OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsdm message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [wsdm] Editorial comments

Title: Editorial comments

ok, I see that a lot of people like UML. Does then anybody have any idea how to represent structured event topics nicely in a class diagram?...
right now we have
<wstop:Topic name="abc" messageType="ns:xyz"/>
represented as
<<event>> ns:xyz abc;
when I have
<wstop:Topic name="abc" messageType="ns:xyz">
    <wstop:Topic name="def" messageType="ns:pqr"/>
the best I can guess how to fit it into the class diagram would be
<<event>> ns:xyz abc;
<<event>> ns:pqr abc/def;
Unless I hear better, this is what I'll use.
I'm still not sure how would I expand topic aliases in this way.
Another point is that having a maze of classes with ralationships for every capability<->topic link is not very heplful. I went through that exercise.

-- Igor Sedukhin .. (igor.sedukhin@ca.com)
-- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11788


From: Mike Clements [mailto:mikec@actional.com]
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 6:06 PM
To: Sedukhin, Igor S; wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsdm] Editorial comments

It's easy for us to underestimate the value of the UML models since we already understand the spec. I find UML more intuitive and easier to read than XML.
It was only a few months ago when I was reading these specs for the first time. When I was doing that the 2 things that helped me the most in understanding it were the written text and the UML. The XML is an essential normative part of the spec, but it is virtually useless in gaining understanding. XML is intuitively readable only to robots and vulcans.
Pictures are useful. If UML is too detailed and expensive to keep up to date, let's replace it with some kind of non-normative block diagram. That way we get the intuitive advantages of pictures without the hassles of maintaining detailed and redundant UML.
Just my $0.02.

From: Sedukhin, Igor S [mailto:Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com]
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 1:13 PM
To: wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsdm] Editorial comments

I suggest that we remove all UML models which define the capabilities throughout MUWS and MOWS specs because
        1) it is hard to keep XML and UML syncronized
        2) the information in UML is redundant to the normative definitions of the XML
        3) the value of these models is not incredibly useful for understanding the specs
        4) it makes sense to focus on XML information definitions and exchanges which is what gives us interoperability

-- Igor Sedukhin .. (igor.sedukhin@ca.com)
-- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11788

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]