OK, here is a slightly different view using UML. In this view
metadata is the higher level abstraction, while contract is a more
specialized abstraction.
-- Greg
Duane Nickull wrote:
> Francis:
>
> Cool! This is perhaps a place where using UML to avoid ambiguity may be
> good.
>
> If I read your diagram, it asserts that "realized as" implies an
> "abstract-concrete" association. I had viewed that the other concepts
> are more of a "can be aggregated as part of" association. My
> observation is that usually the abstract-concrete association is often
> used for mapping a specific protocol or specification to a concept in a
> reference model or reference architecture.
> I guess the question we need to consider is "what is the association
> between the higher level abstract concept of metadata and specialized
> metadata concepts?".
>
> Anyone care to take a stab at this as a UML class diagram (or answering
> the question)?
>
> Cheers (and beers next week)
>
> Duane
>
>
>
>
> Francis McCabe wrote:
>
>> I prefer the following diagram :)
>>
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> On Apr 19, 2005, at 9:51 AM, Duane Nickull wrote:
>>
>>> <Drawing1.png>
