RE: [legalxml-intj-exmndr] Recap of issue on domain modeling

Title: Message

That 
works for me.

  

  
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Came 
  [mailto:] 
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 
  2005 5:54 PM
To: Cabral, James E.
Cc: 
  
Subject: RE: 
  [legalxml-intj-exmndr] Recap of issue on domain 
  modeling

No objection here.

> Scott,
> 
  
> It basically comes down to the fact that not all UML tools support 
  it.
> I think we should still recommend it, just not make it 
  mandatory.
> 
> jim
> 
> 
  ________________________________
> 
> From: Scott Came 
  [mailto:]
> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 
  11:27 AM
> To: 
> 
  Subject: RE: [legalxml-intj-exmndr] Recap of issue on domain modeling
> 
  
> 
> Yes, this more accurately reflects what we agreed 
  to.
> 
> Jim, perhaps you can offer an argument as to making XMI 
  optional?
> 
>> My minor suggested tweaks are included below in 
  bold.
>>
>>
>> --- Ellen
>>
>> 
  The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity
> 
  to
>> which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or 
  privileged
>> material. If you received this in error, please contact 
  the sender and
>> delete the material from any 
  computer.
>>
>>
>>
>> 
  ________________________________
>>
>> From: Scott Came 
  [mailto:]
>> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 
  2005 11:13 AM
>> To: 
  
>> Subject: 
  [legalxml-intj-exmndr] Recap of issue on domain 
  modeling
>>
>>
>> Here is what I took as consensus 
  from our discussion this morning. I
>> agree with this; Tom, since 
  you were the other active participant in
> the
>> discussion, 
  could you please post back with your agreement as well, or
>> 
  suggested modifications. Others feel free to chime in as well. I 
  will
>> then make sure this gets into the Domain Modeling section in 
  the MNDR.
>>
>> (Again, keep in mind, we're saying what's 
  necessary for compliance
> with
>> the MNDR, not that the whole 
  world should do what we say.)
>>
>> 1. A domain model must 
  be created.
>>
>> 2. The domain model must be at least one 
  of: a spreadsheet, a
>> concept map, or a UML class diagram. (What 
  these things are, in
> detail,
>> will be described in the 
  document.)
>>
>> 3. The domain model should be a UML class 
  diagram.
>>
>> 4. If the domain model is a UML class 
  diagram, then the diagram must
> be
>> supplied in XMI and 
  image (JPG or PNG) format. The image format must
>> not contain 
  symbols or notation that are not part of standard UML
> 
  class
>> diagrams.
>>
>> 5. Nothing in this 
  specification precludes a domain model from being
>> documented, 
  published, or displayed using diagramming notation other
>> than 
  standard UML, provided that the domain model also be supplied
>> 
  according to the provisions of rule #4.
>>
>> 6. The 
  domain-GJXDM mapping artifact must not rely on (replaces
>> 
  "reference ") any domain model concept or element that is not
>> 
  represented in standard UML notation. Proprietary concepts may be
>> 
  included in the mapping artifact as long as they do not determine 
  the
>> mapping results.
>>
>> Thanks, 
  everyone.
>> --Scott
>>
>>
> 
>