I thought associative composition was only used in "conceptual diagrams". Inheritance associations are normally included in "design class diagrams". Very different levels and roles.. -gary On 11/11/2010 12:45 PM, Andy Edmonds wrote:
Category attributes are there by association (a type of inheritance by associative composition).
Andy andy.edmonds.be <http://andy.edmonds.be>
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 17:33, Gary Mazz <garymazzaferro@gmail.com <mailto:garymazzaferro@gmail.com>> wrote:
I think the real issue is the disconnect between the Resource and the Category. Resource extends Entity and Entity is a stand alone abstract class. There is no inheritance from Category, so no Category attributes in Resource.. We need a generalization relationship between Category and Entity.
Multiplicity and Set(s) are implementation details, possibly not appropriate for this model.
cheers, gary
On 11/11/2010 2:09 AM, Ralf Nyren wrote: > True, overall ok but the UML-to-Java tool does not seem to have taken > the association multiplicity into account. As Thijs says, there should > be Set<Entity> etc. > > regards, Ralf > > On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 09:55:13 +0100, Thijs Metsch > <tmetsch@platform.com <mailto:tmetsch@platform.com>> wrote: > >> >> Generally looks good I guess - thanks for this Gary - very helpful! >> >> I'm just wondering if the Entity's mixin attribtue should be a >> set...That's what the core diagram says at least... >> >> Thanks, >> >> -Thijs >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: occi-wg-bounces@ogf.org <mailto:occi-wg-bounces@ogf.org> on behalf of Gary Mazz >> Sent: Wed 10/11/2010 08:34 >> To: occi-wg@ogf.org <mailto:occi-wg@ogf.org> >> Subject: Re: [occi-wg] OCCI Core ready for public comment version >> Hi, >> >> I tool the opportunity to auto generate code from the UML. We should >> take a look at it and see if this is what we really mean. >> >> >> cheers, >> gary >> >> >> On 11/8/2010 7:50 PM, Michael Behrens wrote: >>> The diagram looks good & reads well to me. >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Ralf Nyren wrote: >>>> Michael, >>>> >>>> Please find attached a version of the core model with Kind split into >>>> two separate classes. Was it something like this you were looking for? >>>> >>>> To me it makes sense to do the split. Before we had the abstraction >>>> between Category and Kind it was tempting to stuff all functionality >>>> into the Category. I do not think it is anymore. >>>> >>>> I think this, exactly as you say Michael, definitely help clear >>>> things up a bit :) >>>> >>>> If there are any objections I need them asap, if this is going in I >>>> need to start updating the core doc tomorrow. And if anyone has a >>>> better name than "Mixin" please speak up! >>>> >>>> regards, Ralf >>>> >>>> On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 05:35:34 +0100, Michael Behrens >>>> <michael.behrens@r2ad.com <mailto:michael.behrens@r2ad.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I see that the core UML model has been updated, interesting changes. >>>>> The name >>>>> changes look okay to me (Entity, Kind). >>>>> >>>>> 2-cents: Structural and Non-Structural concept might be confusing to >>>>> folks >>>>> reading it the first time through. Perhaps its purpose >>>>> (extensibility) could be >>>>> stated before their definitions in a non normative manner. Lastly, >>>>> would adding >>>>> two subclass of kind (structured/unstructured) help clear things a >>>>> bit? (The >>>>> text seems to speak as if there are two subclasses). >>>>> >>>> >>>> core_model.png >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Michael Behrens >>> R2AD, LLC >>> (571) 594-3008 (cell) >>> (703) 714-0442 (land) >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> occi-wg mailing list >>> occi-wg@ogf.org <mailto:occi-wg@ogf.org> >>> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg >> >> >> > >
_______________________________________________ occi-wg mailing list occi-wg@ogf.org <mailto:occi-wg@ogf.org> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg