[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Architectural Scope of Reference Model
I agree. The metadata describes stuff about the contract; it is not the contract. Think of your University online catalog; the online catalog describes items you can access through the system. This is the *metadata* about the stuff. The actually items are retrieved through a link to an electronic version of something, or a physical container pulled from a shelf or drawer. Kathryn Breininger Boeing Library Services 425-965-0182 phone -----Original Message----- From: Francis McCabe [mailto:fgm@fla.fujitsu.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 10:38 AM To: Gregory A. Kohring Cc: Duane Nickull; Ken Laskey; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Architectural Scope of Reference Model The problem with this diagram is that it assumes that a contract *isa* metadata. I could not disagree more. And UML makes this awkward. The relationship between a contract (which is an abstract entity) and its description (which is a document) is one of *describes*. On the other hand, a QoS agreement *isa* contract. I also included the stuff on choreography, business policy etc. I believe that choreography is part of the syntax -- it is part of what you need to know about the mechanics of using the service. But it is separate from business logic and semantics. Frank On Apr 20, 2005, at 2:09 AM, Gregory A. Kohring wrote: > OK, here is a slightly different view using UML. In this view > metadata is the higher level abstraction, while contract is a more > specialized abstraction. > > -- Greg > > Duane Nickull wrote: >> Francis: >> >> Cool! This is perhaps a place where using UML to avoid ambiguity may >> be >> good. >> >> If I read your diagram, it asserts that "realized as" implies an >> "abstract-concrete" association. I had viewed that the other >> concepts are more of a "can be aggregated as part of" association. >> My observation is that usually the abstract-concrete association is >> often used for mapping a specific protocol or specification to a >> concept in a reference model or reference architecture. >> I guess the question we need to consider is "what is the association >> between the higher level abstract concept of metadata and specialized >> metadata concepts?". >> >> Anyone care to take a stab at this as a UML class diagram (or >> answering >> the question)? >> >> Cheers (and beers next week) >> >> Duane >> >> >> >> >> Francis McCabe wrote: >> >>> I prefer the following diagram :) >>> >>> >>> Frank >>> >>> On Apr 19, 2005, at 9:51 AM, Duane Nickull wrote: >>> >>>> <Drawing1.png> > <metadata.pdf>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]