[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: APIs, messaging
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org, "Simon St.Laurent" <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 09:42:28 -0500
I agree with this insofar as the design of *communicating systems*
But swirl of threads this week on object OR data design are
troubling me with regard to the tools. Here's why. If
one starts out with RDF or UML, one is almost immediately
into class design and by a slippery slope, designing an
application language based on object-oriented classes. That
may not be what is wanted. It depends on the use one
has for a tag that has a typeOf attribute somewhere
in it. What is really being said? Is it:
o Find this class and inherit its methods or interfaces (compile this)
o Find this formal description and validate this against it (check the
o Interpret this as one of those and do what you do based (just do something
When or If)
on that interpretation.
Any or all?
The critical question: by what criteria does one choose to create a UML
description, or an RDF Description, or a Topic Map, or just an XML Schema?
God forbid, infoSet gets tossed in there.
Intergraph Public Safety
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Francis Norton [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
"Simon St.Laurent" wrote:
> XML offers computing the opportunity to behave much more like the "real
> world", where communications is inexact and messy and the
> standardization costs are only borne if there's a real benefit to
> standardization. (ISO standardizes shipping container construction, not
> which contents are appropriate to containers.)
I agree with your analogy but not, I suspect, your conclusion.
We are watching a transition from "close-coupled" comms to