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:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2000 12:50 PM
To: Arofan Gregory; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
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
