[ubl-lcsc] Re: [Analysis Team] Re: Updated Comments List

[Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>]

It appears that my word document was a phoney - my apologies, here is 
the correctly formatted response.

Tim McGrath wrote:

> Once again you have done a great job in summarizing the issues.  I 
> have changed the distribution of this to the LC list (with a prefix to 
> denote its an Analysis discussion).  This way we keep a record of the 
> discussion and allow others to follow our progress.  It also saves 
> having to keep separate mailing groups.
>
> Whilst I agree with your synopsis of the pragmatic approach, i think 
> we should not lose track of the bigger picture.
>
> [normalized/UML models (without context)]  --->  [hierarchical/message 
> models (with context)]
>
> In practical terms this is a feedback loop, as we develop our message 
> models we discover things that should be in the 'bricks' of our 
> normalized model.  However, ultimately it will be the normalized 
> model/UML model that is the definitive source of our library.
>
> Also, it is not just the cardinalties that may change between the 
> normalized and hierarchical model, we can change the direction of the 
> associations, choose to explicitly define some that must occur, etc... 
> What we cannot do is extend the cardinalities (e.g. if we have a 0..1 
> we cannot decide in some contexts this may be 0..n.)
>
> This is why we should be quite generic in our normalized model, it is 
> the context (e.g. when i want an 'Order' message) that determines the 
> way we assembly the bricks.  In a practical sense, as you correctly 
> point out, the normalized 'bricks' are actually still in the context 
> of our scope statement and are not really trying to capture the whole 
> world.  But we do need a common model to use as a framework.
>
> I have added my comments to your Disposition of Comments document.  If 
> you plan a call today or tomorrow to finalize this please let me know 
> and i will try to participate.
>
> Michael Adcock wrote:
>
>> Hi, all!
>>
>> I have brought together the various comments, and noted all those on
>> which we have made a decision.
>> To those that have yet to be considered, I have added Stig's and Monica
>> Martin's issues, giving a proposed response.
>>
>> All of these need clear and immediate resolution by Thursday 5th in
>> order for us to meet the message assembly timeline.
>> There was some discussion about whether the model we are building is a
>> complete model. The Normalised Model spreadsheet is a set of 
>> potentially re-usable "bricks" and will ultimately contain all the
>> bricks we need to build all the messages in our scope. The priority for
>> the class diagramming, as I see it, is to target individual messages
>> first as that is our most urgent task. In doing so, I do not see any
>> danger of accidentally designing the same thing different ways, and the
>> way I plan to do it with Rational Rose would prevent this.
>> Significantly, the cardinalities (when I get them back in) may differ
>> between messages, so it is important to keep separate message-oriented
>> models. These can then be brought together into the overall class
>> diagram at relative leisure. However I would caution that we are
>> modelling within our scope, we are NOT modelling the world!
>>
>> I will park the idea of separate page sized part-models for the
>> interim. However I think that we will need to consider these when we
>> prepare printed documentation.
>> regards
>>
>> Mike Adcock
>> Standards & Security Unit
>> APACS - Association for Payment Clearing Services
>> Mercury House, Triton Court
>> 14 Finsbury Square
>> London EC2A 1LQ
>> Tel: +44 (0) 20 7711 6318
>> Fax: +44 (0) 20 7711 6299
>> e-mail: michael.adcock@apacs.org.uk
>>
>>
>>
>> **********************************************************************
>> The opinions expressed are those of the individual and not the company.
>>  Internet communications are not secure and therefore APACS does not  
>>     accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message.
>>  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
>> employee responsible for delivering this communication to the intended
>> recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, distribution or
>>   copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have
>> received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
>>          telephone to arrange for its return.  Thank you.
>> **********************************************************************
>>  
>>
>

-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
fremantle  western australia 6160
phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142

Attachment: Disposition of comment-1-tim.doc
Description: MS-Word document