Actually, I am not happy with the constrain word here.
The data-model, for example, is not constrained by the semantics of
the service -- it *is* part of the semantics.
Frank
On Jun 1, 2005, at 8:50 AM, Matthew MacKenzie wrote:
> Ok, I'm happy with constrain as well.
>
> -matt
> Behera, Prasanta wrote:
>
>
>> That would be the term of choice for me too.
>> (Sorry. Didn't get a chance respond early)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> /Prasanta
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Peter F Brown [mailto:] Sent: Tuesday,
>> May 31, 2005 6:56 PM
>> To: 'SOA-RM'
>> Subject: RE: [soa-rm] My stab at an SOA-RM concept map
>>
>> Surely semantics "constrain" rather than "govern" or "define"?
>> Specifically,
>> they constrain meaning within a specified domain ontology
>>
>> -Peter
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Behera, Prasanta [mailto:] Sent: 31 May 2005
>> 20:03
>> To: Matthew MacKenzie; Francis McCabe
>> Cc: SOA-RM
>> Subject: RE: [soa-rm] My stab at an SOA-RM concept map
>>
>> #1: Can u expand a little bit on the semantics of "govern"? Semantics
>> "define" and "govern" policy.
>>
>> #2: The relationship between "Data Model" and "Services" -- should
>> it be
>> more of a association type (line instead of a arrow)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> /Prasanta
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Matthew MacKenzie [mailto:]
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 9:13 AM
>> To: Francis McCabe
>> Cc: SOA-RM
>> Subject: Re: [soa-rm] My stab at an SOA-RM concept map
>>
>> Having some problems with arrows in this tool, but I added another
>> relationship to contract (attached).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
