Also there is a realistic choice between informative UML diagrams and
normative UML (ODM) diagrams, I believe. (01)
Mike (02)
Ed Barkmeyer wrote:
> David Price wrote:
>
>
>> Are we to the point yet where a "final" draft of the proposed program or
>> work can be circulated that addresses the email discussion points?
>>
>
> No. We are promised input from John Sowa, and we have heard nothing yet
> from Frank Olken and Howard Mason, who were principals in getting this
> activity organized, as I understood it. I think we should certainly see
> something that resembles "consensus among the leadership", and we don't
> know that we have that yet.
>
>
>> My one comment : If we can agree to your proposal and use CLIF, OWL and
>> informative UML diagrams, then why do we need a language selection
>> committee?
>>
>
> If WE can agree, then of course that action is completed. My intent of
> the "language selection committee" is exactly the self-appointed "WE"
> that comes to that agreement. I don't know what impact those choices
> have on the intentions of other participants. I suggested them because
> they are standards, and even then they are not the only choices.
>
> -Ed
>
> (03)
--
Mike Bennett
Director
Hypercube Ltd.
89 Worship Street
London EC2A 2BF
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7917 9522
Mob: +44 (0) 7721 420 730
www.hypercube.co.uk
Registered in England and Wales No. 2461068 (04)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uom-ontology-std/
Subscribe: mailto:uom-ontology-std-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/uom-ontology-std/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UoM/
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard (05)
|