Re: [soa-rm] [issue:structure] draft 07, sect 2, line 201, Figure2-1

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

No offense, Duane,

But I am still happier with Greg's latest version 
today. I think that the relationships need to be 
explicit, and if we use a stack model, I would 
prefer to see contract subsumed under policy, and 
application interface left out entirely along 
with semantics, as much as I would prefer to see 
it to clearly identify how ubiquitous it is. 
However it is not clearly a layer unto itself and 
it does span the stack.

Ciao,
Rex

At 7:32 PM -0700 5/19/05, Duane Nickull wrote:
>I got inspired to try a few new things with a 
>hybrid of the stack and the mind map.
>
>There are a few for your perusal.
>
>CoreRM 2 is my favorite - we can just leave out 
>semantics in the diagram since they are 
>ubiquitous and state in text that semantics are 
>a core component required to make SOA work. 
>This is very common with things that are 
>omnipresent in architectural diagrams.
>Please ignore the interface at the bottom.  It is probably not a good idea.
>
>CoreRM3 is a hybrid that uses the stack 
>convention with embedded elements.  Semantics 
>are specifically called out as a key aspect of 
>service description.
>
>Core RM 4 is also not bad - I placed semantics 
>as a layer overlapping the specific items it 
>affects. Again - ignore the lower red box.
>
>Comments?
>
>
>Duane
>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:CoreRM2.png (PNGf/«IC») (00067FD5)
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:CoreRM4.png (PNGf/«IC») (00067FD6)
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:CoreRM3.png (PNGf/«IC») (00067FD7)


--
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-849-2309