[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Picking the Tools
You are the right person to ask, Uche. I don't have to like the answer. And I thank you. So the basic leg of the SciAm article, a universal system for the Semantic Web, is kaput: no top-level, up-translation. Just noisy peers... Blarggg... The SW at best where it works at all will be a federation of contracts for authoritative services (similar to DoD specs and standards). The service metaphor is the correct metaphor. Raw citable associations among typed data structures and named in somebody's replicable registry are as *universal* as it will get. The means are still just document types (that's what RDF and Topic Maps are). Schema design is not a science; it is an art form. Len http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: Uche Ogbuji [mailto:uche.ogbuji@f...] 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. 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.
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|