[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I feel encouraged already! To answer Tom's question regarding what I'm
thinking of...
I haven't actually really given it much thought but I'm kind of thinking
about possibly describing each entity and its relationships/properties using
XML as follows:
<entity>
<type>...
<name>..
<properties>
<prop1>..
...
<propn>..
</porperties>
<methods>
...same as for properties
</methods>
<relationships>
...
</relationships>
</entity>
This is very crude as I haven't done any modelling for the reasons below so
is simply a kind of simplified view of my even more basic understanding.
Maybe RDF or XLink for example could be used to represent each relationship
more accurately? I'm sure other more learned friends could make many
suggestions?
Apart from being easy to create from my point of view I also see several
side effects.
1. Leave the graphical (or any alternative representation for that mater) up
to a graphical presentation tool. And consequently...
2. Would allow the user to specify how the model would be graphically
presented. Whether it be UML or whatever. Maybe a very simplified model
without whistles and bells would be more appropriate to give to business
types?
3. Would be possible to "link" not only other UML objects together but also
allow any other resource to be associated with an object. I think UML tools
allow documents to be "attatched" to objects but what about being able to
link video clips or web services?
4. Improved searching and updating of global parameters/resources/names
possibly?
I'm sure there's many more but as I haven't used any CASE tools in anger
(just to see whether I could use them but couldn't!) I'm not sure how much
functionally they provide. I assume it is easy to select a particular object
and view it's components/relationships?
As I said, I'm not a UML or modelling guru so I might be talking bollocks
but it kind of sounds good to me!!:0)
I've added a little background to why/how this might be helpful to VI users
in particular below if anyone is interested but if you're not I'd hit delete
now!
Cheers
Ian
At this point there is no mechanism for visually impared people to produce
UML models. This obviously limits the kind of roles otherwise capable VI
people would be considered for. If I'm on a large project I contribute to
the design in discussion but have to rely on other team members to actually
produce the design. There are inherrant problems with this though as my
understanding may be different from what has been "drawn" no matter how well
I might explain myself. On small project I keep the design in my head and
have to makes sure the development team are made aware and kept informed of
what is required. This works for me but it would be extremely useful to be
able to produce something tangible that they could refr to.
Many VI people are in this position and to their credit, many other them
haven't let this issue stop them from progressing within a company but I
think all would like to be able to at least have the option.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Gaven [mailto:tgaven@vitria.com]
Sent: 07 February 2002 12:58
To: SHARPE, Ian
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] XML to UML
Ian,
I'm building a UML notation and conversion into RelaxNG, and eventually
XML Schema. We would also like to round trip back into UML, but I haven't
thought about that problem yet.
Rational Rose, Argo, and Poseidon are all uml editors. They convert the
visual model into XMi, an XML dialect invented by the OMG. Poseidon and
Argo export xmi directly. I think with Rose, you need a plug-in. I have
only used Argo and Poseidon, since they are free.
I'd love to hear more about what you are thinking. Do you use UML Class
Diagrams?
tom
-----Original Message-----
From: SHARPE, Ian [mailto:Ian.SHARPE@cambridge.sema.slb.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 7:44 AM
To: Xmldev (E-mail)
Subject: [xml-dev] XML to UML
Does anyone know of any XML language which can be transformed to UML? I'm
blind and have been looking at how to create models without using UML. I've
heard recently that Rational Rose may export an XML version of a model but
haven't looked into this yet. Theoretically it should then be possible to
reverse the process. Assuming this XML representation is too complex to
simply hand craft it may be possible to construct an XML language which can
be transformed into this more complex exported format?
A lot of ifs and maybes there but hopefully someone might be able to at
least clear up some of them if not have any actual answers?
Cheers
Ian
___________________________________________________________________________
This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the
individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions presented are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of
SchlumbergerSema.
If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have received
this
email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or
copying of this email is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this email in error please notify the SchlumbergerSema
Helpdesk by telephone on +44 (0) 121 627 5600.
___________________________________________________________________________
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
|
