RE: XMI reality check

[John Yunker <JohnY@EDIFECS.COM>]

Where XMI differs from RDF in transport of model content is that XMI
conforms to the more general UML domain, while RDF can be restricted by use
of namespaces to a specific problem domain.  The ability to express a meta
structure in RDF and validate it means better control on the applicability
of model content.  When using models in a constricted domain like b2b, it is
attractive to be able to validate model content according to a meta
structure.

For what it is worth, Edifecs undertook a formal RDF initiative in late 1999
and early 2000.  This initiative resulted in GXML/RDF (guidelineXML in RDF),
which is attached.  This effort focused on the messages rather than the
process, although it does allow association to BusinessAction elements
(placing the message in the context of a process).  Contained within this
document are formal modeling in UML of the expression of EDI, Flatfile and
BCF (which is UMM and RosettaNet compliant) structures in RDF complete with
references to complete online examples.

The examples referenced by the document were tested with the ICS-FORTH
Validating RDF Parser (VRP) from the FORTH Institute of Computer Science.

If there is any interest in this work we would be happy to contribute it to
the efforts underway.

Regards,
John

gXMLDesignSpecification.zip