Re: new version of arch

The fat arrows were there to imply a dependency. However, I am not sure 
its all that useful to have them. What we do need to convey is the 
relationships between the models.

I didn't include a simplified diagram for the resource model as it is 
already fairly simple. However, for consistency I can add one.

Frank

On Jan 20, 2004, at 11:15 AM, Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) wrote:

>
> I like the way you are using the simplified diagrams.  I assume,
> however, that you are going to add one for the Resource Model?
>
> I also have to admit that as many times as I have seen it, I don't yet
> understand the meaning of the arrows (the fat ones) in the diagram that
> includes all four models.  Are there verbs or phrases that can be
> attached to those arrows as in other diagrams?  Is the verb or phrase
> always the same?  If so, it cannot be something like "abstracts" or "is
> more general than" which implies some sort of hierarchy or ordering,
> because Policy > Service > Message > Policy.   Similar for
> Policy/Resouce/Service.  Can't imply or involve ordering.
>
> And then there is the fact that ONE pairing of models doesn't have an
> arrow in either direction.  Obviously I'm supposed to understand
> something from that -- but I really don't.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Francis McCabe
> Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 1:33 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: new version of arch
>
>
>
> I have checked in a new version of the arch doc:
>
> 1. I have removed the concepts relating to management from concepts and
> relationships (C&R)
> 2. I have added to the front of the C&R section simplified diagrams of
> the models
>
> Frank
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2004 15:42:52 UTC