ubl-ndrsc — archive

[Tim McGrath]

welcome back Bill! i have also had a rethink of this model and come to a slightly different result (attached).  If you replace BIE with CC and Data Type with PrimitiveType you can compare the two.  I thought of BCC/BBIEs as an aggregation of PrimitiveType/DataType and possibly something else (maybe facets or rules for use??). what do you think? PS what is a SQUIRT and how does it relate to Arofan (apart from the obvious way)? Burcham, Bill wrote: 40AC2C8FB855D411AE0200D0B7458B2B073452E2@scidalmsg01.csg.stercomm.com > There was an error in the metamodel presented in our CCTS 1.8 feedback (v 5.2).  At the end of section 2 on page 7 we show BCC related to Primitive Type through BCCProperty.  That was wrong because it fails to distinguish the 1-1 relationship between a BCC and it's content component .  A better model is shown here (inline and attached as PDF): In this model we explicitly show the distinguished relationship between BCC and its content component (of meta-class Primitive Type ).  The association role contentComponent captures this special relationship explicitly.  This model retains the BCCProperty to relate the BCC to its supplementary components -- each of which needs to be named in relation to the BCC. Arofan -- do I understand SQUIRTS right, that a SQUIRT is essentially what I've shown as a PrimitiveType in the diagram. So that's two issues: 1. we added an association directly from BCC to PrimitiveType for the content component 2. we might need to change the metaclass PrimitiveType to SQUIRT Thoughts? -Bill -- regards tim mcgrath fremantle western australia 6160 phone: +618 93352228 fax: +618 93352142 Attachment: meta-model.pdf Description: Adobe PDF document