RE: Mapping a UML model to a DTD or Schema

[Robin Cover <robin@isogen.com>]

Yes, thanks.

Yesterday I created a news item for swiftML in my
XML news column

http://xml.coverpages.org/sgmlnew.html

See also:

http://xml.coverpages.org/swiftML.html
"swiftML for Business Messages."

Best wishes,
Robin Cover

---------------


On Sat, 27 Jan 2001, Ajay K Sanghi wrote:

> 
> Hello:
> 
> I am reading a document "swiftML design rules, Technical Specification",
> which explains SWIFT's appraoch towards UML->DTD with examples. Their
> approach is to first model business messages i nUML class diagrams and then
> use XML for physical representation. It's good reading. I do not have exact
> URL for the document (around 40 pages) but if you go to www.swift.com and
> search on swiftML, it will fetch you.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ajay
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robin Cover [mailto:robin@isogen.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 10:15 PM
> To: RENOUPREZ Jean-Luc
> Cc: Vegt, Jan; 'xml-dev@lists.xml.org'
> Subject: Re: Mapping a UML model to a DTD or Schema
> 
> 
> The ability to generate XML Schema documents and DTDs from UML
> diagrams is interesting, and no doubt represents one step forward.
> I've seen a number of software tools advertised which are said
> to support this feature.
> 
> In my view, though, the important question to ask of the tool
> which manages the UML (class) diagrams is: "What kind of
> understanding do you have of the semantic relations being
> represented visually?  What kind of integrity constraints can
> you express with respect to class definitions and attribute
> definitions such as to test the conceptual integrity of the
> design?  How complete is the expression language you have for
> modeling these constraints?  The last time(s) I looked,
> OCL was simply not complete.
> 
> The EXPRESS schema language (referenced below) is one kind of
> framework for modeling these constraints; there are graphical
> tools as well.
> 
> The scenario I envision in terms of conceptual modeling would
> be a (formal) language-based framework which supports the
> ability to model/express semantic relations inside a testable,
> executable system.  From this knowledge base, it should be
> possible to generate a variety of (UML) diagrams as well as
> commmon schema representations (XML Schema, DTD, RELAX, TREX,
> Schematron) -- in whatever markup-based syntax you want,
> using whatever facilities the schema language has for
> modeling the semantic relations and other constraints.
> 
> Of course, these schema formalisms already are supported by
> tools, and they have validation engines.  The key insight of
> conceptual modeling is that it operates NOT at the level
> of the implementation (syntax representation, serialization
> format) but at the semantic level, using "transparent"
> vocabulary drawn from the lexicon of the domain expert and
> user, and object models which *directly* reflect the user's
> conceptual model of the (abstracted) "real world" entities.
> 
> I recently extracted a portion of Alexander Borgida's
> 1983/1985 article [dated now in some respects] which
> clarifies this perspective: how to model the problem
> domain in way that matches (one-to-one) the conceptual
> model of the problem as understood/experienced by the
> user -- not by the database designer or markup language
> guru.  And why this is an important consideration in
> data modeling.  Borgida has since moved on to
> description logics and requirements engineering (where
> some of the '1985' principles are still alive), but I
> feel that his insights, and related activity in the
> area of conceptual modeling, are more relevant to the
> (Web) markup-language enterprise than is commonly
> acknowledged.
> 
> This excerpted paper from Borgida is referenced in
> "Conceptual Modeling and Markup Languages"
> <http://xml.coverpages.org/conceptualModeling.html>
> 
> "Features of Languages for the Development of Information
> Systems at the Conceptual Level."
> 
> Robin Cover
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, RENOUPREZ Jean-Luc wrote:
> 
> > At S.W.I.F.T., we are reviewing our approach at developing Message
> Standards;
> > the new paradigm is based on modelling (using UML),
> > and we transform class diagrams modelling the messages to DTDs (today)
> > and to Schema's (to morrow).
> >
> > Our conversion rules can be found on http://www.swift.com
> > (go to the 'Products & Services' page. You'll find our document as a .pdf:
> swiftML).
> >
> > I'll be very interested to get some feedback on our approach.
> >
> >
> > "Vegt, Jan" wrote:
> >
> > > On Thursday, January 25, 2001 4:32 PM Arnold, Curt wrote :
> > > >The Cover pages have a fairly lengthy list of STEP and XML initiatives
> > > >http://xml.coverpages.org/related.html#step
> > >
> > > Arnold, thanks. In my understanding XML and STEP as system neutral data
> > > wrappers are
> > >  roughly similar mechanisms. I am just wondering if the concept of a
> > > modeling level is
> > > feasible/practical for a *generalized* markup language.
> > > In ebXML and BizTalk you see that modeling levels appear.
> > >
> > > Also with richer data type support soon available in XML via XSchema, I
> > > wonder if
> > > mechanisms like EXPRESS-X are actually avoidable (to guarantuee against
> > > critical
> > > data loss). Any thoughts on this? Len?
> > >
> > > >The approach I favor is to generate an UML model from the EXPRESS
> schema
> > > (SELECT
> > > >maps to Interface for example), refine and iterate on the UML model and
> > > then
> > > >produce XML Schema from the UML model.
> > >
> > > Very interesting.
> > >
> > > >The aecXML (Architectural, Engineering and Construction XML,
> > > http://www.aecXML.org)
> > > > initiative is currently exploring this approach with mapping the
> > > International
> > > >Alliance for Interoperability's
> > > >Industrial Foundation Classes schema to an XML representation.
> > >
> > > Thanks, I'll check that out.
> > >
> > > Jan
> >
> 
> 
>