[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Picking the Tools
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: Uche Ogbuji <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 14:34:36 -0500
That leaves those of us trying to work today
having to choose among tools and potential local
non-optimized minima. In other words, despite
best efforts, our designs are weakened by hot spots
in the metal where the annealing doesn't quite take.
and it leads me to believe topic maps are more
flexible if one wants to stick with one tool throughout.
So far, it is easier for me to see how topic maps
are created if one needs to create an abstract description
that is then populated with instances rather than
starting from resources.
Hard stuff. So the W3C expects web page builders to do
this? Hype can lead to terrible depressions. See AI. ;-)
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Uche Ogbuji [mailto:email@example.com]
Unfortunately, I think we're stuck in a crease here. UML is not
expressive enough to model whatever we'd want to in XML/RDF/TM, etc., but
it does have mature tools and strong adoption.
XML Schemas, RDF and TM are, at the low-level, what we want, but I
quite understand that not too many people would want to do all their
modeling directly in these tools the way things now stand. (People such
as Jonathan and I are exceptions, and probably weird).
So understandably you ask whether one should just use UML and therefrom
generate the appropriate low-level formats. I point out that UML is not
expressive enough, that mechanical conversion from UML in any case would
tend to poor results, and that hands-on conversion would be as much effort
as just doing the modeling in the low-level formats to begin with.
I don't think there's any good answer to this quandry right now. The
tools still need evolving.
Luckily, I think that despite the excessive hype, the Web services
movement might be exactly what is needed to push the evolution of tools