Constraints on infrastructureRoot attributes
This page documents an Open MnM Hot Topic, i.e. a methodology issue requiring a resolution from Modeling and Methodology.
Issue
There are four attributes listed in InfrastructureRoot: nullFlavor, realmCode, typeId and TemplateId.
Their use follows rules outside the mandates of the committees when performing their design work. A very conscious decision was made to not allow these attributes to be constrained by committees because it was felt that they should not be constrained (at least not in the usual manner - you can constrain nullFlavor with the mandatory indicator, and in MIF 2.0 you can require conformance with certain templates).
- If things are supported by tooling or by the MIF, then that does not mean anything in terms of methodology. One can't conclude anything from something being supported by the MIF. Methodology leads, tools follow. Rene spronk 23:13, 21 Jun 2006 (CDT)
Discussion
However some people think this decision needs to be revisited (i.e. committees should be able to constrain these attributes when designing models).
- Which is fine, and as usual puts the burden on those that don't agree with the current status quo to bring forward use-cases which may lead to the methodology being changed. I haven't seen that use-case yet. Rene spronk 23:13, 21 Jun 2006 (CDT)
The aim is to answer these questions, for each of them:
- Why it is there? ( document rules/decision )
- Could it be constrained in the cloned classes ( Is it allowed?)
- Should it be constrained in the cloned classes, if allowed ( should it be?)
- How it should be contrained in the cloned classed, if allowed (How do we do it?)
MnM Conference call 20060630
- Question here should such constraints be applied? (RIM, D-MIMs, Templates?)
- What are the use-cases for constraining InfrastructureRoot elements these?
- Belief that additional constraints on null flavors at the RIM attribute or datatype level may make sense (e.g PINF, NINF)
