|
ok but
we have to be careful that the uml model isnt just a graphic of the xml schema
relationships as these may be quite different. It is the conceptual
model/relationships we need to get right first and then we can examine how its
expressed in schema.
My comment in private (I suppose this is
still private) to Mark was that in my opinion a formal model and a UML diagram
are very different, and we really need to focus on the former. At best, the
diagram aids someone in understanding the model description. In this case, I
think the text and diagram should be in the same document, since the diagram
shows cardinality of relationships, but the relationships themselves are
spelled out with their meaning and semantic implications in the
text.
The activity identifier in the text may be my blunder -- I'll
have to double check -- the ContextType has a context-identifier, which I have
always assumed maps to the identity of the activitiy. If that's correct,
perhaps we can just say so?
For refreshers, here's the context service
schema:
<xs:complexType
name="ContextType">
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element name="context-identifier"
type="xs:anyURI"/>
<xs:element name="activity-service" type="xs:anyURI"
minOccurs="0"/>
<xs:element name="type" type="xs:anyURI"
minOccurs="0"/>
<xs:element name="activity-list" minOccurs="0">
<xs:complexType>
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element name="service" type="xs:anyURI" minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</xs:sequence>
<xs:attribute
name="mustUnderstand" type="xs:boolean" use="optional"
default="false"/>
<xs:attribute
name="mustPropagate" type="xs:boolean" use="optional"
default="false"/>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
<xs:element name="child-contexts"
minOccurs="0">
<xs:complexType>
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element name="child-context" type="tns:ContextType"
maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
<xs:any namespace="##other"
processContents="lax" minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</xs:sequence>
<xs:attribute
name="timeout" type="xs:int" use="optional"/>
</xs:complexType>
Greg
(ps it's amazing how
unhelpful UML when you try to say talk about things that aren't classes,
objects or actors).
Martin Chapman wrote:
what is the relationship between activity identifier and context? the
text implies a realtionship yet its not on the diagram. also I sugest
that rather having a note saying that activities can be nested, that
there is an self refernceing association on activity.
Martin.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Little [mailto:Mark.Little@arjuna.com]
Sent: 09 March 2004 22:16
To: ws-caf-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: mark.little@arjuna.com
Subject: [ws-caf-editors] context model
Here's the context model we seem to have agreement on so far.
If you can take
a quick look and let me know of anything that you think needs
qualifying, I'll
send it to the main group. I want to then follow up with
email explaining the
diagram (basically the text we've already got). From there we
can persue some
of the other issues (such as removing status types, context
as one block in
the SOAP header or one entry per ALS, ...)
Mark.
----
Mark Little,
Chief Architect, Transactions,
Arjuna Technologies Ltd.
www.arjuna.com
|