate" is represented as a BCC in the p.12 example
> (the explanation
> > > that states "Data Type" is a typo), so it would seem that
> "Tax. Amount"
> > > should also be thought of as a BCC.
> > >
> > > (2) Also, Figure 4-1 (p.14) represents Data Types as
> being "without
> > > business semantics" - but "Tax. Amount" definitely has business
> > > semantics. So this further supports the notion of "Tax.
> Amount" being
> > > represented as a BCC.
> > >
> > > (3) Also, on p.28 ("Example" box), it states:
> > >
> > > "Because both the existing Basic Business Information
> Entity of Invoice.
> > > Total_ Tax. Amount and the desired Basic Business
> Information Entity of
> > > Order. Total_ Tax. Amount share strong similarities-they
> are the same
> > > Property and share a specific Data Type, but are applied
> to different
> > > Object Classes-..."
> > >
> > > The reference to "Property" above would be the Property
> Term that is
> > > common between the BCCs - "Tax" (note that "Total" would
> be a Property
> > > Term Qualifier). This means that the Data Type would be
> represented by
> > > the Representation Term of "Amount" - so in this example,
> "Total_Tax.
> > > Amount" does not represent a Data Type, it represents a
> BCC (of course
> > > we would prepend the Object Class Term value to the
> Dictionary Entry
> > > Name for the BCC, as shown above).
> > >
> > > So this means that one should be able to reuse the "base BCC" in
> > > multiple scenarios - i.e. with multiple ACCs, and subsequently for
> > > multiple BBIEs that are potentially contained within
> multiple ABIEs.
> > >
> > > If you interpret any of this differently, please let me know.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Joe
> > >
> > > Diego Ballvé wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Joe, Paul,
> > > >
> > > > Nice to see action in this list. :)
> > > >
> > > > About the "abstract" Core Component, I agree on the
> need for that.
> > > > But I suspect the idea is already covered by DataType -
> can we see
> > > > it like that?? I will try to explain:
> > > >
> > > > Shifting the abstract to DataType, one would first create a
> > > > DataType for TaxAmount (I'm not sure about DataType
> naming rules)
> > > > and, with a RIMAssociation (I'm pushing a bit here), one would
> > > > connect the ACC to the DataType - the RIMAssociation would be
> > > > the BCC, similarly to ACC-ACC RIMAssociation representing ASCC.
> > > > You can't reuse the BCC but you can reuse its DataType. That is
> > > > already supported by CCTS.
> > > >
> > > > How does that sound?
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Diego
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com]
> > > > > Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 2:55 AM
> > > > > To: MACIAS Paul; CCRev
> > > > > Subject: [regrep-cc-review] [Further Consideration] Re:
> > > > > [regrep-cc-review] Help with clarifying registry
> handling of CCTS
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Since I wrote the reply below I've given further
> consideration to some
> > > > > of the concepts in <Quote3> below. This is addressed to all
> > > > > subscribers
> > > > > on this listserv, as I am continuing the development
> of our Technical
> > > > > Note.
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul, this would not change any of my general
> responses to you, but is
> > > > > rather a bit further down in the weeds.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's the scenario:
> > > > >
> > > > > - A user registers a BCC whose Property Term is "Tax"
> and whose
> > > > > associated Data Type is "Amount".
> > > > >
> > > > > - Without being further associated with an ACC (i.e.
> without an Object
> > > > > Class Term), the Dictionary Entry Name for this BCC
> would be "Tax.
> > > > > Amount".
> > > > >
> > > > > - We would like to reuse this "Tax. Amount" BCC in multiple
> > > > > scenarios -
> > > > > that is, we would like to associate it with multiple ACCs.
> > > > > Once this is
> > > > > done, an Object Class Term would be added to its Dictionary
> > > > > Entry Name -
> > > > > so for example, if it is associated with an ACC whose Object
> > > > > Class Term
> > > > > is "Invoice", its Dictionary Entry Name would then be
> "Invoice. Tax.
> > > > > Amount".
> > > > >
> > > > > So far, so good. Now here is the crux of the issue.
> > > > >
> > > > > If we associate "Tax. Amount" with the ACC described
> above, and assign
> > > > > the BCC a unique identifier (and definition, etc.),
> then it cannot be
> > > > > reused (i.e. it cannot be associated with another ACC
> because it is
> > > > > already called "Invoice. Tax. Amount" and is
> associated with an ACC).
