Re: Abstract Type vs. Type Code

[Mike Rawlins <rawlins@metronet.com>]

OK - thanks for the correction.  That leads to yet a different kind of comment.
Again, if we refer to an object model analogy, I don't think keeping a type code
in a superclass in order to keep a list of the subclass members is something we
want to do.  I'm sure that my experience in object modeling is limited compared
to several of your members, but I've never seen it.  Has anyone else?

personally don't think keeping a type code

Lisa Shreve wrote:

> Mike,
>
> > Thanks!  So, if I understand correctly, the type code in the case of party
> is
> > for backward compatibility with EDI syntax.   This will be a big help in
> > framing my comments.
>
> No, the type code accomplishes the semantic objective of collecting the set
> of party types.  Or, in other words, keeping a list of the subclasses of
> party.
> >
>
> lms
>
> > One down, two to go...
> >
> > Lisa Shreve wrote:
> >
> > > Mike,
> > >
> > > The CC team recognizes the requirements to 1) keep a collection of types
> of
> > > parties, and 2) express specific types of parties.  These requirements
> have
> > > been accomplished with the associating a party type with the party
> details.
> > >
> > > In generating syntax specific representations, we will be in a position
> to
> > > serve both of the communities you are referring to, the edi style and
> the
> > > xml schema.
> > >
> > > I hope this answers your question.
> > >
> > > lms
> > >
> > > > I know you are trying to stay away from syntax issues in the analysis,
> > > > but there are syntax implications that have to do with your intent.
> If
> > > > we take an example XML instantiation, do you intend something like:
> > > >
> > > > <PartyDetails>
> > > > ...
> > > > <PartyType>
> > > > ...
> > > > <CodeDetails>SE</CodeDetails>
> > > > ...
> > > > <PartyType>
> > > > ...
> > > > <PartyDetails>
> > > >
> > > > instead of in the schemas declaring PartyDetails as a complexType,
> with
> > > > a Seller element being a party, and having in an instance document:
> > > >
> > > > <Seller>
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > > </Seller>
> > > >
> > > > It seems to me that in both cases you are intending the former rather
> > > > than the latter.  Please confirm.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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
> >
> > --
> > 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

--
Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
http://www.metronet.com/~rawlins/