Re: Granularity of Aggregates - Normalization

[Lisa Shreve <lshreve@mediaone.net>]

Mike,

> Again in reviewing the example spreadsheet, I am not sure about the
> rules for when to use create and reference aggregates rather than when
> to create new basic information entities that are children.  The
> Methodology for Discovery and Analysis document in section 8.5 seems to
> deal with this, but not in what seems to me to be a very complete
> fashion.  "Efficient reuse of basic Core Components" and "maximum reuse
> and interoperability" are mentioned as goals.   However, there seems to
> be something missing to me that is somewhat similar to "denormalizing"
> an RDBMS schema in order to gain efficiency.  For example:  When one
> simple value is sufficient, is there a way to specify that we shall use
> a basic information entity in an aggregate rather than being forced to
> reuse an aggregate information entity that incorporates another
> aggregate that finally has the basic entity we need?
>
> "Maximum reuse" seems to be a dominant principle behind the spread sheet
> analysis, but is this the only consideration?
>
> Question for clarification before comment:  Is this topic addressed in
> the specifications?  If so, where?

I'm not certain where this comment is coming from.  If the goal is to use an
basic which appears in an aggregate, but not the rest of the aggregate, our
subtractive capability in the context methodology doc explains how to do
this.  If your comment is over the depth of the hierarchy, yes, there are no
provisions to do this.

lms

>
> Thanks,
> --
> Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
> http://www.metronet.com/~rawlins/
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-core-request@lists.ebxml.org