RE: XMI reality check

["Fuchs, Matthew" <matthew.fuchs@commerceone.com>]

That is the most recent version of that document.  I would just warn you
that it was really done for SOX - XSDL has some infelicities not reflected
there.

Matthew

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kanaskie, Kurt A (Kurt) [mailto:kkanaskie@lucent.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 11:55 AM
> To: Fuchs, Matthew; 'Jim Clark'; Welsh, David
> Cc: Race Bannon; 'Bob Haugen'; 'ebXML-BP@llists.ebxml.org';
> 'ebXML-CCBP-Analysis (E-mail)'
> Subject: RE: XMI reality check
> 
> 
> Matthew,
> 
> Hah! When I dug up the document I noticed you are a 
> co-author. My apologies,
> my reference was off the top of my head. More correctly it is:
> UML for XML Schema Mapping Specification
> 12/08/99
> Grady Booch (Rational Software Corp.)
> Magnus Christerson (Rational Software Corp.)
> Matthew Fuchs (CommerceOne Inc.)
> Jari Koistinen (CommerceOne Inc.)
> 
> There may be a more recent version, but this is what we worked from.
> Regards,
> ________________________________________________________________
> Kurt Kanaskie
> Lucent Technologies
> kkanaskie@lucent.com
> (610) 712-3096
> 
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	Fuchs, Matthew [mailto:matthew.fuchs@commerceone.com] 
> Sent:	Friday, March 16, 2001 1:55 PM
> To:	Kanaskie, Kurt A (Kurt); 'Jim Clark'; Welsh, David
> Cc:	Race Bannon; 'Bob Haugen'; 'ebXML-BP@llists.ebxml.org';
> 'ebXML-CCBP-Analysis (E-mail)'
> Subject:	RE: XMI reality check
> 
> Which "Booch's meta-model for XML Schema" are you refering to?
> 
> Matthew Fuchs
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kanaskie, Kurt A (Kurt) [mailto:kkanaskie@lucent.com]
> > Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 10:26 AM
> > To: 'Jim Clark'; Welsh, David
> > Cc: Race Bannon; 'Bob Haugen'; 'ebXML-BP@llists.ebxml.org';
> > 'ebXML-CCBP-Analysis (E-mail)'
> > Subject: RE: XMI reality check
> > 
> > 
> > All,
> > 
> > I have had some experience with XMI (Unisys's plug in for 
> > Rational and IBM's
> > XMI toolkit). I agree XMI is ugly but it was intended for 
> > machine to machine
> > exchange of models, not human readability. I have found IBM's 
> > version to be
> > more complete that Unisys's for what I was trying to do. 
> > IBM's toolkit was
> > also better at preserving the model graphics when imported.
> > 
> > I successfully used XSLT on the XMI from a UML model, based 
> on Booch's
> > meta-model for XML Schema, to generate a human readable XML 
> DTD. This
> > approach is being finalized by OAG as their method of 
> > generating DTDs from a
> > UML model of all of their BODs (170+). Thus I believe that 
> > XMI can be used
> > to generate XML instances of business processes modeled in 
> > UML. However,
> > this approach will require some consistency changes to the 
> > UML version of
> > the Spec Schema.
> > 
> > Another benefit of XMI is to generate meta-model instance 
> > DTDs that can be
> > used to check model instance UML models. The stock tools to 
> > generate these
> > DTDs are also quite ugly and not human friendly, but serve 
> > the purpose. 
> > 
> > Regards,
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > Kurt Kanaskie
> > Lucent Technologies
> > kkanaskie@lucent.com
> > (610) 712-3096
> > 
> >  -----Original Message-----
> > From: 	Jim Clark [mailto:jdc-icot@lcc.net] 
> > Sent:	Saturday, March 17, 2001 12:38 PM
> > To:	Welsh, David
> > Cc:	Race Bannon; 'Bob Haugen'; 'ebXML-BP@llists.ebxml.org';
> > 'ebXML-CCBP-Analysis (E-mail)'
> > Subject:	Re: XMI reality check
> > 
> >  << File: Card for Jim Clark >> Yes. One could generate a DTD or XML
> > document or XMLschema from a model stored
> > as RDF.
> > 
> > Jim
> > 
> > "Welsh, David" wrote:
> > 
> > > I've heard very good longer term experience story's about 
> > using RDF from
> > the
> > > publishing/library world, and I couldn't miss the almost 
> > religious sermons
> > > from some @ the W3C on RDF as the way of the future Semantic Web.
> > > It would appear RDF offers the opportunity to encapsulate 
> > business process
> > > models, during the analysis, design and 'record for 
> > posterity' stage in
> > > business process life cycles. I take it then in the grander 
> > scheme of
> > things
> > > then, one could generate SpecSchema runtime XML from 
> > business process
> > models
> > > in RDF. Sounds like it could.
> > > Dave
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Jim Clark [mailto:jdc-icot@lcc.net]
> > > > Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2001 7:29 AM
> > > > To: Race Bannon
> > > > Cc: 'Bob Haugen'; 'ebXML-BP@llists.ebxml.org'; 
> > 'ebXML-CCBP-Analysis
> > > > (E-mail)'
> > > > Subject: Re: XMI reality check
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I FULLY concur with Mr Bannon and vote for that format.
> > > >
> > > > Jim Clark
> > > > e2open
> > > > 936.264.3366
> > > >
> > > > Race Bannon wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 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
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the 
> > single word
> > > > > "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-bp-request@lists.ebxml.org
> > > >
> > 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> > "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-bp-request@lists.ebxml.org
> > 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-bp-request@lists.ebxml.org
>