<Quote>
Except for that, I don't see any problems for nesting it under
ExtrinsicObject. In fact, it makes sense because in our approach an ACC
is an ExtrinsicObject.
</Quote>
I think that we should keep this as simple as possible - the less layers
the better. If we had a "CCTS Object" layer, we would need a "non-CCTS
Object" layer (or a more explicitly named layer) for the remaining
ExtrinsicObjects. Later on, we could add a "Business Process" layer for
ExtrisicObjects relating to the UN/CEFACT Business Process work. It
could get pretty messy.
I recommend that: We group ACC, ASCC, BCC, etc. directly under
ExtrinsicObject with no "CCTS Object" layer in between. If we decide
that the CCTS objects need further description, we could use the
multiple-classification feature of the registry to classify these nodes
according to function (i.e. Core Components, Business Process, etc.).
Any thoughts?
Joe
Diego Ballvé wrote:
>
> > >In a nutshell, Diego has taken all of the CCTS object types
> > (12 in all)
> > >and classified them as follows:
> > >
> > >Object Type
> > > |
> > >CCTS Objects
> > > | | |
> > >ACC ASCC BCC etc.
> > >
> > >Farrukh and Nikola have proposed:
> > >
> > >Object Type
> > > |
> > >RegistryObject
> > > | |
> > >Registry Extrinsic
> > > Entry Object etc.
> > > | | |
> > > ACC ASCC BCC etc.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > mm1: Does Diego have any thoughts about any impacts he may
> > see with this latter approach, given his working experience?
>
> I've made 1 comment in another mail, that I'd like to see
> CCTS objects grouped under a CCTS node. Except for that, I
> don't see any problems for nesting it under ExtrinsicObject.
> In fact, it makes sense because in our approach an ACC is an
> ExtrinsicObject.
>
> Diego
