[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [xtm-wg] Promotion of Conceptual Model
[Graham] > > I think it is critical that the model be in the main part of the > > spec. This, > > as steve said, is the isness, the essence of what XTM is. It > anambiguously > > conveys what the syntax represents. > [Michel] > We still need to get a clear prose explanation of the model, which fully > expresses > the "unambiguousness" and the exact relation with all pieces of > the syntax. > This is what we are expecting you to provide to us. The UML slides are not > enough. > We need more explanations, to make this available to a wider audience than > the > XTM group. > It is precisely the lack of prose for the conceptual model which would worry me about the inclusion of the model in the main body of the specification. Those of us that have been involved in this effort from the beginning know that the conceptual model bears a very important relationship to the syntax specification. But our job now is to publish to a wide audience who have had no involvement in the development of the spec. If we have clear, unambiguous **prose** to accompany the diagrams (preferably preceded with the words "This is all much simpler than it looks..." :-) then the conceptual model will play an important part in the specification. If the prose is not there or if it is not clear enough, or the conceptual model is underspecified, it may well serve to obfuscate the simplicity of topic maps. Most XML specs 'suffer' from a lack of conceptual detail. But XML hackers don't want conceptual detail. They want syntax and examples. The RDF spec took the trouble of trying to outline its conceptual model. The result...no-one except those involved in the development of the spec understood that it was really that simple...it just *looked* Too Hard (tm). I think all of this is just to echo Michel's > We'll have to deal with the "self-explanatory" character of the syntax > until we get this written down. We'll publish whatever we would have been > able to get > and review in 15 days from now. With the addition of we should only publish what we get and review and believe will be required for our audience. Anyway, what is wrong with a separate Conceptual Model document ? It speaks to a different audience and serves a different purpose and we (unlike ISO) are not producing bound, saleable copy, so we don't have a commercial requirement to bundle everything together. Cheers, Kal -------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~> eLerts It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free! http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/337252/_/974371042/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------_-> 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