Re: Abstract Type vs. Type Code

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

Mike

> Thanks *very* much for the very thorough explanations.  I will base my
review
> comments on what I have now, but would appreciate continuing this
discussion -
> I think I understand what you're saying for each of the three cases, but
could
> you perhaps provide some examples?

Lets look at the occurrences of type in the current list

Party.type identification details
    The characteristics of a party that which is independent of its role:
    this can be used to distinguish legal persons from natural ones
This is my second class as it requires a different subset of elements based
on its contents

Title type identification details
     The type of title relating to an individual:
      for example educational title, job title, or name prefix
I would presume this is either an enumerated list of permitted values of a
free text field. In either case there is some form of datatype constraint.

location type indentification details
    An identification of the type of the location:
    For example an airport of train station
Again I suspect this needs to be an enumerated list, but it could be free
text.

Account product type identification details
    The type of account product:
    for example a Savings Plus
This is a pointer into a list of products that is dependent on who the
supplier is.
As such it is a reference to an externally defined data type.

At present there is no "Role" defined for Party. We need to note that the
old EDIFACT NAD qualifiers of SE, BY, etc, are not defined as part of the
core component definition, but have to be applied at some higher level.
(Presumably through the renaming option provided in Assembly.) The link
between the BP role names and the names assigned to occurrences of the Party
type have yet to be clearly specified in the CC documentation.

Martin