[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
I think this is much clearer. Semantics can be explained in the text - I think that is a better model. Thanks, /Prasanta -----Original Message----- From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com] Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 11:37 AM Cc: 'SOA-RM' Subject: Re: [soa-rm] [issue:structure] draft 07, sect 2, line 201, Figure 2-1 << File: CoreRM5.png >> Here is a rendering based on Greg's diagram that accounts for all the comments below. - I placed Metadata as a bracket inside the "service description" box. - Semantics will have to be explained using text accompanying this diagram to state that they are omnipresent. - turned the stack upside down so service is at the bottom. To me, it seemed more intuitive that the thing that is core is at the bottom and the other items are built out (up??) from it. Comments? - used the UML dependency arrow as the convention between service and service description to denote that a SD should not exist without a service. - redrew the line between metadata and policy / contract to connect with the outer container of "constraints" - removed the words "enables discoverability" from the association. If we use this, we should probably build an appendix containing clear and concise rules about how to interpret this mind map since it borrows association conventions from UML and mixes them together with other conventions. Comments? Duane >>>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]