This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of ""Shallow" vs. "Deep" LIMs (Templates)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | == | + | |
| + | == Background == | ||
| + | |||
In discssion 10/29/2005, M&M discussed the issue of defining and supporting both "shallow" and "deep" LIMs. (This occurred after a discussion that templates are represented as a "Local Information Model" - LIM.) | In discssion 10/29/2005, M&M discussed the issue of defining and supporting both "shallow" and "deep" LIMs. (This occurred after a discussion that templates are represented as a "Local Information Model" - LIM.) | ||
Revision as of 12:59, 29 October 2005
Background
In discssion 10/29/2005, M&M discussed the issue of defining and supporting both "shallow" and "deep" LIMs. (This occurred after a discussion that templates are represented as a "Local Information Model" - LIM.)
The discussion arose in the context of determining how to asseret the binding to a LIM in a message instance. The issue arises because
- The element names in a LIM do not need to be the same as the name in the CIM (Message Type) that the LIM element constrains
- This is asserted in the M&M Template Iplementation Specification
