 |
 |
On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Anthony Finkelstein wrote: > yes ... of course ... UML ... I said XMI as its the OMG standardised > markup scheme and therefore could be easily integrated with another > markup scheme using namespaces or something similar ... it would seem > strange to look for a way around the common representation that could > be extracted from a CASE tool I believe XMI 1.1 is a pre-namespaces technology, ie. doesn't play well with other vocabularies. (this according to Don Box on the XML-Protocols list, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2000Mar/0009.html) Don (discussing SOAP, and the RDF-like serialization syntax it includes): Many of us have familiar at XMI and MOF in general. However, I believe the OMG is in the process of revamping the XMI encoding, which was done prior to namespaces and schema language. One of my personal goals is to make obvious how XMI fits into this picture. Assuming this to be true (OMG broke a bunch of URLs so I can't easily go check the docs I'd bookmarked, grumble grumble...), I doubt XMI as-is is the last word on UML interchange syntax in XML. There's always more than one way to write something in XML though... Whatever, I'm far from convinced that UML itself is a technology we can simply shoe-horn into the Web as-is. I'm thinking eg of the Web architecture axiom that everything of value have a URI name on the Web, so it can be referenced, described, annotated. UML in itself doesn't give Web identifiers to (say) relationship types and entity classes. I believe that if UML were tweaked in this direction it would start to look a lot like RDF... In this light, Sergey Melnik's work is particularly interesting. Dan %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%