xml-dev - RE UML vs groves (Was Streaming XML)

[Terry Allen <tallen@sonic.net>]

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.)

regards, Terry


Terry Allen                             Commerce One, Inc.
Business Language Designer		1600 Riviera Ave., Suite 200
Advanced Technology Group               Walnut Creek, Calif., 94596
tallen[at]sonic.net


xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@ic.ac.uk)