Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Steve Newcomb wrote (inter alia): | | Actually, property sets make it very clearcut. | Remember that property sets are not implementation | descriptions, whereas UML models are. I've been nibbling at UML for the past six months, and it came up at last week's Open Forum on Metadata Registries (the Open Forum was about to ISO 11179, which I think OASIS may want to use for it's Registry and Repository activity - that's why I was there). I agree that UML models are often implementation descriptions, but it's not obvious to me that they always are. For example, ANSI X3.285, which is proposed to replace the present Part 3 of ISO 11179 (which contains most of the semantics relevant to modelling a data dictionary) seems entirely abstract. They even call it a metamodel. And it's illustrated with UML diagrams. Am I missing something? (I am not addressing and perhaps not even interested in the main topic of the discussion, just in being sure I understand UML, XMI, and the MOF.) regards, Terry Terry Allen Commerce One, Inc. Business Language Designer 1600 Riviera Ave., Suite 200 Advanced Technology Group Walnut Creek, Calif., 94596 tallen[at]sonic.net xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
