<Quote>
>>Chiusano2: Did you mean 1 Association Type or 2?
>>
>>
mm2: Assocation Type 2 - DerivedFrom
</Quote>
I like that - keeping it simple. I'd like to propose that when a
"derived" ACC (ex: OfficeAddress. Details) is created from a "base" ACC
(ex: Address. Details), that we stipulate that the derived ACC copied
from the base ACC, and changes made as necessary. A "DerivedFrom"
association would be created between the 2 ACCs. Such changes made may
include the addition of BCCs or the deletion of BCCs (not the changing
of definition of BCCs, because that would break interoperability).
Unless anyone voices an alternative approach, we'll go with that.
Thanks,
Joe
Monica Martin wrote:
>
> >Chiusano1: <Quote1>
> >
> >
> >>QUESTION: Do we need 2 new Association Types here - "ExtendedFrom" and
> >>"RestrictedFrom"? Or just simply one Association Type named
> >>"DerivedFrom?" If so, should we handle this the same as W3C Schema? > That is, an extension would contain only the additional BCCs, and a
> >>restriction would contain the BCCs from the "base" ACC that are being
> >>carried over.
> >>
> >>mm1: I would prefer Association type.
> >></Quote1>
> >>
> >>Chiusano2: Did you mean 1 Association Type or 2?
> >>
> >>
> mm2: Assocation Type 2 - DerivedFrom
