[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: UBL, XMI, XSD, RSS, etc
Farrukh, I agree - I was not suggesting that XMI should be he serialisation format. As you point out, we got aout 200 lines of XML for just one little class diagram. I think that XSD and UBL naming & design rules would be much better. The reaon I was talking about XMI is: 1 Most developers of business documents start with UML information models (at least the few in Australia that I am familiar with do). They will then create XSD or DTD or even EDIFACT from those UML models. 2 If we want to encourage registry population with information models (CCs & BIEs) then we need to provide tools to help them do it. Maybe the tools should translate XSD to ebXML RSS but it seemed to me that if the "master" was the UML model then why not create all other representations from that. I have not looked into XMI close ly enough to understand whether it can store all the information required and hence whether there would be any information loss going between XSD and XMI. Regards Steve Capell RedWahoo Sydney, Australia Tel : +61 410 437854 -----Original Message----- From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:farrukh.najmi@sun.com] Sent: Tuesday, 27 May 2003 2:35 AM To: Steve Capell Cc: 'Chin Chee-Kai'; 'Chiusano Joseph'; 'Tim McGrath'; 'Brendan Kelly' Subject: Re: UBL, XMI, XSD, RSS, etc I have looked into XMI some time back. XMI is appropriate for a canonical representation of UML models. As uch UML modeling tools should (and often do) use it as their native format for storing UML model. XMI is inappropriate for being used as a serialization format for CC BIEs or UBL docs. It is tool low level, obtuse and verbose for that. I would advise strongly against XMI as a serialization format. I can also all but assure you that XMI will not be the format for CC BIE serialization. Steve Capell wrote:Hello all, I've been doing a bit more research. It seems to me that the best format for maintenance of business document meta-data is UML. Most UML tools permit the export of UMLdata in astandard format (XMI). I am guessing that your generation tool basically transforms XMI to XSD (hard coded?, using XSLT?, other?). I think our preferred approach for management of regsitry data is to use a UML tool as the primary reference and then to create regsitry update schema by transforming XMI to RSS. So to make my life easy, I basically need four XSLT: XSLT for XMI -> XSD XSLT for XSD -> XMI XSLT for XMI -> RSS XSLT for RSS -> XMI So a couple of questions: 1 Do you know if there would be any significant information loss going to / from UML models represented by XMI? 2 Do you have an XMI representation of the UBL library that we could use as the source data for regsitry population? 3 Do you know if anyone has already built these transformation schema? Regards, Steve Capell RedWahoo Sydney, Australia Tel : +61 410 437854 -----Original Message----- From: Chin Chee-Kai [mailto:cheekai@softml.net] Sent: Tuesday, 6 May 2003 6:22 PM To: UBL; UBL Public Comments Subject: [ubl] UBL 0p70 Common Aggregate Types Java Classes Dear All, Java classes, both source codes and compiled class files, based on the 92 types found in UBL 0p70 Common Aggregate Types (UBL_Library_0p70_Reusable.xsd and CoreComponentTypes.xsd) are now available at: http://SoftML.Net/jedi/ubl/sw/java This work is very preliminary. Nevertheless, the java window component functions will probably help in experimenting with the UBL types, and to simplify data entry and generating XML node files and document files from tailored data. Best Regards, Chin Chee-Kai SoftML Tel: +65-6820-2979 Fax: +65-6743-7875 Email: cheekai@SoftML.Net http://SoftML.Net/
-- regards tim mcgrath phone: +618 93352228 postal: po box 1289 fremantle western australia 6160
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]