Duane Nickull wrote:
> I am not disputing that XMI can be used. I am sure it can be used. I
> am disputing that UML itself (without XMI) can be used
But this is the point, the recommended mechanism to serialize a "UML
models" is using the MOF model of UML X.y and applying the XMI
principles. This is what UML vendors have been doing for years?!
> and noting that whatever we use, UN/CEFACT should standardize that thing.
This is exactly what we are doing, we even got a projectplan and an very
active project for it. We have also scheduled a conference in Stockholm
where we are about to discuss UML in a UN/CEFACT environment. More info
later.
> The OMG itself did note that using XMI had some issues albeit most of
> them are probably irrelevant to our purpose since they are concerned
> with consistent graphical representation.
>
> UML cannot be parsed by applications unless it is conveyed in some
> form of electronic format.
Recomended Serialization is through using XMI based on the MOF meta
model for a specific UML version.
> UML itself does not (in the UML specification) constrain the exact
> format for serialization for items like object persistence, object
> serialization or interchange.
The UML "framework" consists of several integrated parts including XMI,
MOF and a MOF meta model of UML
Here is the MOF meta model for UML
<http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/01-02-15>
so this file + XMI principles = a XML schema for transporting UML models.
/anders
