RE: XMI reality check

[Race Bannon <race.bannon@ia.com>]

My vote:  RDF is the better format.

Race Bannon, Ph.D.
Director of Training and Documentation
Information Architects
4064 Colony Road
Charlotte, NC  28211
Ph: 704/367-2105
Fx: 704/442-0693
Toll Free:  877/INFOARC x. 2105
iA:  http://www.ia.com
iA Education:  http://www.ia.com/ia/training/index.htm


-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Haugen [mailto:linkage@interaccess.com]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 8:46 AM
To: 'ebXML-BP@llists.ebxml.org'; 'ebXML-CCBP-Analysis (E-mail)'
Subject: XMI reality check


One of the issues for the Business Process Editor has been
what format to use to store business process models for
interoperability with UML tools.  I am also encountering
this same issue in other projects.

XMI seems to be the "standard", but I have also heard 
lots of complaints.

This is a general call for feedback on XMI, from people
who have tried it:
* What UML tools have you tried XMI with?
* Have you tried to take the same XMI model and 
  move it from one tool to another?
* What problems did you encounter?
* Were XMI models imported into a UML tool
   really ugly, even if they might have worked
   technically?
* Any other XMI comments...
* What's a better format, if any?  (RDF?)

Thanks a million,
Bob Haugen

------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
"unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-bp-request@lists.ebxml.org