[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Revised resource diagram
Frank: Your definitions seem to contradict. On one hand a resource "does not know" (which I inferred to mean it was a simple machine, chunk of bytes etc.) and on the other hand it is aware of its identity. Maybe I inferred this wrong. I'll defer to Jeff, but unless a binary relationship attribute is absolute (true in 100% of all cases) I think it is best to be ambiguous (no navigability). What about just having resources have identifiers? Are these true: A resource can have one of more identifiers. An identifier is associated with one or more resources, but cannot exist on its own. Do we even have to have identity? Identity is a test to me. You inspect "claims" made about a thing and either accept or reject them to establish identity. This is somewhat abstract and vague and can be done in various manners. Duane On 1/18/08 10:25 AM, "Francis McCabe" <frankmccabe@mac.com> wrote: > 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 >> ********************************************************************** >> > -- ********************************************************************** "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 **********************************************************************
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]