This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "Design pattern: organizations part/partOf"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Rene spronk (talk | contribs) (New page: Category:MnM Hot Topic Category:MnM Open Hot Topic Issue: how to best express the structure of an organization. Current model (Personel management, Organization topic), e.g. see...) |
Rene spronk (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
*If the model were to have PART roles classes associated with '''the playing enitity''' of the assigned role one would be able to express the relationships with other organizational parts up&down the organization tree. | *If the model were to have PART roles classes associated with '''the playing enitity''' of the assigned role one would be able to express the relationships with other organizational parts up&down the organization tree. | ||
*The choice is therefore: do we add two PART roles and associate them with the player of the focal Role? Or do we encourage the use of the Role relationship? | *The choice is therefore: do we add two PART roles and associate them with the player of the focal Role? Or do we encourage the use of the Role relationship? | ||
| + | *2009-01-15, MnM, Q2: Discussion between Rene, Lloyd, Grahame, Patrick L: There are clear use cases where the Part role-link is appropriate, e.g. service delivery location. Lloyd: both methods can be used, it depends on the semantics of the circumstances. Needs more time and discussion, to be followup up on an MnM hot topics call. | ||
Revision as of 16:51, 16 January 2009
Issue: how to best express the structure of an organization.
Current model (Personel management, Organization topic), e.g. see Add Organization to Registry R-MIM.
There are two distinct yet similar mechanism that could be used to define the structure of the organization:
- The focal role is ASSIGNED, the scoping organization has two PART roles classes associated with it (OrganizationPart and OrganizationPartOf) to express the relationships with other organizational parts up&down the organization tree.
- The main choice also has a recursive RoleLink (relatedTo). This can be used to express that one ASSIGNED role is part of another ASSIGNED role, i.e. a refelcetion of the related organizational parts up&down the organization tree.
An example of a derived R-MIM based on the second option:
Discussion
Rene spronk 12:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC) NICTIZ has implemented the second option.
- Rationale: The first option has the real disadvantage that it allows one to send the structure of the scoping organization of the focal assigned organization. The use-case calls fro the structure of the focal assigned organization, and not of the structure of the scoper thereof. The scoper of an assigned organization (e.g. a department) is the next organizational part up the organization hierarchy. So option 1 always forces one to go "up" the org tree.
- If the model were to have PART roles classes associated with the playing enitity of the assigned role one would be able to express the relationships with other organizational parts up&down the organization tree.
- The choice is therefore: do we add two PART roles and associate them with the player of the focal Role? Or do we encourage the use of the Role relationship?
- 2009-01-15, MnM, Q2: Discussion between Rene, Lloyd, Grahame, Patrick L: There are clear use cases where the Part role-link is appropriate, e.g. service delivery location. Lloyd: both methods can be used, it depends on the semantics of the circumstances. Needs more time and discussion, to be followup up on an MnM hot topics call.
