Re: [xtm-wg] Conceptual Model

[Sam Hunting <sam_hunting@yahoo.com>]

[lars]
> The model I personally would prefer would be based on nodes with
> named and typed properties. 

That seems to be the area in which a number of people are converging,
especially when you consider that each node could have a property
explaining which other nodes it was connected to.

> Since none of the currently available formalisms seem to be accepted
> by a sufficiently large audience, perhaps the approach taken by the >
> XML Infoset, which essentially has no formalism, would be the best.

I have a little more faith in the people and the process than that.
Further, I think a formalism is critical for our "clients" and for
interoperabilty.

> think a brief requirements document would be very useful indeed.

Since XML 1.0 and also XTM have a bulleted list of requirements, I
think we can follow their lead. Why don't you put such a bulleted list
together and post it to the main list?

S.


=====
<!-- "To imagine a language is to imagine a form of life."
     - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations -->

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
Make good on the promise you made at graduation to keep
in touch. Classmates.com has over 14 million registered
high school alumni--chances are you'll find your friends!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/n4HqaC/DMUCAA/4ihDAA/2n6YlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/