[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 agree with your statement, but I was not precise enough in my comment. Our view of policy should have WS-Policy* as a subset, I see Rex as having WS-Policy* and our view of policy as disjoint sets. Michael At 12:34 AM 5/22/2005, Ken Laskey wrote: >While we shouldn't pretend to work in a vacuum, the RM concepts are not >constrained by other standards and certainly not by ones that are under >development and may benefit from thoughts on a broader context in which >they should operate and for which they should provide support. > >Ken > > >On May 21, 2005, at 9:23 PM, Michael Stiefel wrote: > >>You definition of policy does not seem to coincide with policy in the >>sense that WS-Policy* understands it to be. >> >>Michael >> >>At 08:45 PM 5/20/2005, Rex Brooks wrote: >>>Well, that gets difficult, doesn't it, since almost anything can be >>>brought in under policy, but my first list was expiration, >>>synchronous v. asynchronous processing, registration, security-both >>>physical and per protocol, OS, platform, standards compliance, >>>language dependence, flavor of DBMS, etc, etc. I think of policy in >>>this context to be related to terms and conditions and legalities, >>>such whether or not a service is intended to have persistence or only >>>exists during a lifecycle triggered by an event such as an emergency >>>alerting service or whether a software unit like an accounting >>>package can be applied to a single department such as financial >>>services or several departments such as Human Resources, CRM, ECM, >>>etc. >>> >>>Ciao, >>>Rex >>> >>> >>>At 7:41 PM -0400 5/20/05, Michael Stiefel wrote: >>>>So what would be a constraint that is not as vital as policy, >>>>contract, and data? >>>> >>>>Michael >>>> >>>>At 07:14 PM 5/20/2005, Rex Brooks wrote: >>>>>At 6:18 PM -0400 5/20/05, Michael Stiefel wrote: >>>>>>How is the data model a constraint? >>>>> >>>>>How is not? >>>>> >>>>>>If everything is constraint, what is being constrained? >>>>> >>>>>What the service is and does and how it does it, how it can be >>>>>consumed, by whom, etc. Everything is a constraint, and I would be >>>>>happy to see it join semantics in the wings as omnipresent. >>>>> >>>>>But it does serve the purpose of implying that some constraints are >>>>>more vital to the concept of a service than others, and I think >>>>>policy, contract and data model all stand up to that test. >>>>> >>>>>Ciao, >>>>>Rex >>>>> >>>>>>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> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>-- >>>>>Rex Brooks >>>>>President, CEO >>>>>Starbourne Communications Design >>>>>GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison >>>>>Berkeley, CA 94702 >>>>>Tel: 510-849-2309 >>> >>> >>>-- >>>Rex Brooks >>>President, CEO >>>Starbourne Communications Design >>>GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison >>>Berkeley, CA 94702 >>>Tel: 510-849-2309 >> >> >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >------------------ >Ken Laskey >MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 >7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 >McLean VA 22102-7508 > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]