Subject: followup: RE: PRAGMATISM: A few of my own : RE: Problems with Classificatio ns
Message text written by "Nieman, Scott" > David, I think we are agreeing. I am presenting the idea that we leave OUT of the model the detail of how a scheme is composed (i.e., Nodes, Items, Levels), because it is a debatable item, and will be for months. Let the DOM manage it; if its XML, we can figure it out and simply manage associations. I don't care if the scheme is XMI (in UML.DTD or MOF.DTD format) or a Topicmap or David's home brew. To me leaving it out is KISS. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Scott, Ok -good - agreed. Topicmaps are definately of use somewhere - I've been tracking them for a while - probably in workflow and business process, and also in defining characteristics of elements - but not something we directly need to support 'out of the box' with V1.0. The Node, item, levels stuff - I think the basics via linked lists and GUID's is ok - since GUID support is a primitive - and what I think Len is proposing (always a caveat there!) looks ok - hierarchical tree structuring stuff we are doing already - but beyond that - I agree - let someone use the XML itself to store more sophisticated relations - thats what W3C schema is all about. If you can query that using our basic access methods - cool - thats a bonus behaviour and side effect - but maintaining and managing all this is out of scope for now. Thanks, DW.
Powered by eList eXpress LLC