W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > June 2003

RE: UML Nomenclature

From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 13:44:36 -0500
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E01817E81@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
To: "Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>
cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org

Oh, OK -- you meant it.  That's a different issue.  I'm agnostic about
whether a message that gets lost is a message.  Sort of like a tree
falling in the forest, isn't it?  I just wanted to make sure everyone
was on the same page on what the symbols mean, and it sounds like we
are.

Actually, about the * on receiver -- I would have thought that "0" would
mean that the message was sent out with no intended receiver, which
seems a little weird to me, rather than it was sent out and not
delivered. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Chapman [mailto:martin.chapman@oracle.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 12:15 PM
To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); Hugo Haas
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: UML Nomenclature


The source I would use would be the UML standard itself!
I'm happy to change all the "0..*" to "*".
I don't think I have confused my cardilanilites, and there are examples
of 1..*. However it is entirely possible I have made a judgment that may
not be correct. In the message case, I chose * as if the message gets
lost there may be zero receivers! I will send out a revised version and
please feel free to comment on the cardinalities.

Martin.




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) 
> [mailto:RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 8:38 AM
> To: Hugo Haas; Martin Chapman
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: UML Nomenclature
>
>
> It seems to me that a lot of the *'s are dubious.  According to Mike 
> and to the very useful Quick Reference he referred to 
> (http://www.holub.com/goodies/uml/index.html), * means "0 or more".  
> In many or most cases I think you may really mean "1 or more", which 
> is "1..*".  For example, does a message without a receiver make sense?
>
> It appears to me that Martin may have actually exchanged the meaning 
> of
> * and 1..*, since he uses "0,..*", which according to the reference is
> the same as "*" and I see no instances of "1..*"
>
> Here is the list of cardinality nomenclature from that source.  
> Martin, if this is not correct, perhaps you could provide a different 
> source? Otherwise, I suggest that we use this convention.  If it is 
> too painful to type all the 1..*'s, I suggest that we adopt the 
> regular expression convention of "+".  That is, add "+ (1 or more)" to

> the following list.
>
> 1 (usually ommitted if 1:1)
> n (Unknown at compile time but bound) [Is this meaningful for us?] 
> 0..1 (0..2 1..n)
> 1..* (1 or more)
> *     (0 or more)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hugo Haas [mailto:hugo@w3.org]
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 5:19 AM
> To: Martin Chapman
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: SOAP UML diagram
>
>
>
> Hi Martin.
>
> * Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com> [2003-06-06 12:22-0700]
> > updated diagram at:
> >
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2003Jun/0011.html
>
> It looks good to me. A couple of comments below.
>
> - I don't see features linked to properties, or at least not directly.
>
> [1] says that "[a] feature may be expressed through multiple 
> properties" and that "[p]roperties are named with URIs" and "property 
> values SHOULD have an XML Schema [XML Schema Part 1] [XML Schema Part 
> 2] type listed in the specification which introduces the property".
>
> I don't think that those are shown in the diagram.
>
> - My second comment is about ultimate receivers. I think that we need
>   to make the distinction between roles and nodes.
>
> A SOAP message has one sender, any number of intermediaries, and one 
> ultimate receiver _identified_. They are naturally identified with 
> URIs, and the ultimate receiver is:
>
>   http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope/role/ultimateReceiver
>
> [2] reads: "a SOAP node is said to act in one or more SOAP roles, each

> of which is identified by a URI known as the SOAP role name."
>
> Now, the message could be multicasted to 5 different SOAP node, which 
> could each act in the role of the ultimate receiver.
>
> You are saying that the path can have several ultimate receivers (as a

> result of your discussion with Jean-Jacques, I think), however the 
> definition of path is:
>
> | SOAP message path
> |
> |  The set of SOAP nodes through which a single SOAP message passes. 
> | This includes the initial SOAP sender, zero or more SOAP 
> | intermediaries, and an ultimate SOAP receiver.
>
> Basically, I think that just changing "*" next to "ultimate" by "1" 
> would do the trick, since I don't think that the diagram prevents the 
> message from being sent to several nodes, although it may not be 
> explicit.
>
> Also, "initial", "intermediary" and "ultimate" should probably be 
> qualified as roles.
>
> - Interesting question here to try and tie this to our other diagram:
>   what is the relationship between a SOAP node and an agent?
>
> I think that a SOAP node is an agent implementing the SOAP 1.2 
> specification.
>
> Regards,
>
> Hugo
>
>   1. http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-soap12-part2-20030507/#soapfeatspec
>   2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/PR-soap12-part1-20030507/#soaproles
> --
> Hugo Haas - W3C
> mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 12 June 2003 14:46:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:21 GMT