Hi all,
No, there's no requirement for a DOM. However, I would heed Rex's comments and
that this new model may well lead to confusion.
Regards,
Mary
>
Original Message-----
> From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 8:30 AM
> To: Renato Iannella; Emergency_Mgt_Msg_SC
> Cc: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [emergency-msg] Hybrid Model?
>
> Hi Renato,
>
> Sorry, but we didn't come to a clear, yes-no conclusion on
> the Hybrid. We still have to check to be sure that the
> inclusion of a DOM per se, is not an OASIS requirement. I am
> sure it isn't, but I am copying Mary McRae, our OASIS
> Administrative contact, to confirm that.
>
> Once we have that confirmation, the only other item we have
> to cover is to make very clear is that the Hybrid Model is
> specifically not a DOM and is not intended for producing
> program code such as a class library from an Class Diagram.
>
> I am not sure if that means we must say that it is
> non-normative or only non-normative for any purpose other
> than as an informational resource.
>
> The problem is that there is a possibility of confusion
> because it could very easily be mistaken for a DOM and
> because it could be used as a standard UML 2.0 model, it
> could be used that way for application development. I would
> like to use it that way myself, but I don't have the time to
> test it to see what would actually happen if it were to be
> used that way.
>
> However, as long as we make it clear that is not a DOM, we
> take ourselves off the hook, except, of course, for the
> inevitable questions that will arise during public comment
> concerning why we did not produce a working DOM for the web
> application programmers out there to use correctly. If we did
> not have such a large community of developers using DOM-based
> dynamic web scripts (or, to be correct, if we didn't have so
> many non-programmers out there using wysiwyg tools that build
> there own little DOMs as needed, it wouldn't be a problem,
> but because we do, and AJAX is taking off, too, I suspect we
> may well need to answer those kinds of questions. But we can
> burn those bridges when we get to them ;-).
>
> As long as we are decisive, and I think we are, we should be fine.
>
> The next telecon hasn't been settled. We need to hear from
> enough others that scheduling a Thursday evening meeting is
> worth doing. We may be seeing some folks getting a bit of
> fatigue, and that is difficult to overcome.
>
> Cheers,
> Rex
>
>
> At 4:33 PM +1000 8/28/06, Renato Iannella wrote:
> >Hi all - I just wanted to check that the discussions at the last
> >teleconf on the "hybrid" Reference Model was clear and came to a
> >conclusion?
> >
> >Otherwise, the 16 tables will become a chore to continue to
> edit if we
> >don't make a decision now.
> >
> >Also, can we confirm that date of next teleconf?
> >
> >Cheers... Renato Iannella
> >National ICT Australia (NICTA)
> >
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> >--- This email and any attachments may be confidential. They may
> >contain legally privileged information or copyright material. You
> >should not read, copy, use or disclose them without
> authorisation. If
> >you are not an intended recipient, please contact us at once
> by return
> >email and then delete both messages. We do not accept liability in
> >connection with computer virus, data corruption, delay,
> interruption,
> >unauthorised access or unauthorised amendment. This notice
> should not
> >be removed.
>
>
> --
> Rex Brooks
> President, CEO
> Starbourne Communications Design
> GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
> Berkeley, CA 94702
> Tel: 510-849-2309