Okay, metayarts are in. There appear to be three forms of the word yart, the noun (a yart, yarts), the adjective (a yarting thread) and the verb (weak, intransive & regular; to yart).

If we are also going to have metayarts - that is, yarts about yarts, then we need to define exactly what they are and how they can best be recognised (metayart recognition), how they should be represented (metayart notation) and how metayart data can be communicated between competing proprietary yarting software systems. This will probably result in further extensions to XML.

To do this successfully, we need to form a committee of representatives from all manufacturers of yarting software who can then argue the toss at expensive meetings held in expensive places, all funded by their employers of course.

After a year or two of such well-paid argument, the representatives will emerge tired and happy with a metayarting standard which will then be submitted to the OMG (Object Management Group) for ratification. The OMG will then subsume the new standard into the latest version of UML (Unified Modelling Language) and issue an amendment to the UML standard. The new metayarting standard will be called the UYS (Unified Yarting Standard) and will be issued to all yarters.

It will then be expected that all yart manufacturers will adhere to the standard to allow easy transfer of metayart data from yart system to yart system.

Sound like a plan to you guys?


The idiot also known as Capfka ...