RE: ebXML Representtion of Metadata

["David S. Frankel" <dfrankel@gendev.com>]

I think it important to distinguish between the complexity of the DTD and
the complexity of the streams that conform to the DTD.  XMI does produce
more complex DTDs because it is mimicing object-oriented inheritance.  If B
is a subtype of A in the object model, then A has extra ENTITY declarations
that can be used by B, rather than B having to copy down all of the
properties of A.  However, this does not result in the stream that conforms
to the DTD being more complex.

As XML becomes more OO-like (schemas seem to be going this direction) the
amount of mimicing that XMI has to do will decrease.

--David Frankel

================================
David S. Frankel
Chief Scientist
Genesis Development Corporation
741 Santiago Court
Chico, CA 95973-8781 USA

+1 530 893-1100 voice
+1 530 893-1153 fax
dfrankel@gendev.com
http://www.gendev.com
================================

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ebxml-architecture@lists.oasis-open.org
> [mailto:owner-ebxml-architecture@lists.oasis-open.org]On Behalf Of David
> RR Webber
> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 6:43 PM
> To: Duane Nickull
> Cc: ebXML-Architecture List; ebxml-core@lists.oasis-open.org; Miller,
> Robert (GXS); Cory Casanave; Iyengar, Sridhar
> Subject: RE: ebXML Representtion of Metadata
>
>
> Message text written by "Duane Nickull"
> >
> Although I am not an XMI expert,  the one persistant shortcoming that I
> keep
> hearing with XMI is that it cannot provide a "consistent" way to
> interchange
> metadata.  Does anyone have an answer for this comment?
>
> Duane Nickull
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> Add to this that XMI creates DTD's that look like they have been
> written by a machine.  I.e. no self-respecting human would want these
> for a production environment.
>
> Now this is a critism - based on the fact that humans write DTD's that
> contain a whole level of intelligence and criteria that are NOT part of
> a UML model today - such as Oracle SQL optimization criteria, just
> as an example.
>
> OK - this was my point earlier - as machine intelligence increases and
> peoples understanding of what a good production quality DTD does
> and does not contain, then you can get XMI to mimic this behavoiur.
>
> We are not there yet!  Am I about to 'spray paint the car' so the robot
> can copy me 100 times faster right now?  I'm probably not ready to
> do that either! <g>.
>
> This is why I see that XMI, UML and related tools will improve, but
> not for another one year minimum, as we're all still learning.
>
> DW.
>