[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: XMI reality check
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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC