Re: NIM requirements/conventions for textual representations

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>]

>>>>> Durham, David writes:

David> I am wondering if the textual representations requirement
David> should be left as stated. Most of the people I've talked to
David> consider UML (or a subset thereof) a relatively agnostic way to
David> represent the model. The textual representation of that might
David> as well be MIBs, MOFs, pure ASN.1, XML, etc. So perhaps, the
David> textual representation requirement should be rephrased to imply
David> a textual mapping of the UML. The real requirement then is that
David> there should be algorithmic mappings standardized for two or
David> more of the most-loved data representations. The NIM working
David> group, then, would be responsible for providing the standard
David> mappings documents.

First, I think the requirements document should not already make any
decisions which technology to use.

Second, what do you mean when you talk about UML? UML is a pretty
complex beast with many diagram types and things like the object
constraint language. Even if many people agree that UML is a good
thing, they may have completely different opinions about what UML
actually means to them.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder      Technical University Braunschweig
<schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>  Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
Phone: +49 531 391 3289    Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
Fax:   +49 531 391 5936    <URL:http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw/>