[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Architectural Scope of Reference Model
May I ask that this also be submitted to KAVI and also a reference from the "Service Description" section of the strawman be made. Thanks Duane Gregory A. Kohring wrote: >Francis, > >You are correct, the last diagram I sent did not reproduce the >semantics of your previous diagram. The one attached to this message >does. It shows contract being realized as metadata as in your original >diagram. > >Note: I don't understand your discussion about the "document" >"describing" the contract. The relationship you depict in your >original diagram is one of "realization" not description and the >latter seems to me more appropriate in this case. > >-- Greg > > >Francis McCabe wrote: > > >>The problem with this diagram is that it assumes that a contract *isa* >>metadata. I could not disagree more. And UML makes this awkward. >> >> The relationship between a contract (which is an abstract entity) and >>its description (which is a document) is one of *describes*. >> >>On the other hand, a QoS agreement *isa* contract. >> >>I also included the stuff on choreography, business policy etc. >> >>I believe that choreography is part of the syntax -- it is part of what >>you need to know about the mechanics of using the service. But it is >>separate from business logic and semantics. >> >>Frank >> >> >> >>On Apr 20, 2005, at 2:09 AM, 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: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Francis: >>>> >>>>Cool! This is perhaps a place where using UML to avoid ambiguity may be >>>>good. >>>> >>>>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) >>>> >>>>Duane >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Francis McCabe wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>I prefer the following diagram :) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Frank >>>>> >>>>>On Apr 19, 2005, at 9:51 AM, Duane Nickull wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>><Drawing1.png> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>><metadata.pdf> >>> >>> >> >> > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > -- *********** Senior Standards Strategist - Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://www.adobe.com Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT Bureau Plenary - http://www.unece.org/cefact/ Adobe Enterprise Developer Resources - http://www.adobe.com/enterprise/developer/main.html ***********
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]