RE: ebXML Representtion of Metadata

[srh@us.ibm.com]

Generating XML message interfaces to RegRep will require invention of
specific mapping rules. If this is the intention, I suggest we look at
other work in this space since there would not be anything unique about
ebXML RegRep than other spaces in XML messages with UML. This is a current
trend and there is emerging work in OMG with RFP's in this space with UML
messaging profiles. Also, vertical industries such as Insurance are
addressing this also.

Duane, I am not sure of your meaning for "the same XMI 1.1 meta data
interchange from UML to an XML syntax". If you mean UML/XMI for metamodel
interchange it has been proven.  If you mean instantiating an XML document
from a DTD generated from that metamodel, there is no guarantee. New XML
messaging mappings here, the current concern from several groups not just
ebXML RegRep, is the main issue they way I see it, as this can take into
account the top <XMI> tag concern and more.

Scott R. Hinkelman
Senior Software Engineer
SWG XML/Java Solutions/Standards
IBM Austin
Office: 512-823-8097 TieLine: 793-8097
Home: 512-930-5675, Cell: 512-940-0519
srh@us.ibm.com
Fax: 512-838-1074



"Duane Nickull" <duane@xmlglobal.com>@lists.oasis-open.org on 05/24/2000
04:14:24 PM

Sent by:  owner-ebxml-core@lists.oasis-open.org


To:   "Nieman, Scott" <Scott.Nieman@NorstanConsulting.com>,
      "ebXML-Architecture List" <ebXML-Architecture@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc:   <ebxml-core@lists.oasis-open.org>, "Miller, Robert (GXS)"
      <Robert.Miller@gxs.ge.com>, "'Iyengar, Sridhar'"
      <Sridhar.Iyengar2@unisys.com>, "David RR Webber"
      <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>, "Cory Casanave" <cory-c@dataaccess.com>
Subject:  RE: ebXML Representtion of Metadata




>Also, we hope to generate the
>interfaces for an ebXML Registry and Repository based on our UML model
using
>XMI and XSL.
Are you sure you want to go down this path with xsl?  The performance hit
is
really not worth it IMHO.  Can you elaborate on the interfaces you want to
expose?


>The biggest problems we saw with the XMI spec is 1) the mandatory
><XMI>..</XMI> tags which I am currently ignoring in the test XSL, as well
as
>2) ordering which I believe is a general problem with the model instance
>philosophy anyhow.

Scott, what is your take on whether  "consistent" results can be obtained
using this approach?  If ten people in ten different parts of the world do
the same XMI 1.1 meta data interchange from UML to an XML syntax, will they
get one result or ten different results for the same process?


Duane Nickull