Re: [OEP] The n-ary relations draft is ready for outside review

Guus,

Thank you for your response, and thanks to you and Chris for trying  
to hammer out some of these things when in Banff.

>>> I suggest to include a UML note, indicating that pattern 1 is
>>> close to what is called an "association class" in UML.
>>>
>> Again, I would appreciate some specific text since whatever I say   
>> would end up being imprecise since I know very little about UML.
>>
>
> Proposed text:
>
> [[
>   UML Note: The "Purchase" use case would in UML typically be  
> modelled as an association class, with the object properties  
> represented as attributes of the association class.
> ]]

Thanks. I've added this to the Purchase example.

>>
>>> [[
>>>   Pattern 2: Using lists for arguments in a relation
>>> ]]
>>>
>>> Alternatives which avoid the use of  RDF list would be worth
>>> mentioning:
>>>
>>> 1. A Flight  is linked to a number of FlightPorts. Each  
>>> FlightPort  is a
>>> class, representing the relation between a port and its sequence   
>>> number
>>> in the Flight. I find this rather ugly, but it is in a sense  
>>> close to
>>> the way use case 1 is represented.
>>>
>>> 2. A Flight is linked to a number of FlightMovement instances. Each
>>> Flight movement represents a relation between from/to
>>> airports. This would probably be my preferred solution.
>>>
>> Ok, I'll try to put them in. Would it be ok simple to mention this  
>> or  do you think it needs a fleshed out example, with code,  
>> diagrams, etc.?
>>
>
> Chris and I discussed this here as well. We think it requires a bit  
> more discussion to get the list pattern right, e.g, at the next OEP  
> telecon.

Sounds good. It would probably be a good idea to try and make sure  
that both Pat (who wrote up this pattern) and Alan are there at the  
telecon if possible. I assume we are talking about this coming  
Monday, October 10, right?

Thanks a lot for your understanding on the other issues! I realize  
that we did not resolve all of them to your satisfaction and  
appreciate your understanding.

Natasha

Received on Thursday, 6 October 2005 23:58:31 UTC