glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org
[mailto:glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Maarten.Litmaath@cern.ch said: Please send corrections as needed.
A comment rather than a correction, on the question of parent/child relations ... logically it seems to me that the only thing for Resource which comes close to such a relation would be that Share is a child of Resource, given that it's the Resource of which the Share is a share (IYSWIM). However, that can't be represented in a tree since it's a *-* relation, and anyway doesn't help in placing Resource itself. The same kind of thing applies to Activity, since it represents some kind of interaction with the Resource. In that case the relation is 1-* but that probably doesn't help much ... (actually that doesn't seem entirely consistent, the table for Activity says that Resource is 0..1, but the diagram has *.) And of course Resource is supposed to be optional. We may also encounter a bit of a problem with Contact and Location as written. Contact is *-* with both Service and Domain, and both of those are *-1 with Location ... so if anything, Service and Domain are children of Location! Stephen -- Scanned by iCritical.