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] [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]