Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> If one models at the level of UML, one should be able > to create both RDF and Topic Map instances of the UML > models. Yes or no? > > Given that we have XML Schemas, Topic Maps, RDF, and > so forth, isn't it prudent to work with an abstract > modeling technology such as UML over any of the above? I'm probably the wrong person to ask this. Remember that I'm only an occasional amateur of object-oriented development, and I am quite opposed to its use in any modeling outside what I consider to be its strength: the packaging of code modules. One of the reasons I work so much with XML and RDF is that they are *more* abstract than OO, and allow OO modeling as well as other forms, all of which, on aggregate, are far more expressive than OO. Therefore I personally would be the last person to prefer UML models to RDF or Topic maps except for the design of code modules. While I'm at it, I'll note that this is also one of the reasons Python is my computer language of preference: it has strong OO support, in order to take advantage of its strengths within cohesive modules, but it is flexible enough that you can easily go far beyond polymorphism, inheritance and encapsulation when need be. C++ also gives you this capability, although you have to strain mightily to get it. Java simply denies you the opportunity of any deviation from OO orthodoxy. But to answer your first question, I'm sure one could almost always derive a mechanical conversion from XMI to RDF or XTM, and therefore UML, but as a general facility this will be only as good as any mechanical process in modeling, i.e. not very good. -- Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant uche.ogbuji@f... +1 303 583 9900 x 101 Fourthought, Inc. http://Fourthought.com 4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python
|
