RE: Syntax Free Models - was: [Fwd: Oracle Input for Core ComponentsWG]

[Bob Haugen <linkage@interaccess.com>]

Betty Harvey wrote:
>This message is timely because I am having a great deal of confusion
>with the term 'Syntax Free Model'.  I asked this question a few times
>this week and I haven't gotten a definitive answer.

I don't like to put words in other people's mouths, and I wasn't there,
and I wouldn't put it that way, but is it possible that they meant 
something like this:
If the same model can be expressed in many different syntaxes
(what is the plural of syntax?), then there is some essence
of the model that is independent of any particular syntax.

Of course, if you want to express that essence, you need
a syntax again, so how free are you?  And each syntax
constrains expression in some ways; expressions are not
always freely translatable from any arbitrary syntax to
another.  So "free" is not the word I would use.

But the above idea is what came to mind when I read the phrase.

However, I understood from the title ebXML that the core
syntax would be XML.  So I guess I agree with your
implied skepticism.

>The Core Group is great and worked well together.
I'm so happy to hear that.  For those of us who could not
attend, would you please go on?

Thanks,
Bob Haugen
Logistical Software LLC