> > > > >
> > > > > What if we were to consider "Tax. Amount" a sort of
> > > > > "abstract" BCC (like
> > > > > an abstract class) from which other BCCs are derived?
> Then we could
> > > > > create Associations from "Tax. Amount" to multiple ACCs as
> > > > > needed - i.e.
> > > > > one to the "Invoice. Details" ACC, one to the
> "Budget. Details" ACC,
> > > > > etc. This would allow us to avoid registering multiple BCCs as
> > > > > ExtrinsicObjects.
> > > > >
> > > > > We would then represent "concrete" (non-abstract) BCCs using
> > > > > Associations between the "abstract" BCC (Tax. Amount)
> and the various
> > > > > ACCs (Invoice. Details, Budget. Details). Most if not
> all of the BCC
> > > > > attributes (Unique Identifier, Definition, etc.) would be
> > > > > represented as
> > > > > Slots on the Association.
> > > > >
> > > > > The "abstract" Core Component would also have its own
> > > > > attributes (those
> > > > > listed in the CCTS - Unique Identifier, Definition,
> Version, etc.).
> > > > >
> > > > > In terms of registration (assuming an empty
> registry), a user would
> > > > > first need to register the abstract BCC and an ACC
> (in any order), and
> > > > > then create the concrete BCC through an Association.
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps we could call the abstract BCC a "base BCC", and a
> > > > > concrete BCC
> > > > > simply a BCC. We'll also need to consider if these
> concepts scale for
> > > > > ACC-to-ACC associations, and - if so - if they make sense.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thoughts and comments are welcome and appreciated.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Joe
> > > > >
> > > > > Chiusano Joseph wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Paul,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Great questions - please see comments below:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <Quote1>
> > > > > > Specifically if you have the CC
> "Invoice.Tax.Amount", that is one
> > > > > > complete registered object.
> > > > > > </Quote1>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That is correct - "Invoice.Tax.Amount" would be the
> Dictionary Entry
> > > > > > Name of the Basic Core Component (BCC) that is
> registered as an
> > > > > > ExtrinsicObject. Furthermore, the BCC would have a
> "Property Term"
> > > > > > attribute whose value is "Tax", and its related
> Core Component Type
> > > > > > (CCT) is "Amount. Type" (we can also say that it is
> of Data Type
> > > > > > "Amount"). Finally, the BCC would be a property of
> > > > > (contained within) an
> > > > > > ACC called "Invoice. Details", which would have an
> "Object Class"
> > > > > > attribute whose value is "Invoice. Details". These
> attributes, along
> > > > > > with the Data Type, comprise the Dictionary Entry Name.
> > > > > Please note also
> > > > > > that if there were one or more Qualifer Terms they
> would also become
> > > > > > part of the Dictionary Entry Name, but there are
> none in this case.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <Quote2>
> > > > > > Correct me if I'm wrong, we don't discuss
> registering an "Invoice"
> > > > > > object class identifier and a separate "Tax.Amount"
> term and then
> > > > > > connect them through associations?
> > > > > > </Quote2>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please pardon some repetition from above. We would
> register an ACC
> > > > > > called "Invoice. Details", and this ACC would have
> an Object Class
> > > > > > attribute whose value is "Invoice". We would also register
> > > > > a BCC called
> > > > > > "Tax. Amount" whose Property Term attribute is "Tax" and
> > > > > which is based
> > > > > > on a Data Type of "Amount" (which is further associated
> > > > > with a CCT of
> > > > > > "Amount. Type"), and there would be a registry Association
> > > > > between the
> > > > > > ACC and BCC. The Dictionary Entry Name "Invoice.
> Tax. Amount" would
> > > > > > result from the registry Association (i.e. without the
> > > > > Association, the
> > > > > > Dictionary Entry Name could not be derived).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <Quote3>
> > > > > > The latter was raised as an idea for developing a generic
> > > > > version of the
> > > > > > Property Term/Representation Term that could be
> associated to
> > > > > > many Object Classes.
> > > > > > </Quote3>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes - that is exactly what we are intending to do in the
> > > > > registry. The
> > > > > > question then becomes: should we retain a single Core
> > > > > Component in the
> > > > > > registry called "Tax. Amount" for all ACCs with which it is
> > > > > associated,
> > > > > > or have a separate "copy" in the registry for each case? In
> > > > > other words,
> > > > > > suppose we have 2 ACCs: "Invoice. Details" and
> "Budget. Details". We
> > > > > > also have a Core Component called "Tax. Amount". If
> we associate the
> > > > > > Core Component with the "Invoice. Details" ACC, its
> Dictionary Entry
> > > > > > Name would be "Invoice. Tax. Amount", while if we associate
> > > > > it with the
> > > > > > "Budget. Details" ACC, its Dictionary Entry Name would be
> > > > > "Budget. Tax.
