Re: [ubl-dev] UML meta-modeling of UN/CEFACT Core Components

[Duane Nickull <dnickull@adobe.com>]

There are also problems in that UML seems to allow certain things that 
XML doesn't.  Multiple occurrences of a specific attribute were one item 
that presented problems to me recently (not sure if it has changed in 
UML 2.0 or if it was just specific to the UML tool I was using)

Duane

Svante Schubert wrote:

> Bruno TRAVERSON wrote:
>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am currently working on UML meta-modeling of UN/CEFACT Core 
>> Components.
>>
>> I have looked at the valuable work done in your XML implementation of 
>> UN/CEFACT Core Components.
>>
>> [...]
>> UML meta-modeling may be a good solution to seamlessly translate the 
>> UML specification into an XML
>> specification.
>>
>> Are you aware of other people working on that topic? I would be glad 
>> to exchange viewpoints with them.
>
>
> There is some tutorial about 'Modeling XML Vocabularies with UML' , 
> which might be interesting for you:
>
> http://xmlmodeling.com/articles/ModelingXML-Part1.pdf
> http://xmlmodeling.com/articles/ModelingXML-Part2.pdf
> http://xmlmodeling.com/articles/ModelingXML-Part3.pdf
>
> I don't rate UML as to sophisticated to hire external specialist to 
> use it, rather it is a valued instrument to abstract complexity.
> Concerning the argument of timewasting synchronization of source and 
> model, I rely on the possibility of bi-directional conversion, 
> improved since UML 2.0.
>
> - Svante


-- 
Senior Standards Strategist
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://www.adobe.com