On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 03:22:00PM -0400, Susan Hares wrote: > Juergen: > > Thanks for the high quality and pragmatic response. Yes, I did mean UML > Class diagrams. As the teens say "my bad". > > As to the tools and code generation: > During my days of writing protocol software or managing protocol software > writers, I found it often took 3+ rewrites to get efficient code after > working good. If tools create inefficient code but working code - at least > a prototype to test against comes up quickly. If tools improve the > prototype may get closer and the re-writes less.
But we are talking about standardizing data models we want to interoperate. You can't apply iterative code development to this. > As to descending into detail with UML: that's actually a plus for me. The > purpose behind UML is to quicken the pace of the process from high level > agreement to DM. We can standardize the high level and then use the UML to > provide quicken layers of agreement. As usual, the hard is finding agreement, not so much the format. A format that people do not read carefully may help in the sense that you get less reviews and thus you believe you were faster (but you might have just moved the difficult parts of the agreement finding process to a later stage). As such, a format that increases the chances of getting a fair number of substantial reviews of key parties should be the target. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
