[occi-wg] OCCI Core ready for public comment version

[Ralf Nyren]

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 at 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 at ogf.org on behalf of Gary Mazz
> Sent: Wed 10/11/2010 08:34
> To: occi-wg at 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 at 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 at ogf.org
>> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
>
>
>