Title: Editorial comments
It's easy for us to underestimate the
value of the UML models since we already understand the spec. I find UML more
intuitive and easier to read than XML.
It was only a few months ago when I
was reading these specs for the first time. When I was doing that the 2 things
that helped me the most in understanding it were the written text and the UML.
The XML is an essential normative part of the spec, but it is virtually useless
in gaining understanding. XML is intuitively readable only to robots and
vulcans.
Pictures are useful. If UML is too
detailed and expensive to keep up to date, let's replace it with some kind of
non-normative block diagram. That way we get the intuitive advantages of
pictures without the hassles of maintaining detailed and redundant
UML.
Just my $0.02.
From: Sedukhin, Igor S
[mailto:]
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 1:13
PM
To:
Subject: [wsdm] Editorial
comments
I suggest that we remove all UML
models which define the capabilities throughout MUWS and MOWS specs
because
1) it is hard to keep XML and UML syncronized
2) the information in UML is redundant to the normative definitions of
the XML
3) the value of these models is not incredibly useful for understanding
the specs
4) it makes sense to focus on XML information definitions and exchanges
which is what gives us interoperability
-- Igor Sedukhin
.. ()
-- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza,
Islandia, NY 11788
