On Thursday 24 January 2002 08:47 am, Pete Kirkham wrote:
>
>
> >The "domain model" as you put it, is roughly equivalent to a
> >vocabulary with an associated set of semantics. So long as you
> > agree on the terms, you can communicate, and that is the whole
> > point.
>
> The domain model has no fixed language, only semantics.
>
> The abstract information model (what we are going to represent X as)
> is a viewpoint on this domain model (what we know about X).
>
> The AIM may be an ontological framework or an EXPRESS or a MOF L1
> model (such as a UML domain model class diagram; UML fudges this a
> bit by using the same language for its domain models [which are
> abstract subsets of the information in a domain, not models of a
> whole domain] and for application constructs).
Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
It's interesting you mention CASE and STEP. I did some work in that a
fair while ago and it seemed like there were few success stories.
Seems like you have had one or more?
