[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 am satisfied. While I still have questions about the processing model (see my response to Francis), I think this is good enough for the moment. This is an important graphic. I, like I am sure many of you, give talks that try to explain what a SOA is. This graphic could be very useful in these talks so the effort that has been put into it will pay off. If people find it compelling, they might then actually go and look at the RM. Michael At 07:07 PM 5/20/2005, Duane Nickull wrote: >Michael: > >I see why you are asking the question. If everything is a constraint >within the service description box and nothing is not a constraint, we do >not need to explicitly use the "constraint" box. It's sole purpose is to >group those members of the service description that are distinguished as >"of type 'constraint'" from those that are not. > >That brings us to..... > >CoreRM8.png > >which looks suspiciously like the first drawing Gregory did ;-) > >Are we there yet? > >Duane > >Michael Stiefel wrote: > >>But in that sense everything is a constraint. >> >>Frank does view the world that way (see his reply to my comment). >> >>Now if I may be pedantic - making everything a constraint is similar to >>saying that the words in a dictionary definition are a constraint >>because they constrain the way a word is used. While that may be ture, >>nobody thinks of a dictionary definition that way, so I am dubious about >>us looking at our definition of a service description that way. >> >> >>Michael >> >>At 06:26 PM 5/20/2005, Duane Nickull wrote: >> >>>My view on this is that the data model is a constraint of the >>>information flowing in and out of a service. It may be realized as a >>>schema referenced from a WSDL in WS architecture. >>>These things constraint the way a service is used. >>> >>>Duane >>> >>>Michael Stiefel wrote: >>> >>>>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]