Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Terry Allen <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 15:36:43 -0800
Steve Newcomb wrote (inter alia):
| Actually, property sets make it very clearcut.
| Remember that property sets are not implementation
| descriptions, whereas UML models are.
I've been nibbling at UML for the past six months,
and it came up at last week's Open Forum on Metadata
Registries (the Open Forum was about to ISO 11179, which
I think OASIS may want to use for it's Registry and
Repository activity - that's why I was there).
I agree that UML models are often implementation descriptions,
but it's not obvious to me that they always are. For example,
ANSI X3.285, which is proposed to replace the present Part 3
of ISO 11179 (which contains most of the semantics relevant
to modelling a data dictionary) seems entirely abstract.
They even call it a metamodel. And it's illustrated with UML
diagrams. Am I missing something?
(I am not addressing and perhaps not even interested
in the main topic of the discussion, just in being sure
I understand UML, XMI, and the MOF.)
Terry Allen Commerce One, Inc.
Business Language Designer 1600 Riviera Ave., Suite 200
Advanced Technology Group Walnut Creek, Calif., 94596
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:email@example.com
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)