Re: [soa-rm] [issue:structure] draft 07, sect 2, line 201, Figure 2-1

[Duane Nickull <dnickull@adobe.com>]

Michael:

Thanks - I tried it horizontally and for some weird reason, it seems to 
resonate better.

If we can get Frank's sign off and no one else has any opposition, maybe 
we can use this one?

One other thought - should Data Model be larger?  In the book 
Documenting Software Architectures, I seem to recall some conversation 
about size mattering (yeah yeah). Accordingly, I enlarged the data model 
to give it more presence.  How does this look?  See attached Core RM6.png

Duane

Michael Stiefel wrote:

> Would going from right to left or left to right remove any 
> associations of top and bottom as more natural or more fundamental?
>
> Have you ever looked at a globe with the Southern Hemisphere at the 
> top? To most of us that live in the Northern Hemisphere it looks 
> wrong, but of course, from the point of view of outer space either 
> pole of the globe could be on top.
>
> I like the fact that semantics will be explained on the side.
>
> Michael
>
>
> At 02:37 PM 5/20/2005, Duane Nickull wrote:
>
>> Here is a rendering based on Greg's diagram that accounts for all the 
>> comments below.
>>
>> - I placed Metadata as a bracket inside the "service description" box.
>> - Semantics will have to be explained using text accompanying this 
>> diagram to state that they are omnipresent.
>> - turned the stack upside down so service is at the bottom.  To me, 
>> it seemed more intuitive that the thing that is core is at the bottom 
>> and the other items are built out (up??) from it.  Comments?
>> - used the UML dependency arrow as the convention between service and 
>> service description to denote that a SD should not exist without a 
>> service.
>> - redrew the line between metadata and policy / contract to connect 
>> with the outer container of "constraints"
>> - removed the words "enables discoverability" from the association.
>>
>> If we use this, we should probably build an appendix containing clear 
>> and concise rules about how to interpret this mind map since it 
>> borrows association conventions from UML and mixes them together with 
>> other conventions.
>>
>> Comments?
>>
>> Duane
>>
>>
>>
>
>