[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep-cc-review] Re: Methodology - OWL
>Capell: I expect that the most likely tool that will interface with a core component repository is a UML modelling >tool. Accordingly the repository content needs to be understood by a UML >tool. Despite it's imperfections, XMI is the most widespread fromat for >interchange of models so a core component repository probebly ought to >support delivery of core components in XMI format. > > > ><JMC> >This point should definitely be considered if the Registry TC begins >work on defining a serialization format for CC's. I suspect we may also >want to transfer CCs and BIEs "themselves" (i.e. with their data) >between systems, not just their metadata. ></JMC> > >As UML2 comes into play and OMG's MOF work becomes more widely supported, I would have thought that >model interchange formats will become more important and more consistent. > >2 Not all developers of e-business standards like to use a model based >approach. In fact many would jump straight into the XML. The obvious >problem with that is that there are a host of different ways that the same >semantic content can be represented in XML syntax. Nevertheless wouldn't it >be nice if I could just download the re-usable components from a repository >into my XML authoring tool? Better still if the repository provided some >consistent naming & design rules for the XML generation (such as the good >work done by the UBL group and currently being adopted/modified by >UN/CEFACT). > > > ><JMC> >I concur with all of #2. ></JMC> > mm1: One comment as a complement to the excellent discussion, XMI may apply but you can get to different XMI from the UML model and then different XML can result (1--> 3 --> 6, 9, etc.....). Interesting work in Europe in this regard.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]