[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [xtm-wg] [XTM-UCS] Re: What's next
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~> No blistered feet. No crowd. No travel. Intraware invites you to attend a virtual tradeshow: Ensuring Scalable and Secure E-Business Systems. http://click.egroups.com/1/9219/4/_/337252/_/969306422/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------_-> I pass on Ann Wrightson's reply. Ann, where are the answers to the surveys, are they available for independent analysis? Thanks, Andrius Kulikauskas *********************************** "What's next?" is a good question. I agree with Patrick that extensive/comprehensive analyses have to be out of scope in our timescale. I believe that the categorization of XTM usecases which is emerging is very very useful; if we did no more as XTM-UCS that would be a good contribution. I am very wary of taking any one usecase (or even a small set) forward into say a functional analysis, because that would load the XTM process with a specialized collection of precise requirements, which would probably serve as extremely unhelpful "requirements bloat" on the overall outcome of the XTM process. (eg IMHO the XML Query activity is suffering badly from this problem.) So, let's give due value to the simple categorization of XTM uses which we now have, adding to those in my last email knowledge modelling and support of knowledge management (thanks to Steve Pepper for pointing out I should put this one in too). So here's a revised "XTM-UCS list" of usecase-based requirements on XTM maps: 1. Navigating complex content: XTM supports supplementary structure and information providing specific support for applications providing navigation/access functionality 2. Topical organization: XTM supports supplementary structure and information encoding ontologies, taxonomies, indexes etc. 3. Knowledge modelling: XTM supports supplementary structure and information providing specific support for knowledge management 4. XTM can "Interchangeably represent" (words from 13250) the structure & information in (1) (2) and (3). Now I'm going to be controversial, possibly: I have considerable confidence, both from my participation in the abstract modelling WG, and now further strengthened by the time I've spent with the usecase-survey material, that if XTM meets the abstract/conceptual structure which we already have, it will be adequate for uses 1,2,3. Therefore, there is no point muddying the waters with further detailed requirements in these areas - we have good reason to trust what has gone before, including the wide-ranging discussions which fed into 13250. So, let UCS now stress to the rest of XTM that the sole remaining task is to ensure that there is a well-designed, fit-for-purpose XML-technology realization of the conceptual model - and let us also take care *not* to skew the balance of the overall design by stressing any one specific use above others. Ann W. To Post a message, send it to: xtm-wg@eGroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC