ubl-ndrsc message

Subject: RE: [ubl-ndrsc] Bill&Eve's proposal on local/global elements

From: "CRAWFORD, Mark" <MCRAWFORD@lmi.org>
To: "'mike@rawlinsecconsulting.com'" <mike@rawlinsecconsulting.com>,Dale McKay <dale@drmckay.net>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 11:26:52 -0500

Title: RE: [ubl-ndrsc] Bill&Eve's proposal on local/global elements

.Mike R.wrote -
>
> I'll put in my 2 cents worth for having one CCT per Representation
> Term. A one-to-one correspondence (or one-to-one and onto,i.e.,
> isomorphic, if you want to be complete about it) is a lot cleaner
> and better defined than the many-to-one CCT to RT relathionship in
> the spec as it stands.

only many to one are RTs (Date, Date Time, and Time) to CCT (Date. Time) and RTs (Percent, Rate, and Value) to CCT (Numeric. Type). I don't think we have a problem here as there is a clear relationship for the two many to one. We may also find that the new CCTs being proposed - "Video.Type and Sound.Type or e Multimedia.type which also may cover Picture.Type and Graphics.Type would result in adding the RTs we need through a many-to-one relationship.

Mark