OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

regrep message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Subject: [regrep] Re: Core Components Specifications




Philip Goatly wrote:

> The model therefore should be the starting place.
>>>>>>>>

Actually,  to be technically correct,  the Registry Information Model
(RIM) is the starting point.  It can then point at the UML Artifact and
let users know that this UML artifact is "Associated" with an XML
artifact.

Those who write code to work during design phase and discovery phase
will likely need XML as well as UML to work with.

> Then all artifacts
> constructed from the model will be consistent.
> If one starts with the artifacts, what will enforce consistency between them
> ? and which artifact should be the driver ?
>>>>>
The new Architecture clearly uses the models as the top level artifact
and allows many syntax specific structures to be associated with it
including the CCR/I work which is of paramount importance.  The final
generation of business payloads from contextually constrained/modified
core components requires a programatically grokkable instantiation of
the core components.  THe logical choice would be XML, however the
archtiecture does not constrain it to such since XML itself may be
replaced.  

Duane Nickull
 
> My 2 pence worth
> 
> Cheers, Phil
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "bhaugen" <linkage@interaccess.com>
> To: "David RR Webber - XMLGlobal" <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>
> Cc: "CRAWFORD, Mark" <MCRAWFORD@lmi.org>; "''Ebtwg-Ccs (list)' '"
> <ebtwg-ccs@lists.ebtwg.org>; "''eBTWG (list)' '" <ebtwg@lists.ebtwg.org>;
> "'Hermes Hartmut '" <Hartmut.Hermes@MCH11.siemens.de>; "'OASIS Registry List
> '" <regrep@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 1:31 PM
> Subject: Re: Core Components Specifications
> 
> > From: David RR Webber
> > >Message text written by bhaugen
> > >>Would it help to get out of these endless and fruitless
> > >>argument loops to agree that:
> > >>* UML is for models that are independent of
> > >>  implementation technology
> > >>* XML is an implementation technology
> > >>* People can work at whichever level
> > >>  is most appropriate for what they
> > >>  are trying to do
> >
> > >Exactly.  And trying to mandate one or the other is
> > >equally illogical.
> >
> > Depends on what you're trying to do.
> > James Clark, one of the founders of RELAX-NG
> > which you consistently advocate, says:
> >
> > http://www.thaiopensource.com/relaxng/design.html
> >
> > "I would argue that trying to make an XML schema
> > language also be a modeling language is not a good idea.
> > An XML schema language has to be concerned with
> > syntactic details, such as whether to use elements
> > or attributes, which are irrelevant to the conceptual
> > model. Instead, I believe it is better to use a standard
> > modeling language such as UML, which provides full
> > multiple inheritance, to do conceptual modeling,
> > and then generate schemas and class definitions from
> > the model"
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> > manager: <http://lists.ebtwg.org/ob/adm.pl>
> >
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.ebtwg.org/ob/adm.pl>

-- 
CTO, XML Global Technologies
****************************
Transformation - http://www.xmlglobal.com/prod/foundation/
ebXML Central - http://www.xmlglobal.com/prod/central/


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Powered by eList eXpress LLC