Yeah it helps and definitely isn’t something I’d gotten from the other content I’d read.

Just to be clear though, and I accept that since I don’t know fully understand Oslo this may be a naive question, are there going to be limits on how/where we express the behavior in the models in the second layer? In particular in a normal OO domain model behavior takes many forms and is spread throughout the model and I’m hoping Oslo will still support this approach.

Basically I’m hoping that at this level we don’t end up with a Customer “entity” in a model where that entity has no behavior and is operated on by WF/rules. Might not be a realistic issue with Oslo but it was my main worry when I looked at the examples out there (been there done that…).

there are three layers here.

the first is the “oslo” layer where you model any domain.

you could, of course, choose to model your business at this layer — in fact that is what we are doing — our business domain is the construction of applications.

we think a lot of ISVs and framework authors will model at this layer — as this is their business domain.

the second are the developer domains where a .Net developer will model applications.

It is at this layer, that most business domains for enterprises, etc. will be modeled.

This will be inclusive of behavior, etc. — as we are modeling behavior for you to use (WF, etc.).

that is a key point to get across — behavior is just another model — it is not something special in the system.

i hope that helps.