Re: single interface/service

Christopher B Ferris wrote:

> Anne's example of the UBR as a resource with multiple endpoints, each
> managed by a different authority is a perfect example of why it is not
> always possible to achieve this manner of association using containment.
> 

Apologies, I haven't seen this example. If you need to associate 
multiple endpoints from different WSDLs, then I can see why you'd choose 
a linking mechanism. But the use case is not clear to me.

> 
>>logically, containment, not linking, is what is being modelled here.
> 
> 
> How do you come to that conclusion? It is neither about linking nor about
> containment. It is about *association*. 

To be clearer, my point was there's logically a single containing 
entity. You can call it a resource or a service or something else. But 
it's 1 parent -> multiple children. Not some other multiplicity (in UML 
speak).

> Let's not get all wound up over names. We can always assign it a more
> intuitive name if that is of concern to some. We can call it "Thing_1"
> for now;-)

Indeed the name can be changed. But I think there's also some confusion 
about what the name signifies.

--Jon

Received on Thursday, 10 July 2003 12:40:10 UTC