Re: [Fwd: [regrep-cc-review] BCC as RIM Association]

Here are my observations on this excellent UML figure:

ASCC - modeled as Association

-- Still not sure that this is the best approach (please reference my
most recent e-mail)

Supplementary Component Restriction --> Data Type - modeled as
Association or Slot

-- I would say Association (please reference my most recent e-mail)

Joe

Chiusano Joseph wrote:
> 
> Forwarded on behalf of Diego. Attached please find the figure that Diego
> references at the end, which does not contain "CC Property" as an entity
> (i.e. it more closely represents where we are going with this).
> 
> Thanks again for this Diego - we're reached a new plateau here.
> 
> Joe
> 
> Diego Ballvé wrote:
> >
> > > The only further modification I would make to this excellent figure is
> > > to not represent "CC Property" as an entity, as it is here (and was in
> > > the CCTS Figure 7-1). We've been talking about "relocating" the CC
> > > Property attributes (Property Term and Cardinality) elsewhere  - more
> > > specifically:
> > >
> > > Property Term - an attribute of BCC
> > > Cardinality   - an attribute of BCC (occurrences of a BCC
> > > within an ACC)
> > > and ASCC (occurrences of an ASCC within another ACC)
> >
> > Absolutely. It should be like that. And it is, but inheritance and
> > relations are mixed in that figure (what might look confusing).
> > See the last one I've sent, withouth inheritances.
> >
> > Diego
> 
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  [Image]
> 
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep-cc-review/members/leave_workgroup.php