It has been a goal since the late eighties.  
It was implemented for SGML using IDEF modeling
(KBI, I believe) much earlier than Matt got around 
to UML.  The problem is simple: too far ahead of 
the acceptance curve for markup.  I don't think 
the ears are deaf.  It is a noise that some  
don't yet have sufficient shared context to interpret 
as signal.  This isn't metaphor; it is the clear 
demonstration of why discourse is initiated prior 
to learning.  It really is an experience issue and the 
big XML systems that have to share at the conceptual 
level aren't real yet.  Yet note how many people 
are writing papers now and asking questions.

Until they are in the swamp with the gators, they 
don't know why old swampers carry lead bottomed 
oars and sawed-off shotguns.  Reality bites.

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Ken North [mailto:ken_north@[...].com]

>  "...  My guess is that the syntax-centric
>  stranglehold will not be broken until there's a conscious focus
>  on conceptual modeling, accompanied by an unspoken agreement
>  that XML schemas and other markup syntaxes can readily be
>  generated from conceptual model notations..."
> 
>  but the comment appeared to have fallen on deaf ears.

My sense is quite a few developers are on the same wavelength. The first
time
someone asked me about this was 1999. My reply was we'd "soon" be using
design tools
that enable us to work at a high level of abstraction -- create a conceptual
model and then select whether to generate an SQL schema or XML schema. That
prediction was wrong by about 2-3 years, but it was based in part on the
Schema WG predicting a spec by December 1999.

Conceptual model ->  XML Schema is not a quantum leap in technology. It
follows the natural evolution of existing technologies and tools. Matt Fuchs
was the primary author of a paper about UML ->  SOX schema in 1999.