RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-channel

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

Yea verily.   

One idea is to stay with a high level 
process description of ins, outs, controls, mechanisms 
from the venerable IDEF days.   Or maybe 
just do an object messaging schema without ... oh gad...
We did this in phase 0 as an exercise and it 
kept being pulled toward an object-orientation 
because it is a) known b) practiced c) a nice 
way to encapsulate complexity.

I can feel the fire... so difficult to take 
Ms Weasley's advice and not mess with magical 
artifacts that won't tell me where their brains are.

I guess the first thing we need is a problem statement 
to get a requirement from.  Care to take a shot at 
that off the cuff?

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Nixon [mailto:rnixon@qdyn.com]

Thanks Len, I sure hope so (Can we do it without inventing YetAnotherOOPLang).

I'll have to run through some of the notes on process dynamics that I've been accumulating over the years to fill out the discussion as we go.  Of course this ties in with gestures and a whole slew of other things. I want to avoid getting caught in a never ending "attractor" of "complication" that pulls us
off coarse.  So we'll have to be careful.   "Here be Dragons..."