> > > > > > Amount". The issue at this point is that there is only one
> > > > > Dictionary
> > > > > > Entry Name attribute for the Core Component class (which
> > > > > there should
> > > > > > be).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With the first approach (retain a single copy), we would
> > > > > need to move
> > > > > > the Dictionary Entry Name to be an attribute of the
> Association that
> > > > > > connects the Core Component and ACC; this would allow us to
> > > > > retain one
> > > > > > instance in the registry of the "Tax. Amount" Core
> Component but
> > > > > > associate it with many ACCs. The problem with this
> approach is that
> > > > > > since the Core Component class also has a "Unique
> > > > > Identifier" attribute,
> > > > > > we would be assigning a Unique Identifier to
> something that really
> > > > > > represents multiple Core Components (i.e. "Invoice. Tax.
> > > > > Amount" and.
> > > > > > "Budget. Tax. Amount"). This of course violates the
> concept of
> > > > > > uniqueness.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With the second approach (separate copy), we would
> retain in the
> > > > > > registry separate ExtrinsicObjects (i.e. a separate
> Core Component
> > > > > > instances) for "Invoice. Tax. Amount" and "Budget. Tax.
> > > > > Amount". This
> > > > > > would allow them to have separate Unique
> Identifiers, separate
> > > > > > Definitions (which they should have), etc. So if a
> user attempts to
> > > > > > "assign" an existing Core Component (i.e. a Core
> Component that is
> > > > > > already assigned to one ACC) to a new ACC, they
> should be prompted
> > > > > > through the user interface to enter a new
> Definition (and other
> > > > > > attributes), and a new Unique Identifier should be
> generated.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hope that helps,
> > > > > > Joe
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "MACIAS, Paul" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I need a reminder on how we (ebXML Reg/Rep) are planning
> > > > > to recommend capturing Core Components in the technical note.
> > > > > The Department of Navy is developing an update to their
> > > > > design rules, which draw from CCTS. I'm feeding them the
> > > > > practical aspects of what to expect from the CCTS technical
> > > > > note based on the CC subteam discussions. Unfortunately, one
> > > > > DON member raised a question that I think I know the answer
> > > > > to, but I couldn't rule out definitively.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I believe we were capturing the terms of a Core Component
> > > > > as a single registered item. Specifically if you have the CC
> > > > > "Invoice.Tax.Amount", that is one complete registered object.
> > > > > Correct me if I'm wrong, we don't discuss registering an
> > > > > "Invoice" object class identifier and a separate "Tax.Amount"
> > > > > term and then connect them through associations? The latter
> > > > > was raised as an idea for developing a generic version of the
> > > > > Property Term/Representation Term that could be associated to
> > > > > many Object Classes. The flexibility of the registry
> > > > > specification may allow this, but since it's not the way I
> > > > > see the CCTS expecting them to be registered I didn't think
> > > > > it was a method we looked at. Am I correct?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > NOTE: I am not endorsing or encouraging any change in
> > > > > the direction of the CCTS technical note at this time. Joe
> > > > > and others put in a lot of work to get the rules nailed down
> > > > > and I don't want to change coarse now. I just want to
> > > > > clarify the approach going into the technical note.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > ----------
> > > > > > > Name: winmail.dat
> > > > > > > winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef
> > > > > > > Encoding: base64
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > ----------
> > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed
> > > > > from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to
> > > > > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep-cc-review/
> > > > members/leave_workgroup.php.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed
> from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep-cc-review/
> members/leave_workgroup.php.
> >
> > "MACIAS, Paul" wrote:
> > >
> > > Joe,
> > > Thanks for clarifying the registry representation. That
> was a big help.
> > >
> > > Joe and Diego,
> > > I think I agree with Joe's concept of the abstract BCC
> entry. If I'm understanding correctly, I like the idea that
> the abstract BCC will allow for a single generic definition
> for concepts such as "tax.Amount". A registry manager may
> want to ensure that the contextual definitions of concrete
> BCCs like "Invoice.Tax.Amount" and "Budget.Tax.Amount" do not
> stray too far from a common definition for "tax.Amount".
> > > Thought?
