RE: [soa-rm] Diagram

["Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>]

> 
> Perhaps we might revisit the use of UML?
> 

For future considerations on this: I would like to recommend that we not
replace the concept map with a UML diagram, but rather that we offer a
UML diagram in addition to a concept map. The concept map can serve as
the primary format for "higher-level" users (i.e. business rather than
technical), while the UML diagram can serve as the primary format for
more technical users. We may also through in an E/R digram as well?
(assuming that by UML we mean UML class diagrams)

Joe

Joseph Chiusano
Associate
Booz Allen Hamilton
 
700 13th St. NW
Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
O: 202-508-6514  
C: 202-251-0731
Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 1:28 PM
> To: McGregor.Wesley@tbs-sct.gc.ca; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Diagram
> 
> The graph cannot be interpreted without the context of the 
> accompanying text in the RM for SOA rev 10.  Accordingly, all 
> concepts are abstract in nature.
> 
> Your comments have illustrated another potential pitfall 
> which is the lack of a formal reference for interpreting 
> concept maps.  Individuals may accordingly make inconsistent 
> interpretations of the concept map or mind maps.
> 
> Perhaps we might revisit the use of UML?
> 
> Duane
> 
> *******************************
> Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://www.adobe.com Vice Chair - 
> UN/CEFACT  http://www.uncefact.org/ Chair - OASIS SOA 
> Reference Model Technical Committee Personal Blog - 
> http://technoracle.blogspot.com/
> ******************************* 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: McGregor.Wesley@tbs-sct.gc.ca
> [mailto:McGregor.Wesley@tbs-sct.gc.ca]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 10:18 AM
> To: Duane Nickull; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [soa-rm] Diagram
> 
> Thanks for the reply Duane.
> 
> Here are my comments.
> 
> 1. It is unclear from the diagram what is a realizable 
> concept and what is completely abstract. If a service is 
> virtual, it cannot have real associations hence my comment. 
> Was it ever decided what a service is? As I recall it was not.
> 2. It is not the level of granularity that bothers me but the 
> consolidation of static and dynamic states of existence. 
> Mixing the two in the same diagram merely creates confusion. 
> 
> Wes
> 
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] 
> Sent:	December 7, 2005 1:02 PM
> To:	McGregor, Wesley; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject:	RE: [soa-rm] Diagram
> 
> 
> Wes wrote:
> 
> I would add a reference to the policy from the Service 
> Description to indicate association. I agree services have 
> policy, but it is the Service Description that points to the 
> policy at design time and the services use them at run-time.
> 
> DN: This is not needed since if a service has a policy, and a 
> service description described a service, then the service 
> description can described the service policy.  It is not 
> necessary to make lines between every concept.
> 
> I would also add a transient run-time agreement (with a lifetime
> attribute) entity as part of the interaction within the 
> execution context.
> 
> DN:  That can be described in the text.  With graphics like 
> these, we have to stick to a consistent level of granularity 
> for all elements of the graph.  The text accompanying them 
> can describe each one on more detail.
> 
> Duane
> 
> 
> 
>