Uh, XMI's a file format for data exchange between UML diagramming tools,
isn't it. Do you mean UML? (http://www.oasis-open.org/cover/xmi.html)
XMI seems to me to be a nice way to exchange UML diagrams, but not in
itself a Webby technology. XMI is one way of writing down UML diagrams
in XML for the Web; I don't expect it to be the only way.
For eg., Sergey Melnik's posted some nice work to the RDF Interest Group
(http://www.w3.org/RDF/Interest/) on mapping UML concepts into RDF data
structures. http://www-db.stanford.edu/~melnik/rdf/uml/
This grumble aside, I share your preference for adopting a modeling
formalism over picking a bunch of fixed attributes and using them for
everything... <ducks/>
Dan
On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Anthony Finkelstein wrote:
> OK I have wanted to get this off my chest for some time. I think I
> have mentioned it before but this gives me an opportunity to
> reinforce the point. Rather than using some
> half-baked-arbitrary-pseudo-database like set of fixed relationship
> types why not use a proper standardised modelling scheme for
> expressing relationships between objects such as XMI.
>
> Anthony
> ___________________________________________________________________________
>
> Anthony Finkelstein (Prof.) | TEL: +44 (0)20 7679 7293 (Direct Dial)
> University College London | FAX: +44 (0)20 7387 1397
> Dept. of Computer Science | EMAIL: [log in to unmask]
> Gower Street, | http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/A.Finkelstein
> London WC1E 6BT | OFFICE: 109, Pearson Building
> United Kingdom | PGP Key on request
> ___________________________________________________________________________
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|