[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] [issue:structure] draft 07, sect 2, line 201, Figure 2-1
If I remember correctly, we struggled as a group at the f2f with this graphic for some time. It would be helpful for alternatives to be provided if what we have now isn't sufficient. -matt Duane Nickull wrote: > The issue we had with the concept map is we ended up with a > proliferation of arrows for items like "semantics" and security since > they are omni-present. We tried various other depictions and finally > came to the stack. I agree that the stack alone is not sufficient and > also lends itself to ambiguity so we agreed to place some text by it. > > There are standard conventions for interpreting stack diagrams. For > example - layers in the stack are only able to talk to adjacent > layers. Layer n can interact with n-1 and n+1, but not n+2. > > The position of the vertical layers indicate they are relevant to each > horizontal layer they are adjacent to. > > In stack diagrams, there is no named associations present so it is > ambiguous. > > Accordingly, one can infer the following from the diagram in 2.1 > > Service descriptions (are associated with) services > Policies (are associated with) service descriptions > Contracts (are associated with) policies > data models (are associated with) contracts > semantics (are associated with) service descriptions, policies, > contracts and data models. > Services, Service descriptions, policies, contracts and data models > may all be discoverable and their presence and availability known. > > What I do not like is that it also separates the data model from the > service description and separates the contract from the service > description. > > It may be better to go with a layered concept map. > Duane > > > > > > Gregory A. Kohring wrote: > >> <current> >> Figure 2-1 SOA Architectural Model >> </current> >> >> <suggested> >> Remove the figure. >> </suggested> >> >> >> <notes> >> Sorry, but this figure is rather vacuous. All we see are a bunch of >> rectangles stacked together with no obvious relationship between them. >> Some of the rectangles have an "is-a" relationship to their neighbor, >> while others have a "describes" relationship and some I cannot even >> decipher what the relationship should be. >> >> I understand that people feel UML is too technical for this document, >> however, diagrams like this detract from the document's readibility. >> Try using a concept map if you really want to place a diagram at this >> point. >> </notes> >> >> >> >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]