<Quote1>
it's a bit more complex that that.
</Quote1>
Yes - that was only one specific example of several that I could have
provided.
<Quote2>
cadinality changes with the context and the order in which contexts are
applied.
</Quote2>
Simple - the CCTS has a "cardinality" property for BIEs as well as CCs.
So once context is applied to a BCC (thereby making it a BBIE), the
"context-specific" cardinality can be specified along with the BBIE.
Regarding order: would you happen to have a specific use case? This
would be valuable for us in the CC Review subcommittee.
Joe
Duane Nickull wrote:
>
> Chiusano Joseph wrote:
>
> ><Quote2>
> >Problems occur with respect to cardinality rules and context. Is
> >"Address" the same within the context of a mapping source if it occurs
> >within a heirarchic context of //PO/ShipperParty than when it occurs in
> >//PO/BuyerParty? I think not..
> ></Quote2>
> >
> >Absolutely - this is part of our Core Components work as well. For
> >example, a Basic Core Component (BCC) will have a "Cardinality"
> >attribute (represented through one or more Slots) that describes whether
> >the BCC is optional, mandatory, or repetitive within an Aggregate Core
> >Component (ACC). We have also discussed expanding this concept to allow
> >for the minimum or maximum *number* of occurrences to be specified as
> >well.
> >
> [DN] it's a bit more complex that that. Matt Mackenzie (from Yellow
> Dragon Software) and I have built some PoC stuff like this. The problem
> is that the cadinality changes with the context and the order in which
> contexts are applied. We have shared some of this with Arofan Gregory.
>
> To further cite the above example, if it is a ship-to address, there may
> have to be two (a postal and billing address).
>
> >Absolutely - the Core Components RIM binding (CCRIM) that we are working
> >on will be a very large benefit to our current architecture.
> >
> This architecture vision is written in the new UN/CEFACT eBusiness
> Architecture. Core Components called it an "Assembly Doc" - sort of a
> metaschema or schema for creating a schema.
>
> It can be done today. If someone is willing to fund further
> development, I am sure a publicly addressible working system can be done
> within 4 months.
>
> Duane
>
> ***************************************************
> Yellow Dragon Software - http://www.yellowdragonsoft.com
> Web Services & ebXML Messaging / Registry Downloads
> Project Team Lead - UN/CEFACT eBusiness Architecture
> Phone: +1 (604) 738-1051 - Canada: Pacific Standard Time
> Direct: +1 (604) 726-3329