> > >
> > > -Paul
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 9:08 AM
> > > To: Diego Ballvé
> > > Cc: MACIAS, Paul; CCRev
> > > Subject: Re: [regrep-cc-review] [Further Consideration] Re:
> > > [regrep-cc-review] Help with clarifying registry handling of CCTS
> > >
> > > Thanks Diego - the list has been quiet only because we've
> completed our
> > > analysis of the CCTS spec. As questions come up during my
> work on the
> > > Technical Note, I'll forward them as appropriate to
> solicit feedback.
> > >
> > > According to CCTS, "Tax. Amount" should be a BCC rather
> than a Data
> > > Type. Here is some supporting information:
> > >
> > > (1) P.12 Example:
> > >
> > > "BirthDate" is represented as a BCC in the p.12 example
> (the explanation
> > > that states "Data Type" is a typo), so it would seem that
> "Tax. Amount"
> > > should also be thought of as a BCC.
> > >
> > > (2) Also, Figure 4-1 (p.14) represents Data Types as
> being "without
> > > business semantics" - but "Tax. Amount" definitely has business
> > > semantics. So this further supports the notion of "Tax.
> Amount" being
> > > represented as a BCC.
> > >
> > > (3) Also, on p.28 ("Example" box), it states:
> > >
> > > "Because both the existing Basic Business Information
> Entity of Invoice.
> > > Total_ Tax. Amount and the desired Basic Business
> Information Entity of
> > > Order. Total_ Tax. Amount share strong similarities-they
> are the same
> > > Property and share a specific Data Type, but are applied
> to different
> > > Object Classes-..."
> > >
> > > The reference to "Property" above would be the Property
> Term that is
> > > common between the BCCs - "Tax" (note that "Total" would
> be a Property
> > > Term Qualifier). This means that the Data Type would be
> represented by
> > > the Representation Term of "Amount" - so in this example,
> "Total_Tax.
> > > Amount" does not represent a Data Type, it represents a
> BCC (of course
> > > we would prepend the Object Class Term value to the
> Dictionary Entry
> > > Name for the BCC, as shown above).
> > >
> > > So this means that one should be able to reuse the "base BCC" in
> > > multiple scenarios - i.e. with multiple ACCs, and subsequently for
> > > multiple BBIEs that are potentially contained within
> multiple ABIEs.
> > >
> > > If you interpret any of this differently, please let me know.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Joe
> > >
> > > Diego Ballvé wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Joe, Paul,
> > > >
> > > > Nice to see action in this list. :)
> > > >
> > > > About the "abstract" Core Component, I agree on the
> need for that.
> > > > But I suspect the idea is already covered by DataType -
> can we see
> > > > it like that?? I will try to explain:
> > > >
> > > > Shifting the abstract to DataType, one would first create a
> > > > DataType for TaxAmount (I'm not sure about DataType
> naming rules)
> > > > and, with a RIMAssociation (I'm pushing a bit here), one would
> > > > connect the ACC to the DataType - the RIMAssociation would be
> > > > the BCC, similarly to ACC-ACC RIMAssociation representing ASCC.
> > > > You can't reuse the BCC but you can reuse its DataType. That is
> > > > already supported by CCTS.
> > > >
> > > > How does that sound?
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Diego
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com]
> > > > > Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 2:55 AM
> > > > > To: MACIAS Paul; CCRev
> > > > > Subject: [regrep-cc-review] [Further Consideration] Re:
> > > > > [regrep-cc-review] Help with clarifying registry
> handling of CCTS
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Since I wrote the reply below I've given further
> consideration to some
> > > > > of the concepts in <Quote3> below. This is addressed to all
> > > > > subscribers
> > > > > on this listserv, as I am continuing the development
> of our Technical
> > > > > Note.
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul, this would not change any of my general
> responses to you, but is
> > > > > rather a bit further down in the weeds.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's the scenario:
> > > > >
> > > > > - A user registers a BCC whose Property Term is "Tax"
> and whose
> > > > > associated Data Type is "Amount".
> > > > >
> > > > > - Without being further associated with an ACC (i.e.
> without an Object
> > > > > Class Term), the Dictionary Entry Name for this BCC
> would be "Tax.
> > > > > Amount".
> > > > >
> > > > > - We would like to reuse this "Tax. Amount" BCC in multiple
> > > > > scenarios -
> > > > > that is, we would like to associate it with multiple ACCs.
> > > > > Once this is
> > > > > done, an Object Class Term would be added to its Dictionary
> > > > > Entry Name -
> > > > > so for example, if it is associated with an ACC whose Object
> > > > > Class Term
> > > > > is "Invoice", its Dictionary Entry Name would then be
> "Invoice. Tax.
