[sc34wg3] a new name for the Reference Model

[Anthony B. Coates]

** Reply to message from Patrick Durusau <pdurusau@emory.edu> on Tue, 31 Dec
2002 07:18:01 -0500

> I did not mean to imply that you were deliberately inflating the title 
> but I don't see "TM Canonical Metamodel" as indicating (to me at least) 
> anything meaningful about the contents. I am with you through "TM" and 
> possibly "Canonical" (assuming some meaningful word followed it) but I 
> get lost at "Metamodel." If you mean a model of a model, is it still not 
> just a model? Have I added anything meaningful by appending "meta" to 
> it? That is assuming that we don't already share a common view of some 
> set of particular models in a discipline and also a common view of what 
> a model that encompassed all those models would consist of, then in a 
> particular context "metamodel" might be a meaningful term. But that 
> presumes a shared understanding of the term, which I think is lacking in 
> this case.

You do have me wondering now whether "metamodel" is really the best term.  That
is to say, a "metamodel" is just a model of a model.  You define the family of
possible structures using a model, and you describe the family of possible
models using a metamodel.  I had been thinking of the RM as something you could
use to model the SAM, which is itself a model.  That would make the RM a
metamodel.  However, it can also be viewed as a lower-level model of TMs than
XTM or the SAM provide.  I'm not sure how it is likely to be viewed/used in
future.  So, comments (by e-mail or on the back of a postcard) are welcome as
to whether the RM is a metamodel or not.

	Cheers,
		Tony.
====
Anthony B. Coates, Information & Software Architect
mailto:abcoates@TheOffice.net
MDDL Editor (Market Data Definition Language)
http://www.mddl.org/
FpML AWG Member (Financial Products Markup Language)
http://www.fpml.org/