• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 02:08:27 -0500
• In-reply-to: <"020124191326Z.WT11467.205*/PN=Pete.Kirkham/OU=Technical/OU=NOTES/O=BAe MAA/PRMD=BAE/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/"@MHS>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <"020124191326Z.WT11467.205*/PN=Pete.Kirkham/OU=Technical/OU=NOTES/O=BAe MAA/PRMD=BAE/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/"@MHS>

On Thursday 24 January 2002 08:47 am, Pete Kirkham wrote:
> gtn@r...
>
> >The "domain model" as you put it, is roughly equivalent to a
> >vocabulary with an associated set of semantics. So long as you
> > agree on the terms, you can communicate, and that is the whole
> > point.
>
> The domain model has no fixed language, only semantics.
>
> The abstract information model (what we are going to represent X as)
> is a viewpoint on this domain model (what we know about X).
>
> The AIM may be an ontological framework or an EXPRESS or a MOF L1
> model (such as a UML domain model class diagram; UML fudges this a
> bit by using the same language for its domain models [which are
> abstract subsets of the information in a domain, not models of a
> whole domain] and for application constructs).

Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

It's interesting you mention CASE and STEP. I did some work in that a 
fair while ago and it seemed like there were few success stories. 
Seems like you have had one or more?

• Prev by Date: Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
• Next by Date: Re: RE: AF and namespaces, once again (was Re: There is a m eaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• Previous by thread: RE: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
• Next by thread: Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread