RE: LegalEntity Class (Was: Re: HumanML_Write: Several responses andsome reflection....)

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

Title: LegalEntity Class (Was: Re: HumanML_Write: Several res

I suggest that if the UML models are to be pursued as a design tool, these will have to

be the main focus, not the schemas or RDF or any software under development.  The

reason is of course that UML is purported to be a conceptual model from which other

implementation mappings can be made.   That's the theory.  The dilemma is that

these can easily be considered as object-oriented designs, not data designs as

we discovered in Phase 0. 

 

We did a few rounds of discussion in Phase 0 on this subject, but now that there

are fresh members with different backgrounds, this should be revisited.  The approach

from the Schemas perspective is to create a set of types that can be toolkits for

creating HumanML documents/messages.   For this to work, they have to be

usable by any implementation of the UML conceptual layers.  A schema, per se,

is not a class design though one can construe that by considering abstract

types as class definitions, but even then, these really are document designs

or a way to define a namespace of markup that can be added into an existing

document namespace.   Today, the schema draft collects types from the

semiotics field (eg, signs, symbols, etc. for describing meaningfulness

and some categories for environment, chronemics, proxemics, as well

as gestural types (haptics)) and a hodge of identification types or surface

characteristics.   These are useful but there is no implication about the

implementation or processing of these.   However, without some very

explicit notion of how HumanML markup is to be used, I think we have a

disconnect between the Schemas and the UML.   That means, architecturally,

we are in the weeds and are talking around each other.

 

Comments from the list members are solicited on this subject. 

 

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 7:19 AM
To: Joseph Norris; OASIS Comment; OASIS TC MAIN
Subject: LegalEntity Class (Was: Re: HumanML_Write: Several responses and some reflection....)

Hi Folks,

One of the things I completely missed while getting back up to speed yesterday was the fact that we were contemplating a java version of HumanML_Write, so to correct that, let me mention that the UML Classes and Properties Table, while incomplete as is all of our work can be readily converted into this app because the Class Structure is right there. It would, of course, not require the entire Class Structure, and would require a significant amount of work on the LegalEntity Class which I have yet to add to it, as well as a great deal of thought, which I am currently undertaking, to create accurate input/contextual modifiers/->perception->action chain within the current Taxonomical Tree.

I have a large backlog of work, and the big local graphics TradeShow, Seybold, in SF where I need to make an appearance and get logged into various ongoing databases in my vocational niche, graphic designer. So it is doubtful that I will actually get this batch of work done before the weekend, and this is in addition to work I need to do for the TC and the HumanMarkup.org we are currently reconstituting to provide material support for the TC and the HumanMarkup Initiative in general.

So I would like to invite some help by having y'all post up what you think is needed in the levels of the LegalEntity Class for a Human Object Instance of the Human Class.