Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
The Topic Maps papers from InfoTek also have a diagramming grammar. There is a wonderful one for the class Thing. Sort of like Topic or Resource, it is the name that should not be named. Most of us have been in the MoreMetaThanThou debates. Then there are the Ambitions but that is the usual "Caution: Mammals at Work" problem. Ok, yes, we get a sourmash of tools that we have to sort out. Here's why I ask: when we sit down to do one of these language initiatives, windy goals and all, it would be nice for OASIS or the W3C to say, "here is the highest level of abstraction we need, and here is how we want you to document that" so those of us who are using multiple languages in system aggregates have an easier time of it. A formatting layout with some standard topics and look don't quite get the job done. At least in PDES, they demanded the use of EXPRESS. Something like that... Len http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jborden@m...] What was the question again? Oh yeah: how do we pick a tool and stick with it for the duration of the project... since none of these things really work together at all in their current state, you just pick the tool you like ... if you don't want to think you can simply use "Biztalk" and not worry about any of the three because they are going to do it their own way "microsoft schema language" in any case. Ok but suppose you want to do a little thinking on your own, what we need to do is to sit down and write down these terms and relate them in a logical fashion. that's why I started to write the "schema algebra" thingie, so that I could try to make logical sense of all this stuff... if we can at least agree amongst ourselves what all these terms mean, then we can start thinking about tools that might interoperate.
|
