Tom,
It is pretty clear that we need to do two more things before we can move forward. First, we need to define the scope more narrowly. Second, we must determine sufficient interest to assure contributions and participation. I would like to get the minutes from the meeting out before discussing where we would go from here. That way, people who attended could validate the minutes and people who were unable to attend could catch up with those who were there. After the discussion between Jeff Case, Bert Wijnen and myself, we have a pretty good idea of what the next steps should be. As soon as the minutes are discussed and agreed to, Jeff and I will try to get that started.
regards,
-Walter
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Scott [mailto:tscott@vedatel.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 11:04 AM
> To: nim@psg.com
> Subject: status of the group
>
>
> Friends of Modeling:
>
> I haven't seen much traffic on the list other than a few postings last
> week. Would someone comment on the status of the group?
>
> In addition to the comments I made last week about TINA/ODP, I also
> direct your attention to the SIP/IN interworking initiative ongoing at
> IETF. As long as that's still alive, we might as well
> consider where IN
> is heading, namely, TINA. If a NIM is to be developed, it might be a
> Good Thing for it to comprehend IN and TINA.
>
> On one axis TINA has four architectures:
> services/applications, network
> infrastructure, computing/middleware, and management. On the
> other there
> are five models and languages in ODP: business/enterprise,
> informational, computational, engineering, and technology.
> Then consider
> the 4x5 matrix formed from those two axes. That makes for a lot of
> (sub)models. Not that NIM has to use them all but at least we can be
> aware of them, use what we can and throw away the rest.
> There's no need
> to reinvent the wheel ...
>
> BTW there are at least five other axes to consider before we launch a
> NIM, one of which is the use of formal methods like
> first-order theories
> and mathematical specification languages, specifically Object Z. But I
> suppose we can wait for a more appropriate time to broach that subject
> ...
>
> --Cheers, TS
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Tom Nelson Scott Vedatel Co
> 1411 Sheffield Dr. Bowling Green OH 43402
> "In IP We Trust" "Java Rules" "E Pluribus Unix"
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>