[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, Figure2-1
You mean because of the arrows? Would it help if we removed the arrow heads? -- Greg Chiusano Joseph wrote: > Will some readers perceive this as looking very much like a process > diagram (forget the labels for a second), and hence our message may be > lost? > > Joe > > Joseph Chiusano > Booz Allen Hamilton > Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Gregory A. Kohring [mailto:kohring@ccrl-nece.de] >>Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 3:24 AM >>To: Francis McCabe >>Cc: SOA-RM; dnickull@adobe.com; mattm@adobe.com >>Subject: Re: [soa-rm] [issue:structure] draft 07, sect 2, >>line 201, Figure 2-1 >> >>Frank, >> >>If I understand you correctly, then in your view there is >>little to be gained by distinguishing between syntaxt and >>semantics at this level. Hence, the "Service Description" is >>purely semantics. >> >>Attached is another diagram which depicts this idea. Is this >>consistent with your ideas? >> >>-- Greg >> >>Francis McCabe wrote: >> >>>While I like the direction in which this is going, I have a >> >>couple of >> >>>issues: >>> >>>1. I do not see semantics as being inside service description. >>>Semantics is an abstract concept that may be referred to but is not >>>contained in any description. >>>2. I am not sure why data model is broken out in the way >> >>suggested. >> >>>To me, tehe data model is an asepct of the semantics of the service. >>>3. I do not see a hard and fast distinction between syntax and >>>semantics. Again, any syntactic constraints are simply part of the >>>overall semantics. >>> >>>The *reason* for this is that while it is tempting to equate >>>semantics with application semantics, that is not, in fact, a good >>>slope to slip down. >>> >>>Once you liberate yourself from that misconception, one >> >>beings to see >> >>>all kinds of possibilities. For example, for an >> >>encryption/decryption >> >>>service, its entire semantic model consists of messages with >>>encryption markers etc. etc. Is that syntax? Depends on >> >>your point of >> >>>view; to my mind it is semantics of a simple service. >>> >>> >>>Frank >>> >>> >>>On May 13, 2005, at 12:01 AM, Gregory A. Kohring wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Yes, this looks much better. Attached is a slight variation which >>>>moves the semantics into the description. At one time, >> >>"syntax" was >> >>>>also explicitly mentioned as being part of the >> >>description. Has that >> >>>>been dropped? >>>> >>>>-- Greg >>>> >>>>Duane Nickull wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Does something like this make more sense than a stack >> >>diagram. This is >> >>>>>uses a multi-layered approach to group things and reduce >> >>the number >> >>>>>of lines. >>>>> >>>>>Duane >>>>> >>>>>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 >>>>>> >> >> >> >>-- >>====================================================================== >>G.A. Kohring >>C&C Research Laboratories, NEC Europe Ltd. >>====================================================================== >> > > -- ====================================================================== G.A. Kohring C&C Research Laboratories, NEC Europe Ltd. ======================================================================
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]