Editorial comments
It's easy for us to underestimate the value of the UML
models since we already understand the spec. I find UML more intuitive
and easier to read than XML.
It was only a few months ago when I was reading these
specs for the first time. When I was doing that the 2 things that
helped me the most in understanding it were the written text and the
UML. The XML is an essential normative part of the spec, but it is
virtually useless in gaining understanding. XML is intuitively readable
only to robots and vulcans.
Pictures are useful. If UML is too detailed and expensive
to keep up to date, let's replace it with some kind of non-normative
block diagram. That way we get the intuitive advantages of pictures
without the hassles of maintaining detailed and redundant UML.
Just my $0.02.
I suggest that we remove all UML models
which define the capabilities throughout MUWS and MOWS specs because
1) it is hard to keep XML and UML
syncronized
2) the information in UML is redundant
to the normative definitions of the XML
3) the value of these models is not
incredibly useful for understanding the specs
4) it makes sense to focus on XML
information definitions and exchanges which is what gives us
interoperability
-- Igor Sedukhin .. (
igor.sedukhin@ca.com )
-- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza,
Islandia, NY 11788