- From: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 18:36:59 -0700
- To: jdart@tibco.com
- CC: Monica Martin <monica.martin@sun.com>, Daniel_Austin@grainger.com, public-ws-chor@w3.org
Jon Dart wrote: > > More problematic is the proposal to use prose annotation to replace or > to abstract away some constructs. Specifically, the proposal to > "remove control logic from the cDI .. the cDI programmers would have > to annotate the logic with human readable statements in order to > explain their intent." (3.2.3.6). IMO this is not something on which > we have consensus (at least not yet). In fact I think it is possibly > in conflict with some of the other requirements, such as D-CR-035 and > D-CR-038. Agreed. If it really boils down to being a description language that is not machine processable, then can't we just use UML? arkin > > --Jon >
Received on Wednesday, 30 July 2003 15:37:22 UTC