Re: [soa-rm-ra] Revised resource diagram

[Francis McCabe <frankmccabe@mac.com>]

Duane
  I think that, in principal, a stakeholder 'knows' what he/she owns!  
But, in general, it is normal for a stakeholder to know about owning  
things. On the other hand, that is not the case for a resource: it is  
not the normal case for a resource to be able to be aware of who owns  
it.
  When I looked to see what people defined identity as, the one that  
seemed closest was:
   Identity is the collection of individual characteristics by which a  
thing or person is recognized or known.

  This suggests identity is an aggregate. For us, we needed both the  
concept of identity and identifier in different parts of the  
architecture. Hence the inclusion. It is a slight specialization of  
this definition to focus on identifiers; doing it primarily because we  
needed to focus on the relationship between a resource, its identity  
and identifiers. Certainly, identifiers can and do exist independently  
of the things that they identify.

  AFAIK, roles in an association are simply another way of giving a  
name to the association -- it does not imply transitivity.

  In the diagram, the arrow goes from description to identifier, not  
the other way around. That implies (to me) that you can expect to  
navigate from descriptions to identifiers but not vice-versa.  
Similarly from identity to resource and from description to resource.

  The overall theme of navigability is that resources are the ultimate  
target of many associations; but that resources do not imply  
navigability back to their descriptions, identifiers, stakeholders etc.

Frank

On Jan 18, 2008, at 9:30 AM, Duane Nickull wrote:

> Frank (Jeff - please read too).
>
> I think you should remove the traversibility indicators all together.
>
> 1. Between Stakeholder and resource:
>
> They might (not in all cases) be aware of each other.  Just a  
> straight line,
> no arrows.
>
> 2. Between Resource and Identity and Identity - Identifier
>
> If you have labels at both ends (embodies, denoes) this implies a  
> binary
> transitive relationship.  Remove arrow.  Also - if it is 1:1, I  
> think by
> convention you might not have to explicitly note this.  Regardless,  
> is there
> any reason why a resource might not have two identities?  I'd get  
> rid of the
> cardinality indicators.
>
> I am not sure if we need both identity and identifier but might be  
> wrong.  I
> am also wanting to ask why an identity is aggregated from multiple
> identifiers.  Is it possible that the identifier exists without the  
> thing it
> identifies?  IMO - perhaps no.
>
> 3. Between Description and Identifier
>
> Are we implying that identifiers (which are items that act as  
> descriptors,
> referencers) have a description themselves?  Also - if the description
> references the identifier, you do not have to explicitly draw the line
> between the two as there is already an indirect connection via the
> Description-Resource-Identity-Identifier path.
>
> CAVEAT:
>
> This is based on my understanding of UML.  Jeff and others should  
> proof
> this.
>
> Duane
>
>
> On 1/17/08 10:49 AM, "Francis McCabe" <frankmccabe@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> This one has more cardinalities, and perhaps more careful navigation
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Frank
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>> generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs  
>> in OASIS
>> at:
>> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/ 
>> my_workgroups.php
>
> -- 
> **********************************************************************
> "Speaking only for myself"
> Senior Technical Evangelist - Adobe Systems, Inc.
> Blog - http://technoracle.blogspot.com
> Community Music - http://www.mix2r.com
> My Band - http://www.myspace.com/22ndcentury
> Adobe MAX 2008 - http://technoracle.blogspot.com/2007/08/adobe-max-2008.html
> **********************************************************************
>