RE: response to comments on PCELS-05/May 06

Hmm.

First, I don't think subclassing helps, because the root problem is that
pcimRuleValidityAssociation doesn't apply to a pcelsRule (pcelsRule is a
sibling of pcimRule. Thus, I believe that you need a new class.

Second, rather than pcelsValidityAssociation, could I suggest
pcelsRuleValidityAssociation?

regards,
John Strassner
TeleManagement Forum Advisory Director


John Strassner=20
Chief Strategy Officer=20
Intelliden Inc.=20
90 South Cascade Avenue=20
Colorado Springs, CO  80906  USA=20
phone:  +1.719.785.0648=20
  fax:     +1.719.785.0644=20
email:    [email protected]



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pana, Mircea [mailto:[email protected]]=20
> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 2:48 PM
> To: [email protected]; John Strassner
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: response to comments on PCELS-05/May 06
>=20
>=20
> To accomodate the change requested by Joel, I'm making the=20
> proposal below. Please review it and let me know as soon as=20
> possible whether you like or not.
>=20
> Instead of re-using pcimRuleValidityAssociation, PCELS would=20
> introduce a new class: pcelsValidityAssociation. This new=20
> class would be a subclass of pcimRuleValidityAssociation and=20
> it would not introduce any new attributes. Its instances=20
> would be subordinated to pcelsRule instances. (Much like=20
> pcelsConditionAssociation etc.) The pcelsRule class, instead=20
> of reusing the pcimRuleValidityPeriodList attribute, would=20
> use a new attribute (pcelsValidityPeriodList) as reference to=20
> its pcelsValidityAssociation instances.
>=20
> In addition, Note 1 in section 5.4 would be removed.
>=20
> Regards,
> Mircea.
>=20
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 9:37 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; John Strassner; Pana, Mircea
> Subject: RE: response to comments on PCELS-05/May 06
>=20
>=20
> I have looked this over again, and I think I understand the question.
>=20
> From an object mapping and class definition perspective, it=20
> appears to me that extending the definition of=20
> pcimRuleValidityAssociation to point to a pcelsRule is=20
> probably not appropriate.
>=20
> It seems to me thinking about this that adding a different=20
> association class for the pcelsRule - time-period=20
> relationship will not adversely affect either existim PCLS=20
> implementors or future PCELS implementors.  Ruding churn in=20
> an I-D before publication is not a good reason to avoid=20
> making a technically correct change.
>=20
> However, I could easily have missed multiple aspects of this.=20
> If there are folks looking at implementing PCELS who have an=20
> opinion on the complexity of either the current "extension"=20
> or the proposed additional class, please speak up. If there=20
> are LDAP folks (other than John, who has been very helpful)=20
> who can shed light or opinions on this, I would love to hear=20
> from them.
>=20
> Given how many times we have been around the block on this, I=20
> would like to ask folks to respond within one week.  If we=20
> hear nothing, I will ask Mircea and company if they can make=20
> this one last change, and hand the document to Bert for publication.
>=20
> And then we will officially close the working group!
>=20
> Yours,
> Joel M. Halpern
>=20
> At 07:55 PM 6/3/2004 -0600, John Strassner wrote:
>=20
> Subject: RE: response to comments on PCELS-05/May 06
> To: "Pana, Mircea" <[email protected]>
> Cc: <[email protected]>,
>         <[email protected]>,
>         <[email protected]>
>=20
> Hi Mircea,
> =20
> thanks for your thoughtful response.
> =20
> Regarding the first issue, I still disagree. The definition=20
> of the class doesn't allow this, even though the semantics=20
> remain unchanged. Since we are at an impasse, I'm happy to=20
> let Joel rule one way or the other.
> =20
> Regarding changing the note in section 5.4, I agree with the change.
> =20
> Regarding the DIT containment issue, I'm happy with your suggestion.
> =20
>=20
> regards,
> John Strassner=20
> -----Original Message-----=20
> From: Pana, Mircea [mailto:[email protected]]=20
> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 8:16 AM=20
> To: John Strassner=20
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]=20
> Subject: RE: response to comments on PCELS-05/May 06
>=20
>=20
> Look for my responses in <mircea4></mircea4>. Sorry, I'm slow=20
> to respond as well.=20
> Regards,=20
> Mircea.=20