FpML-AWG-Legacy Fwd: [fpml-arch-modelling-wg] Re: Class name tags

["Danielle Cauthen" <dcauthen@xxxxxxxx>]

--- In fpml-arch-modelling-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Marcus Rainbow"
<marcus_rainbow@...> wrote:

Robert

> I was arguing that FpML
> does not define what is and is not a class. IF classes are to be
> instantiated, THEN
> FpML must also define a standard as to what is a class.

Yes, I accept that position.  I like your distinction between built-in
types such as Date and more complex classes.  The point I was trying to
make is that OO-modeling and explicit inheritance relationships are
desirable, but not if they can only be achieved at cost to the clarity
of the resulting XML.

Marcus

--- End forwarded message ---



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe: Email majordomo@xxxxxxxx with a blank subject line
In the body include the line: unsubscribe awglegacy youremail@address
To view archives: http://www.fpml.org/_wgmail/_awglegacymail/threads.html