RE: New ObjectType Hierarchy (ebRIM Change)

["Farrukh Najmi" <farrukh.najmi@sun.com>]

Minor point which I am sure is consistent with the intent of the picture....

I assume Non-CCTS will not be an explicit node in ObjectType tree and should
therefor be shown as <Other Non-CCTS types>.

-----Original Message-----
From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com]
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 11:13 AM
To: Farrukh Najmi
Cc: Diego Ballv�; CCRev
Subject: New ObjectType Hierarchy (ebRIM Change)


Team,

Based on all input, the following represents our new ObjectType
hierarchy:

	  Object Type
               |
         RegistryObject
               |
          RegistryEntry
               |
         ExtrinsicObject
         |             |
     __CCTS__        Non-CCTS
    |    |   |             |
   ACC ASCC BCC etc.  (all others)

This would be considered an ebRIM change. Please let me know if you have
any questions or comments.

Thanks,
Joe

Farrukh Najmi wrote:
>
> +1 on Diego's suggestion.
>
> One other minor correction is that ExtrinsicObject is under
> RegistryEntry in ebRIM.
>
> BTW I am on vacation and infrequently online.
>
> --
> Regard,
> Farrukh
>
> Chiusano Joseph wrote:
>
> >[Would like Farrukh and Nikola's input]
> >
> ><Quote>
> >Though I'd add one more layer, the "CCTS Objects" or whatever name we
> >decide for, between Extrinsic Object and ACC/BCC/etc.
> ></Quote>
> >
> >I can definitely see the value in that. So our hierarchy would look as
> >follows (I guess the "other" Extrinsic Objects would be "Non-CCTS", but
> >am open to better terms):
> >
> >Object Type
> >     |
> >RegistryObject
> >  |          |
> >Registry  Extrinsic
> > Entry     Object    etc.
> >         |        |
> >       CCTS    Non-CCTS
> >    |   |    |         |
> >   ACC ASCC BCC etc. (all others)
> >
> >Farrukh and Nikola, what do you think of this?
> >
> >Joe
> >
> >Diego Ballv� wrote:
> >
> >
> >><Quote>
> >>In a nutshell, Diego has taken all of the CCTS object types (12 in all)
> >>and classified them as follows:
> >>
> >>Object Type
> >>     |
> >>CCTS Objects
> >> |   |    |
> >>ACC ASCC BCC etc.
> >>
> >>Farrukh and Nikola have proposed:
> >>
> >>Object Type
> >>     |
> >>RegistryObject
> >>  |          |
> >>Registry  Extrinsic
> >> Entry     Object    etc.
> >>         |   |    |
> >>        ACC ASCC BCC etc.
> >>
> >>Farrukh and Nikola's approach was accepted on our TC call yesterday. Is
> >>everyone (especially Diego) comfortable with this representation of Core
> >>Component Object Types?
> >></Quote>
> >>
> >>Comfortable, yes. Though I'd add one more layer, the "CCTS Objects" or
> >>whatever name we decide for, between Extrinsic Object and ACC/BCC/etc.
> >>
> >>Reason is to separate CCTS ExtrinsicObjects from other specs
> >>ExtrinsicObjects that might appear later.
> >>
> >>Diego
> >>
> >>Ps. Sorry for missing the TC calls, but the time is not so good for
> >>me. I could attend if I would be really needed.
> >>
> >>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
> >>