Re: [regrep-cc-review] Re: ACC or ABIE? (Was Re: [regrep-cc-review] Association Core

I agree with this approach .. it is a building block for business semantics


> Again, in my POV if you have a CC and need a BIE for it you follow these
> steps (talking RIM):
> 1. Create a NEW ExtrinsicObject of type xBIE
> 
> <JMC>
> Yes.
> </JMC>
> 
> 2. Associate it to you original CC
> 
> <JMC>
> Yes.
> </JMC>
> 
> 3. Optionally classify it for as many contexts as you want.
> 
> <JMC>
> Yes.
> </JMC>
> 
> 4. Optionally add QualifierTerm slot.
> 
> <JMC>
> That is where I think we need to adjust - if both #3 and #4 are
> optional, you're still left with a Core Component (i.e. no business
> context, no Qualifier Term). I believe that #4 should be a requirement -
> the minimum requirement for an xBIE.
> </JMC>
> 
> (5. Optionally further restrict datatypes.)
> 
> <JMC>
> Yes.
> </JMC>
>  
> > It does not invalidate your proposed process since it is in a
> > different abstraction layer. But maybe in my view you'd end up
> > with a lot more ExtrinsicObjects than you're expecting. 
> 
> <JMC>
> Since we're in sync regarding the creation of ExtrinsicObjects, I think
> there's no issue here.
> </JMC>
> 
> Are we 'synchronized' about this??
> 
> <JMC>
> 99% - see step #4 above.
> </JMC>


carl
Carl Mattocks
CEO CHECKMi
e-mail: 
*******************************************
Business Agent Software that
Secures Knowledge for Reputation:Protection
*******************************************
CHECKMi Compendium the shortcut to Valued & Trusted Knowledge
******************************************* 
www.checkmi.com
(usa)1-908-322-8715
CarlCheckMi (I M)