[sc34wg3] Illustrating SIDPs

[Robert Barta]

On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 12:36:25PM -0400, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> First, I was only trying to explain the concept of SIDPs and not the 
> entire reference model.

I understood. I think. :-)

> Second, the TMRM is NOT trying to define a formalism for a TMA. (full stop)

Yes, that is obvious.

> Third, the TMRM does not constrain the formalism, or any other
> aspect of writing, specifying or implementing a TMA.

That is not so obvious.

If the TMRM specifies directly _what_ kind of statements about _what_
kind of concepts have to be done in the process of 'disclosing', then
this is a constraint on the formalism.

I think, we hit here a crucial point...

> What the TMRM is trying to do is create an inventory and checklist
> for a disclosure statement that you can use to construct a TMA
> however you like.

...namely that - for me - the TMRM is like a half-constructed
bridge. It is firmly grounded on one side of the river, stretches
halfway over the water and towards the other side it only reaches out
with some planks. Fitting in the end of the other side seems to be
difficult without a means to configure this.

As I understood the objective of this exercise, though, is (a) "to
capture the essence of the TM paradigm" and (b) "to provide a mapping
into the application level".

While I would have chosen a different path for (a) in the first place,
(b) is not satisfying for me, seeing this through the eyes of a
developer/systems integrator.

I could not - as a vendor now - provide a clear depiction how my
application works. Its like having a lot of atoms on the table, but
only alchemistic means to build 'stuff'.

> Granted that the language of the TMRM can and should be simplified but 
> identity is a complex question and to some degree the TMRM reflects that 
> fact.

I share that observation. Maybe identity can be factored out of TMRM?

\rho