My vote: RDF is the better format.
Race Bannon, Ph.D.
Director of Training and Documentation
Information Architects
4064 Colony Road
Charlotte, NC 28211
Ph: 704/367-2105
Fx: 704/442-0693
Toll Free: 877/INFOARC x. 2105
iA: http://www.ia.com
iA Education: http://www.ia.com/ia/training/index.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Haugen [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 8:46 AM
To: '[email protected]'; 'ebXML-CCBP-Analysis (E-mail)'
Subject: XMI reality check
One of the issues for the Business Process Editor has been
what format to use to store business process models for
interoperability with UML tools. I am also encountering
this same issue in other projects.
XMI seems to be the "standard", but I have also heard
lots of complaints.
This is a general call for feedback on XMI, from people
who have tried it:
* What UML tools have you tried XMI with?
* Have you tried to take the same XMI model and
move it from one tool to another?
* What problems did you encounter?
* Were XMI models imported into a UML tool
really ugly, even if they might have worked
technically?
* Any other XMI comments...
* What's a better format, if any? (RDF?)
Thanks a million,
Bob Haugen
------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
"unsubscribe" in the body to: [email protected]
