[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep] Final draft recommendations for CC's and Registry - UML/UMM Profile for CCTS
Mark, What is the end objective for the "UML to XML" within CEFACT ATG? Obviously one side of this is potentially production rules within UML that can output schema and templates such as CAM - that carry the interchange rules. This is somewhat different focus from UBL -> XML -> UML transfers between modelling tools. Obviously if such XML is of the transaction exchange nature - then CEFACT ATG can shorten their development cycles by potentially leveraging and extending the work that have already been done with CAM. Thanks, DW ----- Original Message ----- From: <MCRAWFORD@lmi.org> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com> Cc: <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 3:15 PM Subject: RE: [regrep] Final draft recommendations for CC's and Registry - UML/UMM Profile for CCTS Anders, Not sure that guarantees consistency. If you don't harmonize the UML models, the MOFs will always be different. You have got to do the difficult harmonization - using core components at the data analysis level - to standardize the UML models. Even then, as I understand it, the optionality of XMI features in XMI 2.0 does not guarantee consistent XML. You must still have a set of parameters (NDRs ala UBL or CEFACT ATG) for how to invoke the XMI. CEFACT ATG already has an approved project for UML to XML and will be accelerating that work as soon as the CEFACT NDRs are finished next week. Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: Anders W. Tell [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] > Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 10:33 AM > To: email@example.com > Cc: Monica J. Martin > Subject: Re: [regrep] Final draft recommendations for CC's > and Registry - UML/UMM Profile for CCTS > > Monica J. Martin wrote: > > > mm1: Last year (yes 2004), ODETTE did an extensive project > related to > > their next generation data model that used XMI. They had to provide > > significant constraint to the use of XMI because the interchange > > UML=>XMI and XMI=>XML rendered many differing results even when > > following the XMI specification. > > > Ms Martin, this is fully what to expect since XMI is a set > of principles that operates on MOF meta models. So if one > wants a precise resulting XML interchange format you take: > * one part UML1.5 meta model ala MOF 1.4 (see file earlier) > * one part adapted XMI principles > * one or more UML profiles such as a UML profile for CCTS 2.01 > > thanks > /anders > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from > the roster of the OASIS TC), go to > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/le > ave_workgroup.php. > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/leave_workgroup.php.