Seems logical to me ;-)
So are we agreeing? We seem to be?
;-)
Anders W. Tell wrote:
> 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
>
>
--
***********
Senior Standards Strategist - Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://www.adobe.com
Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT Bureau Plenary - http://www.unece.org/cefact/
Chair - OASIS eb SOA TC - http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=ebsoa
***********
