To gerard Re: VO-DML specification document

[François Bonnarel]

Hi Gerard,
Le 09/05/2014 14:03, Gerard Lemson a écrit :
> 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?
I think it would be much better.
> 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!)
OK.
>
>
>> ...
>> 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.
Yes. That's my point.
>   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?
There is a secon DM session, now. Is not that the right place to 
(re)start the discussion ?
Cheers
François
> Cheers
> Gerard