Diego Ballvé wrote:
>>The only item left to clarify is: Do you and other team members agree
>>with our adding a slot to the "ASCC Association" to hold the Object
>>Class Qualifier?
>>
>>
>
>No, not to the (RIM) Association. Use the ASCC ExtrinsicObject instead.
>(Is it what you mean??) We agreed on not to add Slots to RIM Association
>for clarity and I think it makes sense. And since we also agreed on
>unifying ASCC with AssociationCCProperty, ASCC would contain (as Slots):
>
>- Object Class Qualifier
>- Property Term
>- Cardinality
>
>
>
Forgive me if I have lost some contextual backbround....
It seems to me that the natural CCRIM mapping would indeed be to map
ASCC Association to a RIM Association augmented with Slots. It seems
unnatural to map to an ASCC ExtrinsicObject instead. This seems to be an
exaple of a generic pattern that Nikola should include in hius generic
patterns documentation. So I am leaning towards Association with Slots
approach.
BTW on the subject of Slots please consider defining Slot names to be
URNs similar to the way I described it in a recent User Defined URL
proposal.
Thanks.
--
Farrukh
