Difference between revisions of "V3 Substantivity"
Rene spronk (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
mandatory status, conformance condition, and or multiplicity of | mandatory status, conformance condition, and or multiplicity of | ||
attributes and associations? | attributes and associations? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Specifically, the document reads as follows today: "Attribute conformance can be changed from Required to Mandatory, and from Optional to Required, but not the reverse." | ||
| + | |||
| + | In balloting the following commment was received: "2 issues with this bullet point: | ||
| + | 1) It sounds like the opposite of v2 which should be explained. In v2.x (see Chap 2, section 2.8.2) optionality can only be tightened (Existing optional fields may be made conditional or required). Seems like there should be some correlation. | ||
| + | 2) Formal English should be used. | ||
See also [[Semantic Backward Compatibility]] | See also [[Semantic Backward Compatibility]] | ||
Revision as of 21:29, 7 January 2008
This page documents an Open MnM Hot Topic, i.e. a methodology issue requiring a resolution from Modeling and Methodology.
What are the rules for changing the
mandatory status, conformance condition, and or multiplicity of
attributes and associations?
Specifically, the document reads as follows today: "Attribute conformance can be changed from Required to Mandatory, and from Optional to Required, but not the reverse."
In balloting the following commment was received: "2 issues with this bullet point: 1) It sounds like the opposite of v2 which should be explained. In v2.x (see Chap 2, section 2.8.2) optionality can only be tightened (Existing optional fields may be made conditional or required). Seems like there should be some correlation. 2) Formal English should be used.
See also Semantic Backward Compatibility
