Hi Laurence, Laurence Field wrote:

I was looking at the document and thinking hard about the service, resource, element relationships. What we have at the moment is a generic service entity linked to the computing resource which are both encapsulated with the computing element.

What I would suggest is to have a generic service entity linked to a "computing service" entity. at the moment, the computing service is linked to service via inheritance; are you suggesting a different relationship?

The share, execution and application environments would then be linked to the computing service.

since exec/application environments can be related to many services, then we do not have a way to identify all these concepts in a unique and persistent way. At the moment, the main reason for which I find the element useful is a way to identify all the "concept instances" defining a computing functionality of a certain site (adminDomain) in a unique and persistent way. My feeling is that the ID is useful for management/organizational purposes. And also conceptually, I found it sound to see share/compResource/ExecEnv/ApplEnv/CompService as composing this Computing Element entity (probably it suits the system definition: A group of independent but interrelated elements comprising a unified whole). What is your opinion/view on this? Cheers, Sergio