Francis:
Cool! This is perhaps a place where using UML to avoid ambiguity may be
good.
If I read your diagram, it asserts that "realized as" implies an
"abstract-concrete" association. I had viewed that the other concepts
are more of a "can be aggregated as part of" association. My
observation is that usually the abstract-concrete association is often
used for mapping a specific protocol or specification to a concept in a
reference model or reference architecture.
I guess the question we need to consider is "what is the association
between the higher level abstract concept of metadata and specialized
metadata concepts?".
Anyone care to take a stab at this as a UML class diagram (or answering
the question)?
Cheers (and beers next week)
Duane
Francis McCabe wrote:
> I prefer the following diagram :)
>
>
> Frank
>
> On Apr 19, 2005, at 9:51 AM, Duane Nickull wrote:
>
>> <Drawing1.png>
>
--
***********
Senior Standards Strategist - Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://www.adobe.com
Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT Bureau Plenary - http://www.unece.org/cefact/
Adobe Enterprise Developer Resources - http://www.adobe.com/enterprise/developer/main.html
***********
