[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: consistency with Event Model
All, I sent the following to Jeff last week to get his take: <toJeff> Figure 29 doesn’t have Event Model and section 4.3.2 makes the one and only explicit mention, saying it is an extension of the RM. The discussion in section 4.3.2 stands on its own without that explicit mention. For consistency, our options appear to be: 1. add Event Model to Figure 29 and to Figure 16 (if we keep that level of detail). 2. remove Event Model from Figure 17 and consider if the paragraph after Figure 30 needs to be modified – I think the paragraph is fine. I lean towards 2. </toJeff> I agree with Jeff that Figure 29 does not need to be changed in either case. The only text change I would see for option 2 above is to remove the phrase “as part of the event model” in the paragraph after Figure 30. However, below, Jeff makes the case for keeping the Event Model and adding words to elaborate. What would those words say of significance about an Event Model? Who will provide them? I’d like to discuss during this week’s call and come to a resolution. Time: 11:30 ET Number: 703-983-6338 PIN: 762723 (spells “soaraf”) Also, as a reminder, I hope to entertain a motion to accept the changes for all issues the editors feel are ready to be closed. There have been a few tweaks to the spreadsheet and draft sent Ken --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Kenneth Laskey MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 McLean VA 22102-7508 From: Estefan, Jeff A (3180) [mailto:jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov] Ken, Feel free to distribute to the rest of the list since I no longer have access to the OASIS e-mail distribution system or the Kavi. Recall that Duane Nickull pointed out that we mentioned events in passing in the RM (together with actions) and although as part of the Behavior Model in the RM (Sect 3.2.2.2), we specified an Action Model (Sect 3.2.2.2.1) as well as a Process Model (Sect 3.2.2.2.2), we did not specify an Event Model. As a consequence, we can take two courses of action: Option 1. Ignore the concept of an Event Model altogether in which case, you could just leave the text and figures of Sect 4.3.2 in the RAF as they are but remove Event Model from Fig. 17 because it has no context there. That way the discussion centers on events only and is limited to the Interaction Model of Sect 4.3.2. or Option 2. Include an Event Model in Fig. 16 under Behavior Model (as you’ve noted in the Comment block) along with supporting text that defines an Event Model at a similar level of abstraction and coverage as the Action Model in the RM (Sect 3.2.2.2.1), and mention in the text that this model was overlooked in the RM. Then you would leave Fig. 17 as it is because it already shows an Event Model and you would also leave Fig. 30 as it is; however, you would need to update the corresponding text shown on Line 2077 from: “We extend that notion here to include events…” to “We extend that notion in this Reference Architecture Foundation…”. My vote is for Option 2. It’s a little more work but I think helps fill in the gap where the RM punted. Whatever you do, for either option, please DO NOT update Fig. 29 to add an Event Model. I think that was a suggestion in your e-mail. Note that this depiction is at a higher level of abstraction in that it stops at the Information Model and Behavior Model levels and does not show the respective “parts” that make up both models. Hope this helps! Drop a line if you have additional questions. Getting close to finishing this off? Hope so. Regards… - Jeff E. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]