Re: UML/XML guidelines

["agrangard@nycall.com" <anders.grangard@edifrance.org>]

Scott,

I am not sure I follow your rational for not sharing the IBM UML/XML mapping
efforts. Do you mean that this work should be done by Core Components PT
rather than the suggested sub group within Technical Architecture? If you
mean it should be discussed by the full ebXML group, i.e. in Plenary ("not
specific to any one workgroup") I do not think that is practically feasible.
The responsible team must naturally liase with the affected PTs.

Your point about OMG and UML I do, however, understand and fully support. I
am copying this to the steering committee as it should be a topic on its
agenda.

Regarding Schemas it is out-of-scope. Regardless, we have a review planned
in our workplan since we one day expect W3C to approve it, which would make
it in-scope.

Since you are on vacation (lucky man!) I suggest that we bring this up on
Monday afternoon.

Regards
Anders

----- Original Message -----
From: <srh@us.ibm.com>
To: KETELS Kris <kris.ketels@swift.com>
Cc: <ebxml-architecture@lists.ebxml.org>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 6:49 PM
Subject: UML/XML guidelines


>
>
> Kris and ebXML Architects,
> I have decided to not explicitly submit information concerning any
specific
> IBM efforts
> in the area of UML/XML mappings. There are several reasons for my
decision.
> Much work has taken place within IBM's Insurance Industry unit in this
> area, and has been
> extended by CPExchange which will be discussed in ebXML SJ within CC. I
> don't want to
> add confusion or replication through any submission documents that address
> overlap. Also,
> some of the approach has also been discussed in various other documents,
> such as
> in the SWIFT information, as discussed around page 26 an other places.
> Using XML DTD Entities
> to support OO inheritance is just one example.
>
> I  believe there should be a concentrated explicit discussion on this in
SJ
> with wide invitation
> across the workgroups. However, I view this as an ebXML discussion issue,
> not specific to any one workgroup, but should eventually live in
> Architecture. We should further
> list the discussion points beforehand, which should include larger
> awareness discussions on
> what is happening in OMG with what UML Profile efforts, how ebXML should
> engage, place
> requirements, or initiate new. With full understanding of, and current
> support of, our ebXML
> policy to not align to non-ratified underlying specifications, I believe
> that we do need the best
> understanding and outlook on XMLSchema possible, as efforts to map/profile
> UML to an underlying
>  xml constraint structure ( DTD, XMLSchema) is non-trivial and critical
> across ebXML due
> to UML as a single model approach. Re-visiting this would also have
> significant impact
> given the limited ebXML lifecycle.
>
> I am vacationing and will have limited response..........
>
> Scott Hinkelman
> Senior Software Engineer, IBM Austin
> Emerging Technologies, SWG
> 512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519)
> srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074
>
>