[SOA-RA] Feedback and recomments on SD

["Jeffrey A. Estefan" <jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov>]

Ken (and RA editors),

 

Below are my recommendations and comments on the Service Description Model based on Wed's discussion:

 

1. Please drop Fig. 20 (Service Interface Model) from Section 4.1.1.2.1.

 

2. Work with Danny to update Fig. 21 (the Service Reachability Model).  It is currently not correct in many ways.  For example,

a) there shouldn't be and aggregate between Service Reachability and Protocols without Endpoint being involved, b) there should be a the named association between Action and Message to be a named association called "denotes" with the arrow going from Message to Action, c) there should be a new class called "Bindings" or "Protocol Bindings" and draw a named association between this new class and the Endpoint class labeled "maps to", and d) there is no association between Service Reachability and Service Interface and there needs to be.   Of course, the supporting text would also need to be updated.

 

3. May seem extreme, but I recommend dropping ALL of the material described in Sections 4.1.2.2 through 4.1.2.2.3 as well as Fig. 25, which is incorrect.   That material is very verbose, overly complex, and introduces a number of additional concepts (both dynamic and static) centered around action that weren't even suggested in the RM; further, it is not consistent with how we define and use action (more specifically, joint action) in the other models (Business via Services View and Interacting with Services Model).  Finally, while there is a great deal of elaboration around Action, there is no mention of Event.  I would encourage all editors and other active participants in the RA to weigh in on this portion of the Service Description write-up so that we can put this to bed soon.

 

Cheers...

 

 - Jeff