[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [OASIS Issue Tracker] Commented: (SRAMP-25) Define extensibility of model types and modeled relationships
[ http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/SRAMP-25?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=28231#action_28231 ]
Randall Hauch commented on SRAMP-25:
------------------------------------
My proposal for the changes to the Foundation document have been uploaded to the S-RAMP document space, and is available at http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/s-ramp/document.php?document_id=44004
The change is relatively minimal, in that it basically just specifies that implementations may provide non-standard Artifact Model Types. Section 2.3.3 of the Atom Binding Specification already states that the service document is to provide a workspace for each artifact model described in the Foundation document, and this appears to be compatible with allowing non-standard artifact models.
> Define extensibility of model types and modeled relationships
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SRAMP-25
> URL: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/SRAMP-25
> Project: OASIS SOA Repository Artifact Model and Protocol (S-RAMP) TC
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Randall Hauch
> Assignee: Randall Hauch
>
> The specification defines a number of artifact type models, including Core, SOA, Service Implementation, and four Derived Artifact Type models (XSD, WSDL, SOAPWSDL, and Policy). There does not appear to be a way for an implementation to define additional Derived Artifact Type models and allow clients to discover them. Can implementations extend the behavior by adding custom Derived Artifact Type models (e.g., Ontology, Process/Choreography, etc.)?
> The specification does defines a User Defined Model (most completely in Section 2.1.2 of the Foundation Working Draft 01 around line 280) with this statement:
> S-RAMP attempts to be compatible with implementations which choose to allow users the ability to define models
> of their own which consist of new or existing Artifact Types and any defined relationships between them, although
> how and whether such models are supported is beyond the scope of this specification. Such models are called
> "User Defined Models". Since pre-defined relationships in a model are termed "Modeled", then in this context
> they are called "User Defined Modeled Relationships".
> and in Section 2.1 (line 197):
> User Defined Artifact Model: These are created by the client and are part of a User Defined Model.
> The means by which a client specifies such a model are beyond the scope of this specification, but some
> provision is made within S-RAMP schema to facilitate basic interoperability for such artifacts. Regardless
> of the internal definition of these artifacts, they SHALL be serialized in S-RAMP as an instance of
> UserDefinedArtifactType, which extends BaseArtifactType.
> Both of these statements describe such models as being created and defined by the client. Is there a distinction between additional Derived Type Models provided by an S-RAMP implementation and those uploaded by clients?
> Even though the above text states that how User Defined Models are defined is beyond the scope of the specification, the specification should describe (perhaps in the Conformance chapter) whether implementations can define additional Derived Artifact Type models, and should define a way for clients to discover all the models and the corresponding descriptions (preferably machine readable).
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]