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


attached this time...

Duane Nickull wrote:

> CoreRm7.png
>
> Another one for consideration.
>
> Would you care to elaborate on process model more?
>
> D
>
> Francis McCabe wrote:
>
>> I would prefer to see
>> 1. policy, contract linked together -- reflecting the 
>> contract=agreed  policy idea.
>> 2. data model is one of the constraint types, like policy and contract
>> 3. we should also mention process model if we are going to call out  
>> the data model.
>>
>> Being a total pedantic, policy, agreement, process model, data model  
>> together characterize the semantics; however, the metadata/service  
>> description is a projection of that semantics (there may be several  
>> service descriptions for one service).
>>
>> Frank
>>
>>
>> On May 20, 2005, at 2:44 PM, Duane Nickull wrote:
>>
>>> Michael:
>>>
>>> Thanks - I tried it horizontally and for some weird reason, it  
>>> seems to resonate better.
>>>
>>> If we can get Frank's sign off and no one else has any opposition,  
>>> maybe we can use this one?
>>>
>>> One other thought - should Data Model be larger?  In the book  
>>> Documenting Software Architectures, I seem to recall some  
>>> conversation about size mattering (yeah yeah). Accordingly, I  
>>> enlarged the data model to give it more presence.  How does this  
>>> look?  See attached Core RM6.png
>>>
>>> Duane
>>>
>>> Michael Stiefel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Would going from right to left or left to right remove any  
>>>> associations of top and bottom as more natural or more fundamental?
>>>>
>>>> Have you ever looked at a globe with the Southern Hemisphere at  
>>>> the top? To most of us that live in the Northern Hemisphere it  
>>>> looks wrong, but of course, from the point of view of outer space  
>>>> either pole of the globe could be on top.
>>>>
>>>> I like the fact that semantics will be explained on the side.
>>>>
>>>> Michael
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> At 02:37 PM 5/20/2005, 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <CoreRM6.png>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

PNG image



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]