[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] [issue:structure] draft 07, sect 2, line 201, Figure 2-1
CoreRm7.png Another one for consideration. Would you care to elaborate on process model more? D Francis McCabe wrote: > I would prefer to see > 1. policy, contract linked together -- reflecting the contract=agreed > policy idea. > 2. data model is one of the constraint types, like policy and contract > 3. we should also mention process model if we are going to call out > the data model. > > Being a total pedantic, policy, agreement, process model, data model > together characterize the semantics; however, the metadata/service > description is a projection of that semantics (there may be several > service descriptions for one service). > > Frank > > > On May 20, 2005, at 2:44 PM, Duane Nickull wrote: > >> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> <CoreRM6.png> >> >> >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]