Second, an aggregation activity takes place to incorporate the atomic service A1. Again, there
is no clear indication of how many assets comprise the CO1 service. However, A1 and CO2
are depicted in the analysis diagram because of their important and unique contributions to the
solution that is being proposed.
USE CASE C: REDUCTION AND ELIMINATION. Exhibit 8.5 describes the subtraction of atomic
service A1 and the decomposition of the composite service C2 from the composite service C1.
These operations resulted in the transformation of C1 to an atomic service A-C1 because C1 no
longer aggregates subservices. This service transition, as may be recalled, is due to the analysis
modeling rule (previously discussed) that suggests transforming a composite service that does not
consist of internal services into an atomic entity.
162 Ch. 8 Service-Oriented Analysis Modeling
C1 A1
C2
A-C1
EXHIBIT 8.5 USE CASE C: REDUCTION AND
ELIMINATION??”DECOMPOSITION, SUBTRACTION, AND
TRANSFORMATION
USE CASE D: EXCHANGE. Exhibit 8.6 expresses a context swap between two composite services
??”C1 and C2. This is a classic business case in which services move from one composite entity to
the other. In this particular instance, atomic service A1 was decomposed from composite service
C2 and then aggregated into composite C1. Atomic service A2 is treated in the same fashion. It
is decomposed from composite service C1 and aggregated into composite service C2.
Pages:
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297