Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 07:10:16PM -0400, Susan Hares wrote: > > The assumption: > > > > I am assuming that the information models are not a waste of time. Jeff > > Haas' comment was isn't having information models and data models a > > duplication of effort. > > > > First of all, RBNF and ABNF seem to be causing redundant issues in the > > draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-02 draft. > > > > The ABNF the delightful work in > > <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-clarke-i2rs-traceability/> > > draft-clarke-i2rs-traceability-01 really difficult to follow. > > > > My assumption had been the following train would occur: > > > > UML graphic (readable) > > || > > VV (someday via tool) > > UML text (readable) > > || (via tools - I've already found some) > > || > > VV > > > > Yang/Forces Data Model (Yang readable/Forces:Readable) > > FWIW, UML can do much of this but even some of the best authors on it note > that it can be a bit more art than science in some cases.
Also note that UML is more abstract, and doesn't necessarily have the ability to express details that are actually needed in the data model. So in general it is not possible to generate the data model from UML. (of course, you might be able to generate a stub data model which you manually tweak). I agree that UML is a better choice for the information model than ABNF. /martin _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
