Re: [humanmarkup] ClassHierarchy: purpose clarification

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Yeah, that makes sense, and that was all it ever was intended to be 
at this point. It does not need to be harmonized in its current form, 
but after the schemas are finalized, a new version that is harmonized 
needs to be constructed.

Ciao,
Rex

At 12:41 PM -0500 10/30/01, Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga wrote:
>Hi Rex,
>
>I wanted to clarify the role of the "HumanMarkup ClassHierarchy Diagram".
>The ClassHierarchy, XML Schema, and HM.frameworks documents are not
>synchronized (yet).  Nonetheless, as Len mentioned, UML can't be used to
>properly describe the XML specifications because UML describes an object
>model (not so much a data model).  However, the UML class structure *can* be
>used to help describe how applications can use the XML or RDF data model.
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/humanmarkup/files/Conceptual/Classes/Table.of.
>Classes.Properties/humanMLClassTreeSchematic2.jpg
>
>
>In other words, we can use the UML model to *assist* a programmer utilize
>the XML/RDF specifications to go from:
>
>"XML and RDF Technical Specifications"
>
>     TO         ===> (via HumanMarkup UML ClassHierarchy model)
>
>"Actual Applications"
>---------------------------------
>
>Does this make sense?
>
>-----------------------------
>Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga
>
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>


-- 
Rex Brooks
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
Email: rexb@starbourne.com
Tel: 510-849-2309
Fax: By Request