[Smwg] SOS and common header -- follow up re class diagram
Barkley, Erik J (3970)
erik.j.barkley at jpl.nasa.gov
Tue Jan 13 22:29:19 UTC 2015
To follow up a bit more and perhaps maybe along the lines of John's comments at the telecon earlier today, it strikes that we may want to take more of the "encapsulated" approach re the common header definition. We obviously are putting the parameter table in a normative annex for use/reference by other CSSM info entity recommendations and it strikes me what we probably want to do the same thing with the UML. In particular if we consider other info entity books, will they end up having to repeat the same diagramming technique re the more general service management entity/header/body construct? It seems that this could be error prone and somewhat tedious re subsequent maintenance. So perhaps it makes more sense to introduce an abstract stereotype for the service management info entity and then have the "main" SOS UML have a singleton inheritance with the abstract stereotype definition now also part of the normative annex? What do you think?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the SMWG