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

RE: isa and hasa in UML

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 11:21:09 -0600
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E405C6F061@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francis McCabe [mailto:fgm@fla.fujitsu.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 1:01 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: isa and hasa in UML
> 

> The problem is that it becomes really difficult to talk about 
> weird or 
> abstract sets. Basing is-a on this would lead to the following 
> counter-intuitive result: every unicorn is a yeti. 

That reminds me of a LOT of discussions we have, what's the problem? :-)
For example, Mark Baker thinks that Web services are unicorns, and others
here think that REST is a yeti.  That lets us politely agree that "all web
services are RESTful" <duck> 


> An even more serious issue is that we need to capture the following 
> situation:
> 
> A service has an identifier
> 
> A Web service is a service
> A Web service has a URI
> 
> The Web service's URI counts_as the service identifier
> 
> We *could* extend UML's generalization, and 
> that may be  the best overall approach. 

Whimper.  The trout, the trout, the giant brain-eating trout ... 
I for one would rather do some handwaving about the formalities than dive
into the pond with THOSE guys!  

Or is that what you are suggesting, i.e., a bit of hand-waving to say that
we kinda sorta use the UML definitions but informally extend them in the
following manner: [blah blah blah] ?

 
Received on Friday, 30 May 2003 13:21:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:19 GMT