OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsdm message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [wsdm] Editorial comments

+1, I like the UML. We could simplify it a little be getting rid of the two layers it inherits from, but its a nice 'overview' of the capability.

I think its worth the effort to maintain.

Heather Kreger
STSM, Web Services Lead Architect for SWG Emerging Technologies
Author of "Java and JMX: Building Manageable Systems"
919-543-3211 (t/l 441) cell:919-496-9572

Inactive hide details for Mark Ellison <ellison@ieee.org>Mark Ellison <ellison@ieee.org>

          Mark Ellison <ellison@ieee.org>

          10/12/2004 10:22 AM


"Sedukhin, Igor S" <Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com>




Re: [wsdm] Editorial comments


Igor- if you are concerned about the XML getting out of synch with the UML.  Why don't you just generate the UML from the XML?


Mike Clements wrote:
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.
From: Sedukhin, Igor S [mailto:Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com]
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 1:13 PM
To: wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsdm] Editorial comments

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

GIF image

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]