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

["Peter F Brown" <peter@justbrown.net>]

Sorry, scratch that last post, I wasn't thinking of the mind maps
conventions...
-Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter F Brown [mailto:peter@justbrown.net] 
Sent: 27 May 2005 13:45
To: 'Duane Nickull'
Cc: 'SOA-RM'
Subject: RE: [soa-rm] [issue:structure] draft 07, sect 2, line 201, Figure
2-1

Referring to CoreRM5.png, proposed as figure 2.1:

I'm still not convinced that service description is *only* encapsulated in
metadata (but maybe I've missed something or not caught up yet with the
remaining 240 posts left to read...). Can a "policy", for example, be
represented in a free text format, that is not metadata?
-Peter 

-----Original Message-----
From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com]
Sent: 20 May 2005 18:37
Cc: 'SOA-RM'
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] [issue:structure] draft 07, sect 2, line 201, Figure
2-1

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

>>>