> > > > > Amount".
> > > > >
> > > > > So far, so good. Now here is the crux of the issue.
> > > > >
> > > > > If we associate "Tax. Amount" with the ACC described
> above, and assign
> > > > > the BCC a unique identifier (and definition, etc.),
> then it cannot be
> > > > > reused (i.e. it cannot be associated with another ACC
> because it is
> > > > > already called "Invoice. Tax. Amount" and is
> associated with an ACC).
> > > > >
> > > > > What if we were to consider "Tax. Amount" a sort of
> > > > > "abstract" BCC (like
> > > > > an abstract class) from which other BCCs are derived?
> Then we could
> > > > > create Associations from "Tax. Amount" to multiple ACCs as
> > > > > needed - i.e.
> > > > > one to the "Invoice. Details" ACC, one to the
> "Budget. Details" ACC,
> > > > > etc. This would allow us to avoid registering multiple BCCs as
> > > > > ExtrinsicObjects.
> > > > >
> > > > > We would then represent "concrete" (non-abstract) BCCs using
> > > > > Associations between the "abstract" BCC (Tax. Amount)
> and the various
> > > > > ACCs (Invoice. Details, Budget. Details). Most if not
> all of the BCC
> > > > > attributes (Unique Identifier, Definition, etc.) would be
> > > > > represented as
> > > > > Slots on the Association.
> > > > >
> > > > > The "abstract" Core Component would also have its own
> > > > > attributes (those
> > > > > listed in the CCTS - Unique Identifier, Definition,
> Version, etc.).
> > > > >
> > > > > In terms of registration (assuming an empty
> registry), a user would
> > > > > first need to register the abstract BCC and an ACC
> (in any order), and
> > > > > then create the concrete BCC through an Association.
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps we could call the abstract BCC a "base BCC", and a
> > > > > concrete BCC
> > > > > simply a BCC. We'll also need to consider if these
> concepts scale for
> > > > > ACC-to-ACC associations, and - if so - if they make sense.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thoughts and comments are welcome and appreciated.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Joe
> > > > >
> > > > > Chiusano Joseph wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Paul,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Great questions - please see comments below:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <Quote1>
> > > > > > Specifically if you have the CC
> "Invoice.Tax.Amount", that is one
> > > > > > complete registered object.
> > > > > > </Quote1>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That is correct - "Invoice.Tax.Amount" would be the
> Dictionary Entry
> > > > > > Name of the Basic Core Component (BCC) that is
> registered as an
> > > > > > ExtrinsicObject. Furthermore, the BCC would have a
> "Property Term"
> > > > > > attribute whose value is "Tax", and its related
> Core Component Type
> > > > > > (CCT) is "Amount. Type" (we can also say that it is
> of Data Type
> > > > > > "Amount"). Finally, the BCC would be a property of
> > > > > (contained within) an
> > > > > > ACC called "Invoice. Details", which would have an
> "Object Class"
> > > > > > attribute whose value is "Invoice. Details". These
> attributes, along
> > > > > > with the Data Type, comprise the Dictionary Entry Name.
> > > > > Please note also
> > > > > > that if there were one or more Qualifer Terms they
> would also become
> > > > > > part of the Dictionary Entry Name, but there are
> none in this case.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <Quote2>
> > > > > > Correct me if I'm wrong, we don't discuss
> registering an "Invoice"
> > > > > > object class identifier and a separate "Tax.Amount"
> term and then
> > > > > > connect them through associations?
> > > > > > </Quote2>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please pardon some repetition from above. We would
> register an ACC
> > > > > > called "Invoice. Details", and this ACC would have
> an Object Class
> > > > > > attribute whose value is "Invoice". We would also register
> > > > > a BCC called
> > > > > > "Tax. Amount" whose Property Term attribute is "Tax" and
> > > > > which is based
> > > > > > on a Data Type of "Amount" (which is further associated
> > > > > with a CCT of
> > > > > > "Amount. Type"), and there would be a registry Association
> > > > > between the
> > > > > > ACC and BCC. The Dictionary Entry Name "Invoice.
> Tax. Amount" would
> > > > > > result from the registry Association (i.e. without the
> > > > > Association, the
> > > > > > Dictionary Entry Name could not be derived).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <Quote3>
> > > > > > The latter was raised as an idea for developing a generic
> > > > > version of the
> > > > > > Property Term/Representation Term that could be
> associated to
> > > > > > many Object Classes.
