VO-DML specification document

[Gerard Lemson]

Hi Francois
I am still not going to discuss your views on the mapping mechanism, will
stick to VO-DML.

> In Hawai, the decision was taken to have two drafts,  related but
independantly
> driven to (potential) recommendation. That's my point.
> Apparently this is not how the things work up to now.
I don't know why you draw that conclusion, it seems to me that indeed the
documents we have are related, but independently driven through
recommendation process. That's why I asked for feedback on VO-DML, not on
the mapping document (whatever title it has). 

In the VO-DML spec it seems you mainly object to the statements that claim
that VO-DML is important for UTYPEs? 
If instead it said, "is very important for any mapping from data models to
other serialisations", would that be ok?
VO-DML can be written independent of details of utype spec, but it really
makes no sense to object to a statement that a common data modelling
language will be very important for any "mapping of complex data models".
Btw, once we have an agreed upon language like VO-DML, any mapping
specification will want to take its details into account. This is very
explicit and almost 1-1 for the proposed UTYPE spec. But also for example
the "grammar for utypes" that Mireille copied from the Simulation Data Model
only makes sense when the underlying terms it uses have been defined. The
VO-DML meta-model provides this definition. (SimDM of course also had such a
meta model!)


>...
> I see no objection in helping in that (for Characterisation 2, not 
>1.33)
as long as I
> am not buying the VO-DML utype mechanism WITh the standardized 
> description of model in VO-DML language and xml"
> 
Good. You have been very clear in not wanting to buy into the proposed utype
mechanism.
I think you are missing out on something there, but I really think that is
another discussion. 
The nice things is that we *can* work on modelling without requiring buy-in
to the second spec. The result should be useful whatever the outcome of that
discussion might be, especially for ongoing modelling efforts.

I think we should try to have some splinter session if possible in Madrid to
talk about how to do this.
Omar, Jesus, is that possible?

Cheers
Gerard