W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > June 2003

Re: FW: BPSS_f2f_june03.ppt

From: Monica J. Martin <monica.martin@sun.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 07:28:20 -0600
Message-ID: <3EF30BF4.2080504@sun.com>
To: "Anders W. Tell" <opensource@toolsmiths.se>
CC: Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>, public-ws-chor@w3.org

>
>
>> mm1: What is your view Anders, in the context of your area of 
>> expertise and/or as a member of this team? 
>
>
> View of what Monica? You know my view of next maintenance release of 
> BPSS which I posted in appropriate BPSS team forum. I dont want to 
> burden this with out of scope issues.


mm1: Your answer below is what I was looking for: (1) Rationale for 
consideration of MOF, (2) Your work and the ongoing work of UML 2.0

>
> I can share one view with you that may interest this groups and that 
> is how I prefer to create meta models. Its the same principle Ive used 
> for BPSS and CoreComponents.
>
> I have a strong preference to create meta models based on MOF which is 
> the same meta meta model used to define UML. By using MOF I can create 
> java API's, XML Schema, reading writing source code automatically 
> using standardized specifications. Kind of nifty since all I have to 
> do is create one single file and the rest us generated automatically. 
> The manipilation java binary code is actually generated on te fly when 
> loading the metamodel.  The best is that all is open source !
> ........

mm1: If you raise concerns, explanations such as these will be helpful 
for the group to evaluate what formalisms they deem appropriate for 
their area of interest.

Thanks.
Received on Friday, 20 June 2003 09:17:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 01:00:21 GMT