Thanks for clearing it up Sergio,
and the ComputingElement is an abstraction of the Batch System,
in the new version, the batch system is associated to the computing resource. I realize that we have to clean up the properties list (moving the batch system specific from computing element to computing resource).
Having the batch system properties available in the new CE definition made me think that the CE is still represents a batch system. That's why made a comment about it again.
then there should be a direct >
association between the ComputingShare and the ComputingElement. Having the ComputingShare linked to the ComputingService will introduce a number of replicated instances of the same ComputingShare on all the ComputingServices which is not really necessary. Attached is the diagram again to refresh your memory on what I think it should look like. Anyway, just my 2 cents..
I think the relationship between a share and the service is needed because you can expose a certain share via a certain service, while another share with another service. You should be able to know which share for which resource is accessible via a certain service interface.
The reason why I also suggested that the share be a part of (or directly linked to) the entity which represents the batch system (this used to be the ComputingElement but now the ComputingResource) is due to the fact that a batch system won't really be a batch system if it doesn't define/manage any queues. After giving your explanation above, it makes sense now why you have the link between the CE and the ComputingService. I'm interested to see how all of these will be implemented in XML Schema. Cheers, Gerson