[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
A contract is not only dependent on a service policy, however, it is an agreement between both parties: reassure me, that the absence of any dependency arc from Contract to the service requestor's acceptance of the service provider's policy is not a problem. I consider this diagram as merely the service provider's "view" and not the whole picture... -Peter -----Original Message----- From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] Sent: 20 May 2005 22:17 To: Duane Nickull Cc: 'SOA-RM' Subject: Re: [soa-rm] [issue:structure] draft 07, sect 2, line 201, Figure 2-1 attached this time... Duane Nickull wrote: > 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]