Re: [regrep-cc-review] Does This Entity Make Sense?

["Carl Mattocks" <carlmattocks@checkmi.com>]

Agreed this is not obvious..

is this perhaps an association between two aggregates ?
agg1=PurchaseOrder
agg2=CustomerCode

<quote who="Chiusano Joseph">
> I've been going though some combinations of Data Element Terms that are
> possible, and came across the following example:
>
> PurchaseOrder_Customer. Code
>
> My question is: Is this a valid entity according to the Core Components
> methodology? More details:
>
> - If we had an entity named "Customer. Code" (Property Term="Customer",
> Representation Term="Code"), according to CCTS it would not be
> considered a BCC because there is no Object Class. For our purposes, we
> may consider this a "Base BCC" from which BCCs are constructed.
>
> - The "PurchaseOrder" qualifier above is a Property Term Qualifier, not
> an Object Class Qualifier (because there is no Object Class) - which I
> believe makes this entity invalid according to CCTS (unless we
> considered it a "Base BBIE"?). But an entity named
> "PurchaseOrder_Document. Customer. Code" would be valid according to
> CCTS because it makes sense to have "PurchaseOrder" as an Object Class
> qualifier.
>
> Can anyone offer additional insight into this?
>
> Thanks,
> JoeTo 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.


-- 
Carl Mattocks CEO CHECKMi
Operational Intelligence OEM
-------------------------------
e-Business Agents
Semantically Smart Compendiums
-------------------------------
v/f (usa) 908 322 8715
www.CHECKMi.com