[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms

• To: 'Leigh Dodds' <ldodds@i...>, xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 09:15:03 -0600

Agree and appreciated.  We got into this almost 
as a historical review but may be discovering the 
technology of AFs has a place beside the others 
and what you suggest is exactly what we should 
come out of this with:  a map.  I'm not 
quite sure we have all the pieces of the puzzle 
yet.  As I said, if sharing behavioral semantics 
is a goal, none of these solutions seem more 
than just a means to point to documents that 
describe semantics.  The LowlyNotation is the 
only one that actually references an executable.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Leigh Dodds [mailto:ldodds@i...]


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@i...]
> Sent: 31 January 2002 14:58
> To: 'Lars Marius Garshol'; xml-dev
> Subject: RE:  Co-operating with Architectural Forms
[...]
> It may be that AFs are not THE solution, but a solution 
> that like so many others (relax, xml schemas, dtds, 
> xslt) and so on, once understood and implemented, 
> have a niche in which they thrive.  If there are 
> overlaps in functionality with other specifications, 
> so what? 

True, but it's useful to find where the overlaps are, and 
the environments where each solution is better. 

I'll try to summarise the points made in this thread and circulate 
it back through the list.

• Prev by Date: RE: But they cheated(was RE: misprocessing namespaces) (was Re: There i s a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• Next by Date: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Previous by thread: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Next by thread: RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread