[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: One definition of "syntax-neutral"
Nikola: I was simply trying to summarize what I had read on the list serv regarding UML. Personally, I feel that at a minimum we will need to add documentation describing use and intent regarding our class descriptions. My understanding is that we will have on-going work around the official ebXML modelling language. There has not either been agreement on which object model to use, and we shgould probably take a close look at this aspect of the problem. Thoughts? Cheers, Arofan Gregory -----Original Message----- From: Nikola Stojanovic [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Monday, February 07, 2000 12:50 PM To: Arofan Gregory; email@example.com Cc: ebXML-Architecture@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: One definition of "syntax-neutral" > > (3) UML (as has been stated) is not a sufficient way of capturing our data > models > Could someone elaborate on this? > (5) We have agreed to use an object model to describe the interactions, > relations, and extensibility of our core components > Do you know which "object model" will be used? > Distinctions between "attributes" and "elements", etc., are not really > meaningful. In order to guarantee that we can do 100% round-trip, we need to > simply agree on a set of name-value pairs that are related in such a way > that the grouping ("business object") can be usefully subclassed. Such > sub-classes will be described by the context in which they exist. > I guess you are implying class-based "object model". I would suggest that we don't neglect the possibility of using XML in a prototype-based fashion. Nikola Stojanovic ebXML-Architecture member
Powered by eList eXpress LLC