[gin-info] Possible list of subset data for info interop

[Dr. Thomas Soddemann]

Jen,

well, in order to get a consistent picture of we want as a kind of 
minimum requirements for a schema, I think it is by far more easy to use 
a structured visualization including dependencies of classes rather than 
gathering lists of attributes. You certainly agree, that unstructured 
information is almost worthless.
Hence, as implementors we should try to advertise our minimum set of 
attributes in way which makes sense to everyone. IMHO, that is more than 
just gathering lists of attributes. And in your first e-mail message you 
have already started to structure your data, which I later tried to 
visualize.

Cheers,
Thomas

Jennifer M. Schopf wrote:
> Thomas-
>
>    i don't think we want to go down the path of UML here - i really 
> think we want to stay at the very high level of simply deifning a set 
> of attributes sites should communicate. UML implies structure and 
> other things that we do NOT want to get into with this group - we're 
> going tfor low hanging fruit, not making changes wherever we can.
>
> I would be much more comfortable coming up with a simple list of 
> attributes everyone could agree on - which is why i sent the list i 
> did. If you want to add things in, that's great. If you think 
> something should be removed, please make a case.
>
> I understand that formally, you're correct, UML is a great way to get 
> agreement here. And maybe we we cross the path of CIM and GLUE schema 
> agreement discussions we'll need this, but right now i'm not wearing a 
> GLUE schema hat, i'm wearing an implementers hat and i just want to 
> know what data each site should advertise in whatever way they can.
>
>   -jen
>
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Thomas.Soddemann.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 305 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/gin-info/attachments/20060301/755fe5d2/attachment.vcf