-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
IM-003 Data model negotiation #26
Comments
Hi Jim, Again, believing that SACM defines one single "SACM information model".... Nancy. |
I fall with Nancy on this one, fwiw. High-level roles and capabilities of the components goes in architecture, operations goes in information model, and this is a requirement against the operations. |
My problem with this is that if it is a requirement on the IM. I have a tendency to consider it to be an attribute that must be defined in the IM that can then be queried. Putting into the architecture makes me think of it in terms of an operation that can be done independent of IMs and DMs. |
Hmmm....so I think it may be needed for both the interfaces and the data structures? e.g. IM and operations of data model? |
That would probably be clearer. |
I've updated the IM-003 sentence to read: in -05.... |
Version -05 |
Updated in -06. |
Fixed in -06 |
Version -04
Why should an IM care about this? It makes more sense that this would be an architectural requirement along the lines of:
ARCH-????: Data model negotiation: SACM's Architecture MUST allow for the support of multiple data models for any given Information Model. There MUST be support for a consumer to determine what Data Models exist within a deployment that support a given Information Model.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: