[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
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 >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC