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

[Gary Mazz]

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 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>