Hi David, I added some notes to your comments recorded in the following wiki page: http://forge.ogf.org/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.glue-wg/wiki/GLUE20Changes Please, have a look and tell me if you need further clarification. Cheers, Sergio
glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org
[mailto:glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Sergio Andreozzi said: I added some notes to your comments recorded in the following wiki page:
I agree with your comments, in particular the first two. We just spent two years agreeing the schema, so we shouldn't change anything now unless we find things which are clearly errors. Stephen -- Scanned by iCritical.
Hi David, On 12/mag/09, at 13:44, Sergio Andreozzi wrote:
I added some notes to your comments recorded in the following wiki page: http://forge.ogf.org/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.glue-wg/wiki/GLUE20Changes
for the last point of your comment, I added this possible solution: * remove them * add one more section in the table for "implied association ends" or similar; it could be useful for implementors to verify that all associations are taken; it improves readability since not everybody can be deeply familiar with UML as regards the redefinition of association ends, you may want to consider this paper: http://www.springerlink.com/content/518265x223032107/ Cheers, Sergio
glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org
[mailto:glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Sergio Andreozzi said: * add one more section in the table for "implied association ends" or similar; it could be useful for implementors to verify that all associations are taken; it improves readability since not everybody can be deeply familiar with UML
I think I would vote for that one, it's useful to have a full list of all possible relations. Stephen -- Scanned by iCritical.
participants (2)
-
Burke, S (Stephen) -
Sergio Andreozzi