Re: Why should the schema be in the bounded context?

That's how I see it as well, but thought that I had missed something.

--- In [email protected], "William G." <vangool.w@...> wrote:
>
> As I see it, a Bounded Context is a virtual boundary around a set of
> artifacts that are produced and maintained within a project. These
> artifacts come in the form of documentation, code, assemblies, database
> schema's etc. In the ideal situation, each artifact belongs to one and only
> one Bounded Context. I think this is what Vaughn means when he states that
> if you have control over the artifacts, then keep them aligned with your
> BC's. (In some cases this is not possible - for instance, when you have to
> integrate with external systems or databases that were defined and build
> without your BC separation in mind).
> 
> The ubiquitous language is an agreement between all stakeholders that act
> within a certain Bounded Context on certain names and definitions of and
> inside these artifacts - the sole purpose of the language is to minimize
> communication- and translation-failures between the actors and
> stakeholders. If you create a glossary/dictionary to support the use of the
> UL, then this can in itself be considered an artifact produced within the
> BC, but the BC is not limited to contain only UL-related items.
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:44 AM, tomas.jansson@... <
> tomas.jansson@...> wrote:
> 
> > **
> >
> >
> > I'm reading Implementing DDD by Vaughn Vernon and have a couple of
> > questions. I take them in separate posts so I don't mix the threads.
> >
> > In the book he says you should keep the schema, if you have implemented it
> > yourself, inside the boundary of the bounded context. That goes against the
> > earlier statement that the bounded context should match the lingustic. I
> > really doubt that the domain expert will talk about the database schema.
> >
> > I guess what he tries to emphasize is that there are some technical
> > aspects part of the bounded context as well that might not be part of the
> > ubiquitous language. For example, if we have somekind of implementation
> > detail like a factory for creating something it is part of bounded context
> > but maybe not of the language you use when talking to the domain expert. To
> > the domain expert you only mention the "thing" the factory creates.
> >
> > Short version, why should the schema be part of the bounded context?
> >
> >  
> >
>




------------------------------------