On Thursday 24 January 2002 08:47 am, Pete Kirkham wrote:
>  gtn@[...].com
> 
>  >The "domain model" as you put it, is roughly equivalent to a
>  >vocabulary with an associated set of semantics. So long as you
>  > agree on the terms, you can communicate, and that is the whole
>  > point.
> 
>  The domain model has no fixed language, only semantics.
> 
>  The abstract information model (what we are going to represent X as)
>  is a viewpoint on this domain model (what we know about X).
> 
>  The AIM may be an ontological framework or an EXPRESS or a MOF L1
>  model (such as a UML domain model class diagram; UML fudges this a
>  bit by using the same language for its domain models [which are
>  abstract subsets of the information in a domain, not models of a
>  whole domain] and for application constructs).

Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

It's interesting you mention CASE and STEP. I did some work in that a 
fair while ago and it seemed like there were few success stories. 
Seems like you have had one or more?


-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org> , an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> 

The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>