Hi Renato,
Sorry, but we didn't come to a clear, yes-no conclusion on the
Hybrid. We still have to check to be sure that the inclusion of a DOM
per se, is not an OASIS requirement. I am sure it isn't, but I am
copying Mary McRae, our OASIS Administrative contact, to confirm that.
Once we have that confirmation, the only other item we have to cover
is to make very clear is that the Hybrid Model is specifically not a
DOM and is not intended for producing program code such as a class
library from an Class Diagram.
I am not sure if that means we must say that it is non-normative or
only non-normative for any purpose other than as an informational
resource.
The problem is that there is a possibility of confusion because it
could very easily be mistaken for a DOM and because it could be used
as a standard UML 2.0 model, it could be used that way for
application development. I would like to use it that way myself, but
I don't have the time to test it to see what would actually happen if
it were to be used that way.
However, as long as we make it clear that is not a DOM, we take
ourselves off the hook, except, of course, for the inevitable
questions that will arise during public comment concerning why we did
not produce a working DOM for the web application programmers out
there to use correctly. If we did not have such a large community of
developers using DOM-based dynamic web scripts (or, to be correct, if
we didn't have so many non-programmers out there using wysiwyg tools
that build there own little DOMs as needed, it wouldn't be a problem,
but because we do, and AJAX is taking off, too, I suspect we may well
need to answer those kinds of questions. But we can burn those
bridges when we get to them ;-).
As long as we are decisive, and I think we are, we should be fine.
The next telecon hasn't been settled. We need to hear from enough
others that scheduling a Thursday evening meeting is worth doing. We
may be seeing some folks getting a bit of fatigue, and that is
difficult to overcome.
Cheers,
Rex
At 4:33 PM +1000 8/28/06, Renato Iannella wrote:
>Hi all - I just wanted to check that the discussions at the last
>teleconf on the "hybrid" Reference Model
>was clear and came to a conclusion?
>
>Otherwise, the 16 tables will become a chore to continue to edit if
>we don't make a decision now.
>
>Also, can we confirm that date of next teleconf?
>
>Cheers... Renato Iannella
>National ICT Australia (NICTA)
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>This email and any attachments may be confidential. They may contain legally
>privileged information or copyright material. You should not read, copy,
>use or disclose them without authorisation. If you are not an intended
>recipient, please contact us at once by return email and then delete both
>messages. We do not accept liability in connection with computer virus,
>data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised
>amendment. This notice should not be removed.
--
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-849-2309
