Re: [regrep-cc-review] CCT Submission: Example

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

Chiusano Joseph wrote:

>Thanks Monica. How would you propose that we revisit this with the CCTS
>team? Do we have a formal liaison? How does the current "atmosphere"
>between OASIS and CCTS affect our communications with the CCTS team? Are
>they required to update their specification if we point out an
>inconsistency? 
>  
>
mm1: An email inquiry is just a click away.  The other items you speak 
about above do not need to be a part of this simple discussion. The best 
way to get an answer is to ask.

>Anyway, I think that what this boils down to is the following question:
>
>- Is "Country_Code" a CCT or a Data Type?
>
>According to Gunther's CCT document (XML representations), I believe
>that Country_Code would be considered a CCT. The issue underlying the
>question is that the CCTS lists multiple Supplementary Component
>attributes (code list ID, agency, etc.) which - I believe - would need
>to be tied to a specific code list (such as "Country_Code") rather than
>a generic CCT called "Code. Type". So I can't see how we could register
>a generic CCT called "Code. Type" - i.e. what values would the
>attributes (code list ID, agency, etc.) have? That is why I interpret
>"Country_Code" as being a CCT.
>
>Thanks,
>Joe
>
>"Monica J. Martin" wrote:
>  
>
>>Chiusano Joseph wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>All,
>>>
>>>I started working on an example submission to the registry of a CCT
>>>called "Code. Type", and I immediately became puzzled as to why we would
>>>register an ExtrinsicObject representing a CCT such as "Code. Type",
>>>with no values submitted (i.e. what values could we submit for such a
>>>generic code list name)? So then I thought we could allow users to
>>>submit more "specific" CCTs based on the "primitive" CCT's (Amount.
>>>Type, Code. Type, etc.) - for example, "Country_Code. Type" (although
>>>this looks like a Data Type, let's consider it a CCT for purposes of
>>>this example).
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>mm1: Although I have just briefly read this, Joe, I am not certain this
>>compression is appropriate, i.e. Code. Type != Country_Code. Type. I
>>think this discussion may need a revisit with CCTS team (which meets
>>later this week). I understand your rational but still wonder about
>>"specific" and "primitive" CCT.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Below I've listed a submission of a CCT "Code.Type" for Country Codes,
>>>which is quite different (and necessarily so, I believe) than what the
>>>CCTS calls for. Either that, or I am misinterpreting the CCTS's
>>>intentions.
>>>
>>>Please note, regarding the "SubmitObjectsRequest" example below:
>>>
>>>- I added a Slot for the CCT called "Possible Values"; for the
>>>Country_Code. Type CCT, it will hold all possible Country Code values
>>>based on which list is being used (indicated in the later Slots)
>>>
>>>- I took all of the Supplementary Component attributes (see p.97,
>>>starting on left with "Code List. Agency. Identifier") and - instead of
>>>creating an ExtrinsicObject for the Supplementary Component with these
>>>attributes as Slots - I simply made them Slots on the CCT "Country_Code.
>>>Type" itself. This seemed to be more sensible representation-wise.
>>>
>>>
>>>- So if we need to submit a more "specific" type of country code (ex:
>>>European countries only), a new CCT could be submitted with an
>>>additional Representation Term to represent the specific concentration,
>>>and the registry would need to ensure that the "Possible Values" are
>>>either identical to, or a subset of, the "Possible Values" for the
>>>"Country_Code. Type" CCT. Also, an association would be registered
>>>between the new CCT and "Country_Code. Type" CCT.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Here is the example:
>>>
>>><SubmitObjectsRequest>
>>>  <LeafRegistryObjectList>
>>>
>>>     <!-Register CCT-->
>>>
>>>     <ExtrinsicObject id="CCT_UUID" userVersion="1.0">
>>>        <Name>
>>>           <LocalizedString value="Code. Type">
>>>        </Name>
>>>        <Description>
>>>           <LocalizedString value="Core Component Type Country Code.
>>>Type">
>>>        </Description >
>>>        <Slot name="Business Term">
>>>           <ValueList>
>>>              <Value>This is the Business Term</Value>
>>>           </ValueList>
>>>        </Slot>
>>>        <Slot name="Primary Representation Term">
>>>           <ValueList>
>>>              <Value>Code</Value>
>>>           </ValueList>
>>>        </Slot>
>>>        <Slot name="Secondary Representation Term">
>>>           <ValueList>
>>>              <Value>Country</Value>
>>>           </ValueList>
>>>        </Slot>
>>>        <Slot name="Possible Values">
>>>           <ValueList>
>>>              <Value>Possible value</Value>
>>>              <Value>Possible value</Value>
>>>              <Value>Possible value</Value>
>>>              <Value>Possible value</Value>
>>>              <Value>Possible value</Value>
>>>              <Value>Possible value</Value>
>>>              <Value>Possible value</Value>
>>>              <Value>Possible value</Value>
>>>              <Value>Possible value</Value>
>>>              <Value>Possible value</Value>
>>>           </ValueList>
>>>        </Slot>
>>>        <Slot name="Code List. Agency. Identifier" datatype="string">
>>>           <ValueList>
>>>              <Value>Value goes here</Value>
>>>           </ValueList>
>>>        </Slot>
>>>  <Slot name="Code List. Agency Name. Text" datatype="string">
>>>           <ValueList>
>>>              <Value>Value goes here</Value>
>>>           </ValueList>
>>>        </Slot>
>>>  <Slot name="Code List. Name. Text" datatype="string">
>>>           <ValueList>
>>>              <Value>Value goes here</Value>
>>>           </ValueList>
>>>        </Slot>
>>>  <Slot name="Code List. Identifier" datatype="string">
>>>           <ValueList>
>>>              <Value>Value goes here</Value>
>>>           </ValueList>
>>>        </Slot>
>>>  <Slot name="Code List Scheme. Uniform Resource. Identifier"
>>>  datatype="string">
>>>           <ValueList>
>>>              <Value>Value goes here</Value>
>>>           </ValueList>
>>>        </Slot>
>>><Slot name=" Code List. Uniform Resource. Identifier"
>>>     datatype="string">
>>>           <ValueList>
>>>              <Value>Value goes here</Value>
>>>           </ValueList>
>>>        </Slot>
>>>  <Slot name="Code List. Version. Identifier" datatype="string">
>>>           <ValueList>
>>>              <Value>Value goes here</Value>
>>>           </ValueList>
>>>        </Slot>
>>>  <Slot name="Code. Name. Text" datatype="string">
>>>           <ValueList>
>>>              <Value>Value goes here</Value>
>>>           </ValueList>
>>>        </Slot>
>>>     </ExtrinsicObject>
>>>  </LeafRegistryObjectList>
>>></SubmitObjectsRequest>
>>>
>>>Please provide feedback on the sensibility of this approach, compared
>>>with what is outlined in the CCTS spec.
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Joe
>>>
>>>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.
>>