

Proposed versioning diagram change for Language Descriptions

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 18:28:43 -0400
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF6A191E86.992E65E6-ON852571E7.007AAF70-852571E7.007B7B96@lotus.com>
On the call last week we had some discussion of how language descriptions 
would best fit into the UML diagram in the versioning finding.  I've 
hacked up an edit that's pretty close to showing what I've been thinking. 
Basically, it tries to show that there can be multiple, alternate (though 
hopefully consistent) descriptions of the same language, and that none of 
those descriptions are inherently "part of" the language in the way that 
the text sets are.  Each language description is intended to include a 
syntax (I.e. a specification of the set of legal texts) and a semantics 
(which, pending agreement on the right way to say this, I'll loosely 
describe as determining the information that can be gleaned from each 
legal text).

A few caveats:  (1) I'm not a UML expert so there may be some misuse of 
UML conventions and (2) I don't have the diagram editing tool, so I had to 
do some really ugly stuff to import a bitmap image of the diagram into a 
bitmap editor, and hack it up from there.  So, while it is being saved as 
a .png, in fact it's probably just pixels and won't scale.  If it looks 
weird, make sure your viewing tool is zoomed to 100%.  If this or 
something similar meets with approval, someone with the tool should redraw 
it properly (or point me to the tool and I'll do it, if the learning curve 
isn't too bad.) 



Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142

Received on Tuesday, 12 September 2006 22:28:51 GMT
