[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Core Components Issue: Representation of Aggregate Core Components
CAM TC, For those who don't know me, I chair the "Core Components Review" subcommittee in the OASIS/Registry TC. We are in the midst of implementing the UN/CEFACT Core Components Technical Specification (CCTS) requirements in our registry architecture. We have a current issue that affects assembly of schemas from components that I would like to (on behalf of the subcommittee) run by you if I may. The bottom line issue is: If we derive an Aggregate Core Component (ACC) from another ("base") Aggregate Core Component, should the "base" and "derived" ACC each be a separate entity in the registry, with its own unique ID? Or should they be one entity with additional attributes added to it? If this isn't clear, the example below will clarify. Suppose we have an ACC called "Address. Details" - it contains the usual address information (street, city, etc.) We want to create several other "related" (derived) ACCs from this "base" ACC, and name them more specifically (i.e. with more semantic detail) - for example, "ResidenceAddress. Details", "OfficeAddress. Details", etc. Each of these "derived" ACCs would have the same properties and content as the "base" ACC - the only exception is their name. So the question is: If one wanted to assemble schemas using these derived ACCs, would it be more advantageous if they were represented as separate entities in the registry (i.e. separate from the "Address. Details" ACC) - thus with their own UUIDs? Or, would it be best to have a single "Address. Details" entity with each of its various "derived" names included as properties (these would be Slots according to the registry architecture). My viewpoint says it's best to represent them separately, so one could list the UUIDs for these entities in an "assembly template" (if that is the right term), and automatically "pick up" the right entity during the assembly process. The second approach would require some mechanism by which the proper Slot (name) could be identified in such a template. Please note also that with the first approach (separate entities), the "derived" ACCs would be associated with their "base" ACC through the use of registry associations. We appreciate your feedback very much. We want to ensure that our work takes into account all potential usage of the Registry down the road. Kind Regards, Joe Chiusano
begin:vcard n:Chiusano;Joseph tel;work:(703) 902-6923 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:www.bah.com org:Booz | Allen | Hamilton;IT Digital Strategies Team adr:;;8283 Greensboro Drive;McLean;VA;22012; version:2.1 email;internet:chiusano_joseph@bah.com title:Senior Consultant fn:Joseph M. Chiusano end:vcard
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]