[Coin-standards] An argument for public domain modeling infrastructure

[Irv Lustig]

Leo:

At 11:02 AM 4/15/02 -0500, Leonardo B. Lopes wrote:
>The modeling language would generate objects which implement this
>interface, or would implement it itself. If IRV is not artificially
>restricted by IP issues, a modeling environment designer could choose to
>implement it or not. IRV would address a lot of the issues you consider
>design shortcomings in current AMLs, protect clients' IP, eliminate the
>need to port code to a new language, and help (along with an instance
>standard) to foster new modeling tools.
>
>Something along those lines was in my proposal, although it doesn't look
>like it will make it to the dissertation. But I'd be interested in
>pursuing that avenue in the future. Maybe next year.
>
>I think LEO and IRV are taking the discussion in a completely different
>direction, though.

In more ways than one!

>It is a very interesting direction, but I'd like to try
>to move back to the instances for now. After all I do have to get out of
>here and get a real job. Besides, both LEO and IRV would benefit from a
>more robust instance representation and exchange mechanism.

If I understand you correctly, in our ideal world, we'd have
   A modeling language LEO, which would use...
   An interface layer  IRV, which would integrate with...
   A standard for representing instances

I agree that all 3 would be nice to have.  I think we may just differ on 
what we think is more valuable in industry.

         -Irv