Re: Harmonizing terminology between cc & bp

[Martin Bryan <mtbryan@sgml.u-net.com>]

Mary

> I hope that someone on this list will be able to say yes, no, or maybe to
> each.

Seems to be correct, though not knowing the details of the X12 view in the way Lisa does I can't say exactly that it is correct
> 
> In addition,  I think the order/arrangement of the CC Terminology matrix
> needs a bit of work.  It's
> not really clear, for example, that Identifier, Name, etc, are identifiers
> for Information
> Entities.  Maybe some indentation is all that is needed.

That is one possibility. The other is to move the pictoral UML model to above the table rather than below it as this shows clearly the relationships between the terms.

> I do not understand how EmbeddedInformationEntity can be "rules."  Perhaps
> someone can 
> explain that and then I'll be OK with it.

They are rules because they included information relating to cardinality (min/max) and order as well as descriptive details such as name and explanation of use. (Over time we need to add a Rules entry into this part of the model, but as yet we have not got this part of the methodology clearly tied down.

Martin

Martin Bryan