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
[email protected]
(610) 712-3096
-----Original Message-----
From: Fuchs, Matthew [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 1:55 PM
To: Kanaskie, Kurt A (Kurt); 'Jim Clark'; Welsh, David
Cc: Race Bannon; 'Bob Haugen'; '[email protected]';
'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:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 10:26 AM
> To: 'Jim Clark'; Welsh, David
> Cc: Race Bannon; 'Bob Haugen'; '[email protected]';
> '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
> [email protected]
> (610) 712-3096
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Clark [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2001 12:38 PM
> To: Welsh, David
> Cc: Race Bannon; 'Bob Haugen'; '[email protected]';
> '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:[email protected]]
> > > Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2001 7:29 AM
> > > To: Race Bannon
> > > Cc: 'Bob Haugen'; '[email protected]';
> '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:[email protected]]
> > > > Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 8:46 AM
> > > > To: '[email protected]'; '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: [email protected]
> > > >
> > > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the
> single word
> > > > "unsubscribe" in the body to: [email protected]
> > >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: [email protected]
>