> > > > > > </Quote3>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes - that is exactly what we are intending to do in the
> > > > > registry. The
> > > > > > question then becomes: should we retain a single Core
> > > > > Component in the
> > > > > > registry called "Tax. Amount" for all ACCs with which it is
> > > > > associated,
> > > > > > or have a separate "copy" in the registry for each case? In
> > > > > other words,
> > > > > > suppose we have 2 ACCs: "Invoice. Details" and
> "Budget. Details". We
> > > > > > also have a Core Component called "Tax. Amount". If
> we associate the
> > > > > > Core Component with the "Invoice. Details" ACC, its
> Dictionary Entry
> > > > > > Name would be "Invoice. Tax. Amount", while if we associate
> > > > > it with the
> > > > > > "Budget. Details" ACC, its Dictionary Entry Name would be
> > > > > "Budget. Tax.
> > > > > > Amount". The issue at this point is that there is only one
> > > > > Dictionary
> > > > > > Entry Name attribute for the Core Component class (which
> > > > > there should
> > > > > > be).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With the first approach (retain a single copy), we would
> > > > > need to move
> > > > > > the Dictionary Entry Name to be an attribute of the
> Association that
> > > > > > connects the Core Component and ACC; this would allow us to
> > > > > retain one
> > > > > > instance in the registry of the "Tax. Amount" Core
> Component but
> > > > > > associate it with many ACCs. The problem with this
> approach is that
> > > > > > since the Core Component class also has a "Unique
> > > > > Identifier" attribute,
> > > > > > we would be assigning a Unique Identifier to
> something that really
> > > > > > represents multiple Core Components (i.e. "Invoice. Tax.
> > > > > Amount" and.
> > > > > > "Budget. Tax. Amount"). This of course violates the
> concept of
> > > > > > uniqueness.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With the second approach (separate copy), we would
> retain in the
> > > > > > registry separate ExtrinsicObjects (i.e. a separate
> Core Component
> > > > > > instances) for "Invoice. Tax. Amount" and "Budget. Tax.
> > > > > Amount". This
> > > > > > would allow them to have separate Unique
> Identifiers, separate
> > > > > > Definitions (which they should have), etc. So if a
> user attempts to
> > > > > > "assign" an existing Core Component (i.e. a Core
> Component that is
> > > > > > already assigned to one ACC) to a new ACC, they
> should be prompted
> > > > > > through the user interface to enter a new
> Definition (and other
> > > > > > attributes), and a new Unique Identifier should be
> generated.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hope that helps,
> > > > > > Joe
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "MACIAS, Paul" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I need a reminder on how we (ebXML Reg/Rep) are planning
> > > > > to recommend capturing Core Components in the technical note.
> > > > > The Department of Navy is developing an update to their
> > > > > design rules, which draw from CCTS. I'm feeding them the
> > > > > practical aspects of what to expect from the CCTS technical
> > > > > note based on the CC subteam discussions. Unfortunately, one
> > > > > DON member raised a question that I think I know the answer
> > > > > to, but I couldn't rule out definitively.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I believe we were capturing the terms of a Core Component
> > > > > as a single registered item. Specifically if you have the CC
> > > > > "Invoice.Tax.Amount", that is one complete registered object.
> > > > > Correct me if I'm wrong, we don't discuss registering an
> > > > > "Invoice" object class identifier and a separate "Tax.Amount"
> > > > > term and then connect them through associations? The latter
> > > > > was raised as an idea for developing a generic version of the
> > > > > Property Term/Representation Term that could be associated to
> > > > > many Object Classes. The flexibility of the registry
> > > > > specification may allow this, but since it's not the way I
> > > > > see the CCTS expecting them to be registered I didn't think
> > > > > it was a method we looked at. Am I correct?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > NOTE: I am not endorsing or encouraging any change in
> > > > > the direction of the CCTS technical note at this time. Joe
> > > > > and others put in a lot of work to get the rules nailed down
> > > > > and I don't want to change coarse now. I just want to
> > > > > clarify the approach going into the technical note.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > ----------
> > > > > > > Name: winmail.dat
> > > > > > > winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef
> > > > > > > Encoding: base64
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > ----------
> > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed
> > > > > from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to
> > > > > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep-cc-review/
> > > > members/leave_workgroup.php.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed
> from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep-cc-review/
members/leave_workgroup.php.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep-cc-review/members/leave_workgroup.php.
To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to 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]