Re: One definition of "syntax-neutral"

[Nikola Stojanovic <nstojano@cjds.com>]

> 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.
>

I have to admit that I have not read all of the listserv postings, docs, ...
Could you let me know which parts of the listserv are referring to UML and
such.
If by "use and intent" you mean something like Usage (Use Cases, Scenarios,
...) as a means to at least show how to use those components I would fully
agree with you. I would support that we shouldn't try to treat "Use Cases"
as a formal modeling technique, but I would imagine that they would be a
great help (examples) for people who would try to go along the ebXML path
after the guidelines, ... are done.

> 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?
>

I am not sure that we have too much time to evaluate this. As far as I know,
there are already few ebXML groups that have been using UML. If there are
better modeling languages we should use them, but we need to justify such
decision. And modeling language is just a language; it doesn't cover
process, tools, ... I hope we can be consistent across the board regarding
issues like this.

Thanks
Nikola Stojanovic
ebXML-Architecture member