RE: Picking the Tools

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

The Topic Maps papers from InfoTek also have a diagramming 
grammar.   There is a wonderful one for the class Thing. 
Sort of like Topic or Resource, it is the name that should 
not be named.  Most of us have been in the MoreMetaThanThou 
debates.  Then there are the Ambitions but that is 
the usual "Caution: Mammals at Work" problem.  

Ok, yes, we get a sourmash of tools that we have to 
sort out.  

Here's why I ask:  when we sit down to do one of these 
language initiatives, windy goals and all, it would be 
nice for OASIS or the W3C to say, "here is the highest 
level of abstraction we need, and here is how we want 
you to document that" so those of us who are using 
multiple languages in system aggregates have an easier 
time of it.  A formatting layout with some standard 
topics and look don't quite get the job done.   At 
least in PDES, they demanded the use of EXPRESS. 

Something like that... 

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jborden@mediaone.net]

What was the question again? Oh yeah: how do we pick a tool and stick with
it for the duration of the project... since none of these things really work
together at all in their current state, you just pick the tool you like ...
if you don't want to think you can simply use "Biztalk" and not worry about
any of the three because they are going to do it their own way "microsoft
schema language" in any case.

Ok but suppose you want to do a little thinking on your own, what we need to
do is to sit down and write down these terms and relate them in a logical
fashion. that's why I started to write the "schema algebra" thingie, so that
I could try to make logical sense of all this stuff... if we can at least
agree amongst ourselves what all these terms mean, then we can start
thinking about tools that might interoperate.