[xtm-wg] Re: parallel development of syntax and concept models

["Luis J. Martinez" <luisjm@luisjm.com>]

[Steven R Newcomb <srn@techno.com> on Sun, 27 Aug 2000 11:46:30 -0500]

Thanks for explaining your point of view. I understand that the only
way for us to finish our work by the Dec. deadline is to work in
parallel. But, I was concern that the subgroups were not
understanding each others point of view. I certainly was not
understanding the interchange modeling subgroup's. So, I appreciate you
taking the time to express your way of thinking. I hate to continue
working relying only on my own opinions without considering others.

When you said:

"(1) UML models for the abstract expression of constraints on
    APIs to an information set (such as the information set
    of topic maps), and"

I don't think the purpose of the UML conceptual model is to express
constraints on an API. I think that the conceptual models are to
express the Platonic forms of topicmaps independent of OS, programming
language, or platform. I know that by definition that is impossible to
accomplish. But, at least that is the purpose. I think that is where
we disagree. Our views of the usefulness of the conceptual model is
very different. 

Also, i think an object model is more abstract than a DTD. You can use a DTD
as a modeling language but it is too ambiguous to define a structure
by itself. 


Best regards,

--
Luis J. Martinez
IT Consultant
email: luisjm@luisjm.com

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Need EDA tools on a short term or peak load basis?
Take a free 7 day trial!
http://click.egroups.com/1/8464/4/_/337252/_/967405047/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

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

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