Hi Roy et al,
I really do not think it is possible to define the architecture for the VObs in a single picture or even a single document. An architecture needs to show a lot of things, including:
: how people will use the VObs: so Use Case diagram needed : what the VObs is made up of: so Component diagram : how the bits interact: so Activity diagrams
I think these are probably the core documents/diagrams needed (along with standards for interface parameters: eg VOQL and VOTable) and they cannot be represented on a single diagram.
Doug's comments about the AstroGrid layer diagram are a little misplaced as it is only intended as a layer diagram. This is more of a 'who's responsible' sort of diagram, showing, for instance that a distributed file/table storage facility ought to be part of the standard grid/web service middleware rather than a specialist piece of VObs infrastructure.
The component diagram that Doug was arguing for was previously part of our
architecture: see the model at:
http://wiki.astrogrid.org/bin/view/Agdoc/ArchOverview
but the links between components were unclear and confusing. In a service
oriented architecture, any component can call any other, so Activity
diagrams are better for this and they are derived from the use cases.
(The rest of that doc shows some typical deployments of components which might also be useful for Vobs.)
I think any single document which tries to mix components, interfaces, document standards and usage in some sort of hierarchical diagram is bound to be more confusing than illuminating.
Cheers,
Tony.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-architecture-at-eso.org
> [mailto:owner-architecture-at-eso.org] On Behalf Of Roy Williams
> Sent: 16 March 2004 16:32
> To: architecture-at-ivoa.net
> Subject: IVO architecture
>
> I have been tasked to make a statement of the "Architecture
> of the IVO" so that our national projects can try to stay on
> the same track as everyone else. I would like to make
> something that we can all agree to -- otherwise it is just a
> Roy/NVO statement and not really international at all.
>
> I have decided to take the following path.
> (1) To build a 1-page diagram of the general architecture
> (see attached).
> (2) To describe the components and how they interact (not
> started yet).
>
> So what I would like is to first reach an agreement on the
> Big Diagram (1), then try to get the working group leads to
> write some text describing their pieces of it. So far, I have
> integrated the architecture diagrams from Hanisch (NVO) and
> from Linde (Astrogrid2).
>
> Therefore, please take a look at this attached picture, and
> ask if your view of the VO architecture fits in it somewhere.
>
> Please respond by comments to this group rather than by
> modifying the PPT.
>
> Thank you
> Roy
>
> --------
> Caltech Center for Advanced Computing Research roy-at-cacr.caltech.edu
> 626 395 3670
>
Received on 2004-03-29Z13:02:08