> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Gregg Wonderly
> Sent: Wednesday, 01 March 2006 3:15 AM
[...]
> So, if I wanted to find someone selling Cheddar Cheese, how
> would I do that?
You would compose the complex concept "Someone who sells cheddar cheese"
out of the atomic concepts (whose names we already agree on).
> I would hope that I could just do a Jini lookup using the
> interface named BuyCheddarCheese.
But this way we would have to agree on the names of every single complex
type - whereas the alternative and more decoupled approach is where we
only have to agree on the names of the atomic concepts and on the
operators that we use to compose them. Some refer to "minimal
ontological comittment" to describe this.
Less formal pattern-based approaches really try to achieve the same
thing - i.e. "duck typing".
There are well-known tradeoffs of course.
> This is an important design issue. Is it more important that
> goods can travel the network or the transaction?
I don't understand this point.
Cheers,
Murray
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated-architecture/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
