RE: ebXML Representation of Metadata

["David S. Frankel" <dfrankel@gendev.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ebxml-architecture@lists.oasis-open.org
> [mailto:owner-ebxml-architecture@lists.oasis-open.org]On Behalf Of David
> RR Webber
> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 9:51 AM
> To: Cory Casanave
> Cc: Duane Nickull; Iyengar, Sridhar; Miller, Robert (GXS);
> ebxml-core@lists.oasis-open.org; ebXML-Architecture List
> Subject: RE: ebXML Representation of Metadata
>
>
> Message text written by Cory Casanave
> >Interestingly, the
> Venetian glass blowers where correct in their own way, they still make the
> most wonderful work.  But to put glassware on the tables of billions we
> need
> the machines.
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> Cory,
>
> Notice I was NOT disagreeing with this assessment!
>
> Just that the 'glassblowing' is still evolving (rapidly).  Teaching a
> machine to 'glassblow' pre-supposes we know how to do it all
> ourselves!  In this case all the kinks have not been worked out yet.

[dsf] That's an intellectually honest response and I appreciate it.  I'd
like to see a response to Steve Brodsky's response to Terry Allen :).

> Also as Sridhar, Scott and other pointed out XMI is designed to
> provide XML semantics for exchange UML and other object design
> information.

[dsf] Well...I don't know if I can accept this characterization.  XMI can be
used to exchange non-OO models, such as data models.  It's the *metamodel*
for a kind of model, whether that kind of model is an OO model or not, that
is described in OO terms (i.e. using the MOF/UML).  That's a subtle but
important distinction.

--Dave