Anders:
Consistent serialization and parsing of data element metadata IS and HAS
been a problem for machines. UML is a two dimensional syntax concerned
with rendering (upon which implications of structure can be interpreted
by a human viewing the UML) and cannot be parsed accurately by an
application. There is an underlying data model that the application
reads in order to present the UML is what we do need to standardize.
Using XMI as you noted is one solution to this problem. XMI does not
equal UML so I stand by my original statement.
I mentioned JPG because that is how you rendered UML in the link you
sent out. UML is not bound to any specific mime type for
serialization. If you store the stereotypes in *.jpg, I use XMI and
someone else uses *.png or *.svg, our models will not be
interchangeable. If we all agree on one interchange format like XMI,
then they will.
One cannot (from an application perspective) store models in UML. They
are stored in another format that gets rendered as UML. There is a big
difference.
Duane
>
--
***********
Senior Standards Strategist - Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://www.adobe.com
Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT Bureau Plenary - http://www.unece.org/cefact/
Chair - OASIS eb SOA TC - http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=ebsoa
***********
