Re: UBL, XMI, XSD, RSS, etc

Farrukh,

I agree - I was not suggesting that XMI should be he serialisation
format.  As you point out, we got aout 200 lines of XML for just one
little class diagram.  I think that XSD and UBL naming & design rules
would be much better.  The reaon I was talking about XMI is:

1	Most developers of business documents start with UML information
models (at least the few in Australia that I am familiar with do).  They
will then create XSD or DTD or even EDIFACT from those UML models.
2	If we want to encourage registry population with information
models (CCs & BIEs) then we need to provide tools to help them do it.
Maybe the tools should translate XSD to ebXML RSS but it seemed to me
that if the "master" was the UML model then why not create all other
representations from that.

I have not looked into XMI close ly enough to understand whether it can
store all the information required and hence whether there would be any
information loss going between XSD and XMI.

Regards

Steve Capell
RedWahoo
Sydney, Australia
Tel : +61 410 437854


-----Original Message-----
From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:] 
Sent: Tuesday, 27 May 2003 2:35 AM
To: Steve Capell
Cc: 'Chin Chee-Kai'; 'Chiusano Joseph'; 'Tim McGrath'; 'Brendan Kelly'
Subject: Re: UBL, XMI, XSD, RSS, etc


I have looked into XMI some time back. XMI is appropriate for a 
canonical representation of UML models. As uch UML modeling tools should

(and often do) use it as their native format for storing UML model. 

XMI is inappropriate for being used as a serialization format for CC 
BIEs or UBL docs. It is tool low level, obtuse and verbose for that. I 
would advise strongly against XMI as a serialization format. I can also 
all but assure you that XMI will not be the format for CC BIE 
serialization.

Steve Capell wrote: