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