[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Architectural Scope of Reference Model
Kathryn: You are right. After analyzing my response and comments to it, I wish to withdraw my assertion. I like the last one sent by Gregory. Duane Breininger, Kathryn R wrote: >Not sure I understand here; in my view, these are two separate things >that are related, in that one describes the other, but they are not of >types such that one could be a specialization of another... > > >Kathryn Breininger >Boeing Library Services >425-965-0182 phone > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] >Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 1:48 PM >To: Francis McCabe >Cc: Gregory A. Kohring; Ken Laskey; soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org >Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Architectural Scope of Reference Model > > >Would it be fair (and legal) to state that "contract" is a >specialization of the abstract metadata class and also stereotype it as >an abstract class? > >Duane > > >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]