- From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 11:21:09 -0600
- 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 UTC