Thanks Mark. I'd be genuinely interested to learn more about why you
feel it would be confusing, and to who - Implementers? Users? Readers of
a Technical Note describing technique #2?
Joe
"CRAWFORD, Mark" wrote:
>
> Joe,
>
> It might get rather confusing to try approach 2. Better to keep separate mechanisms - especially in light of the corresponding ASBIEs.
>
> Mark
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:]
> Sent: Fri 7/11/2003 7:38 AM
> To: CCRev
> Cc:
> Subject: [regrep-cc-review] Association Core Components - Represent with Associations
>
>
>
> Team,
>
> Over the weekend I'll send an updated summary on our proposed handling
> of each of the CCTS requirements.
>
> I've been thinking more about Association Core Components - particularly
> the example on CCTS p.12. In that example, we have:
>
> - An ACC called "Address. Details", with several BCCs (ex: Address.
> Street. Text)
>
> - An ACC called "Person. Details", with several BCCs (ex: Person. Name.
> Text)
>
> - 2 ASCCs, each of which associate the "Address. Details" ACC with the
> "Person. Details" ACC - and each of which provide a different "role" for
> the "Address. Details" ACC within the "Person. Details" ACC. These are
> reprsented as "Residence" and "Official Address" in the example.
>
> - Also: When each ASCC is created, each BCC within the "Address.
> Details" ACC "takes on" the role signified by the ASCC within the
> "parent" ACC. For example, the BCC of "Address. Street. Text" becomes
> "Person. Residence. Address".
>
> Having said that: It seems to me that there are generally 2 ways to
> handle the "transformation" described in the final point above:
>
> (1) Create a new BCC in the Registry for each "pre-transformation" BCC
> that has the same metadata as the pre-transformation BCC (except for its
> name) - and give it a new name (i.e. "Person. Residence. Address").
>
> That is, we would create a BCC called "Person. Residence. Address" that
> would essentially be a copy of the "Address. Street. Text" BCC, with a
> different name. Seems very redundant and inefficient, and a waste of
> Registry storage space.
>
> (2) Do not create a new BCC in the Registry, but use the Association
> mechanism of the Registry to "point to" the pre-transformation BCC and
> indicate the new name within the Association. This prevents the need to
> duplicate BCCs in the Registry and keep them in sync if the metadata for
> either of them changes.
>
> I would like to propose that we pursue (2) - and represent the ASCC by
> an Association between the 2 ACCs. We can add a slot to the Association
> to indicate the new Object Class for the ASCC - i.e. the Object Class of
> "Address" for the "Address. Details" ACC would be "qualified" by the new
> Object Class Qualifier of "Residence" for the ASCC (the combination of
> Object Class Qualifier and Object Class would therefore be
> "ResidenceAddress"). When tools join the two ACCs through the ASCC, they
> can ensure that they "construct" the name for the ASCC using:
>
> - The Object Class for the "master" ACC (i.e. "Person")
> - The Object Class Qualifier for the ASCC (i.e. "Residence")
> - The Object Class for the "joined" ACC (i.e. "Address")
>
> ...to yield "Person. Residence. Address". So a large part of this would
> be up to the tools that ultimately utilize these entities, and we can
> place some requirements in our Technical Note that instruct the tools
> how to access the entities.
>
> Thoughts, comments?
>
> Joe
