Change the DT model design.

Motivation:

• Current database schema does not properly represent a relationship between CDT and BDT. There is also an ambiguity in BDT definition in Score. Although SDO defined own CDTs based on CCTS-defined CDTs, it used as a BDT at the BIE level.

• It follows the rule that every SDO-defined CDT(previously BDT, shortly SDO CDT) should derive properties including supplementary components (SCs) from the base DT. In real-life cases, however, some SDO CDTs don’t have base SCs (e.g., Code CDT in CCTS has three supplementary components; List Identifier, List Agency Identifier, and List Version Identifier. But ‘CodeType_1E7368’ in OAGIS doesn’t have them.) In order to tackle this problem, Score copied base SCs to SDO CDT and it makes maximum cardinalities to zero (0) to represent its unavailability. This makes a lot of duplicated records in DB.

• Some SDO CDTs have custom SCs (e.g., NameType has SequenceNumber SC that CCTS doesn’t define.) Since Score assumed every non-CCTS CDT should derive SCs from CCTS CDT as a base, CDT should have those custom SCs, which makes CCTS noncompliance at the design level even though it never expose to users.

As-Is:

Open

Proposal:

Open

1. DT records split up into cdt and bdt tables for each CCTS CDTs and non-CDTs, and records in cdt will be unalterable.

2. Now, CDT records don’t have corresponding language-specific primitive types such as XML data types and JSON data types. It restricts those primitive types at the BDT level by CDT primitive types.

3. The BDT use the based CDT’s AWD PRI data and managed the code list / agency id list restriction data by BDT_PRI_RESTRI table.

4. Like as ACC-based ACC, The SCs that defined by based BDT are used current BDT.

   1. To change the property of DT_SC, the corresponding level of BDT must be revised.

Example:

• BDT Tax_ Code. Type use the SCs from based DT's.

Tax_ Code. Type