| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 122.1 | ...a real tree killer... | TOOK::DENSMORE | get to the verbs | Tue May 08 1990 13:40 | 25 |
| There are a number of sources. What do you need it for? Your need may
dictate the source. The possible sources are:
1. FILES::NET$ARCH[FIELDTEST] has the architecture specs which are
the basis for the other sources.
2. DSSR (the "Registry") has the MS files for NCL.
3. We have the MS files for MCC. These are pretty much identical
to the NCL MS's but have additional information specific to MCC.
4. There will be an MRM (I forget the meaning of the initials)
which describes the entire interface to Phase V AM, including
directives, attributes, entities, exceptions, datatypes...
I say "will be" because the current version (~800 pages) was
completed last October and has not been updated to match the
current state of the architectures/implementations. The work
to update this monster will start when we hit EFT update.
My suggestion would be to get the arch specs (or MS's depending on
which form would be most useful) if you have an immediate need for the
information. If you can wait until June-July, the MRM tome would be
the choice.
Mike
|
| 122.2 | Not a good pointer Mike | CAPN::SYLOR | Architect = Buzzword Generator | Tue May 08 1990 14:56 | 18 |
| I wouldn't go any of those places.
If you want the *real* entity model. It's in
FILES::EMA$:[FIELDTEST]ENTITY_MODEL_T1_0_0.doc
That's restricted to members of the EMARG. Contact Kathy Klotz (CHATTY::KATHY)
to join. Anyone working on MCC in DEC ought to be a member.
If you only want a description of what's in the model, there's a paper
summarizing the entity model available. Try looking at
FILES::EMA$:[public]Readme.First
That will get you going...
PS, under NO circumstance read the version of the Entity Model provided with
the MCC SRM. That was edited for external consumption, and many key details
removed.
Mark
|
| 122.3 | | TOOK::DENSMORE | get to the verbs | Wed May 09 1990 15:36 | 10 |
| hmmm. i read .0 to mean the "entity model for phase v" not "THE entity
model". based on the real requirement, one of the pointers is right!
entity model for phase v => the dna phase v objects described in terms
of the entity model...pointers in .1 apply
THE entity model => the specification of the model...pointers in .2
apply
mike
|
| 122.4 | What Are Words For? | DRUMS::FEHSKENS | len, EMA, LKG2-2/W10, DTN 226-7556 | Wed Aug 01 1990 16:23 | 17 |
| It is because of just this sort of confusion that we architecture types
insist on calling them "management specifications", not "entity
models". What .0 is really asking for is the Phase V management
specification. If you ask any of the DNA architects for "the entity
model for phase V", you will get exactly what Mark described.
I know this is like trying to get people to use "imply" and "infer"
correctly, but *please*, call them "management specifications",
*not* "entity models". There is one and only one entity model, and
it is a model, not an architecture specification. Management
specifications are architecture specifications.
My apologies for replying so late (what's a few months), but I've been
busy.
len.
|