OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

soa-rm message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Architectural Scope of Reference Model

I would suggesto to qualify the term Contract or better yet to replace
term with other term since in in business and legal domain the contract
involves two or more parties. This in order to avoid confusion.

Another aspect is the it may be profitable to differentiate between:

a)  technical/functional description of actual characteristics of service
  (similar to machine specs)
b)  public statement of existence of a) or parts of a)
    ( we got this wonderfull machine but we dont offer it yet)
d)  public statement of offering or availability of a) or parts of a)
e) agreement between two or more parties involving a) or parts of a)


Gregory A. Kohring wrote:

>OK, here is a slightly different view using UML.  In this view
>metadata is the higher level abstraction, while contract is a more
>specialized abstraction.
>-- Greg
>Duane Nickull wrote:
>>Cool!  This is perhaps a place where using UML to avoid ambiguity may be
>>If I read your diagram, it asserts that "realized as" implies an
>>"abstract-concrete" association.  I had viewed that the other concepts
>>are more of a "can be aggregated as part of" association.  My
>>observation is that usually the abstract-concrete association is often
>>used for mapping a specific protocol or specification to a concept in a
>>reference model or reference architecture.
>>I guess the question we need to consider is "what is the association
>>between the higher level abstract concept of metadata and specialized
>>metadata concepts?".
>>Anyone care to take a stab at this as a UML class diagram (or answering
>>the question)?
>>Cheers (and beers next week)
>>Francis McCabe wrote:
>>>I prefer the following diagram :)
>>>On Apr 19, 2005, at 9:51 AM, Duane Nickull wrote:


Best Regards

/ Anders W. Tell           /
/ Financial Toolsmiths AB  /
/ <anderst@toolsmiths.se>  /


This e-mail in its entirety, including any associated files, are
confidential and intended only for the addressee named above.
If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for
delivering to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received
this email in error and that any use of the information contained
within this email or attachments is strictly prohibited.

The contents should not be disclosed to any other person nor copies
taken. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the sender
and do not necessarily represent those of Toolsmiths unless otherwise
specifically stated.

As internet communications are not secure we do not accept legal
responsibility for the contents of this message nor responsibility for
any change made to this message after it was sent by the original

We advise you to carry out your own virus check before opening any
attachment as we cannot accept liability for any indirect or
consequential damages sustained as a result of any software viruses.
If you have received this email in error, or if you are concerned with
the content of this email please notify Toolsmiths by sending e-mail
to us at: info@toolsmiths.se.

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]