[ubl-lcsc] [Fwd: Bill's comments for Mike dependencies paper.]

[Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>]

I am forwarded a message from Bill Burcham regarding the work Mike is doing
on dependencies and business rules
 (hope you don't mind bill).

Can we build our rules as 'subtypes'?  Any thoughts?

-------- Original Message --------

<snipped>

 

Also I heard something about Mike making a proposal regarding "enhancing the metamodel" (perhaps adding associations and also adding subtyping through inheritance).  Is that right?  The association thing is the next level of sophistication beyond our "property" thing.  We talked a bit about subtyping -- but recommended expunging it for now since as it was applied (BCC->RT->CCT) it was too limited.  I've been thinking we'll have to add it back in soon.  A couple ways come to mind:

 

a) simply add a couple associations to fig 6-1: BCC->BCC called "based on" and ACC->ACC called "based on" -- that would give us the ability to derive ACC's from other ACC's and likewise for BCC's.  If we take Eve's CCT/RT analysis to heart, we'll need at least BCC inheritance soon.

 

b) don't add it to the metamodel at all, but handle it solely throught "context methodology" a.k.a. "magic"

 

Actually I think we'll need a combination of (a) and (b) eventually: you in LCSC will want to capture type-subtype relationships, and CM will want to make "contextualized components" subtypes of their "base components" (which might also actually be "contextualized" from some other "base").