I have not tried to do an XML DTD for UML, but it seems like a good idea.
One of the good things abour XML is that there is nothing that prevents my
doing this. One of the bad things about XML is that nothing prevents my
doing this. The reason it is bad hinges on the horrible truth that XML is a
very nice syntax for marking up a document (file) according to its semantic
content, but does not provide a way to convey the semantics of the document
in a standard way. While this is obviously a hard problem, I think that for
XML to live up to its promise there needs to be some more work on the
definition and publication of shared ontologies so that we avoid the problem
Alice had with the Humpty Dumpty (
At 06:59 PM 4/10/98 +0200, Dirk Riehle wrote:
>Now with XML, I hope we can simply kick out our proprietory
>parsers, file/repository readers/writers, etc., and use off-the-shelf
I think this is both possible and a Good Idea; I am currently doing this for
the product I work on. I actually wrote an XML processor (parser) of my
own, but only because I wanted a C++ interface and couldn't find one.
>PS: An example would be a UML "formalization" using XML for
>the repository of a modeling tool. Or, what about XML based modeling
>of database schemas?
>(PPS: Is it schemata in English?)
American Heritage says that either is correct.