Hi ... I've been interested in trying to see if (some subset of) CDL would be appropriate for describing system configuration data. In fact, I'm arranging a short workshop in Edinburgh (April 28/29) to look at existing XML representations of system config data and compare their features - anyone interested would be most welcome .. I'm interested particularly in the data description properties (rather than the lifecycle management), and I am sure this will raise some more detailed questions later. However ... I am looking for a very simple language with a solid specification than could form the basis for more complex descriptions. A couple of things bother me about CDL: 1) The semantic specification is given in a rather loose way. If it intended that other people create implementations, then it is very important to have a clear semantics. I'd like to see a slightly more formal specification of this, preferably with the resolution semantics presented in some abstract way that was independent of XML-specifics like "attributes" (I can say more about the problem here if anyone is interested). 2) I can't seem to determine if there is intended to be semantic equivalence with SmartFrog. If so, then I would like to see a formal statement of this in the spec, and I'd like to see the semantics presented in such a way that this can be verified (at least informally). It seems very dangerous to talk glibly about "converting between SF and CDL" if there are subtle semantic differences. 3) I still don't understand how CDL is intended to be used. I had assumed that it was a low-level inter-program communication and would not be written by hand - rather it would be generated from some higher-level description. Is this the case, or will people be expected to hand-write CDL? If it is not intended by creation by hand, then why are the templates necessary at this level - any templates could be expanded at CDL generation time. I would certainly be happier with this, because I think that the requirements of the template mechanism are not yet well understood, and there is a danger of fixing on something in the standard which is inadequate. If it is intended for hand-creation, then this will not be suitable for use in many applications because of the difficulty involved. All comments welcome Many thanks Paul