[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
How is the data model a constraint? If everything is constraint, what is being constrained? Michael At 05:56 PM 5/20/2005, 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> >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]