Specification Management sub-committee

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.

There was focus on giving RMS FTF guidance on how to solve their xml 
schema "problem"

Problem: They have a uml domain data model, and they have 
generated a "user friendly" xsd from that uml model using a tool, and 
that is being positioned as a psm for xml

They too generated an xsd which takes all associations, and 
results in  a containment tree rather than using xml references.

What people want to do is define uml interfaces with operation 
parameter types which are defined as classes in a domain specific data 
model expressed as a set of uml class diagrams.  This cannot be done if 
the data model has to be cast as a mof model rather than a UML class model.

Start from UML domain application model and use QVT to 
transform from UML metamodel to the XSD metamodel, with a user friendly 
mapping could also recast the rules in mof to xmi spec which specify 
how to construct an xmi schema, as a qvt mapping from the CMOF metamodel 
to the XSD metamodel.

Pete: xmi spec will have qvt for going from cmof to xmi.

Pete: we should have in addition, a useful OMG resource which 
transforms from the uml metamodel to a user friendly xsd realization

Andrew: we could put that useful OMG resource somewhere on an 
OMG web page, perhaps the smsc wiki page

Every community of users have their own set of rules about 
what constitutes a user friendly XSD.   However, we might be able to 
have a xsd form which most people find easy to use.

Specification Management sub-committee

User Tools

Site Tools

Page Tools