Re: [regrep] Final draft recommendations for CC's and Registry -UML/UMM Profile for CCTS

["Anders W. Tell" <anderst@toolsmiths.se>]

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