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

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

While this is an improvement over the previous 
versions, I still prefer to have the 
relationships stated more explicitly, but that 
might be covered in the rules governing 
interpretation. However, this still covers only 
the service side, and I think to be complete we 
still need the service consumer. I don't think it 
is likely to fit into stack-like structure. I am 
not sure if we need to specify much about a 
service consumer except the ability to consume 
the service.

Ciao,
Rex

At 11:37 AM -0700 5/20/05, Duane Nickull wrote:
>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
>
>>>>
>
>
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:CoreRM5.png (PNGf/«IC») (00068128)


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