Issue 4400: XML Schema package issue (cwm-rtf) Source: Unisys (Dr. Doug Tolbert, dtolbert408(at)gmail.com) Nature: Enhancement Severity: Significant Summary: The planned XML Schema package proposed for inclusion in CWM 1.1 should be cognizant of and wherever possible, equivalent to, the XML Schema model planned for the inclusion in the XMI specification. Within reason, corresponding XML Schema-specific class in the two specifications show share the same names, attributes, and relationships to other classes. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: July 18, 2001: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== From: "Tolbert, Doug M" To: issues@omg.org Subject: New Issue for CWM Revision Task Force Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 16:46:10 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-UIDL: ##,e9+*>!!8eQ!!1X!!! Source: Unisys Corp. (Doug Tolbert, doug.tolbert@unisys.com) Nature: Extension Severity: Significant Summary: The planned XML Schema package proposed for inclusion in CWM 1.1 should be cognizant of and wherever possible, equivalent to, the XML Schema model planned for the inclusion in the XMI specification. Within reason, corresponding XML Schema-specific class in the two specifications show share the same names, attributes, and relationships to other classes. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: April 3, 2001: received issue Subject: issue 4400 To: Doug.Tolbert@unisys.com Cc: cwm-rtf@omg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.7 March 21, 2001 Message-ID: From: "Dan Chang" Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 12:19:58 -0700 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM069/03/M/IBM(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 07/25/2001 01:19:59 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: ?W+e9+l>e9iQe!!-ZQd9 Doug, I am responsible for resolving this issue. Thank you for raising it. Since the XMI specification that you cited is not an adopted OMG technology, I have no access to it. Please send me what you think I should consider (draft XMI specification and XML Schema metamodel in Rose 2000) by 7/30 so that I will have time to take them into consideration. As you know, I have reviewed all classes and associations of the XML Schema metamodel in the revised XML package to the CWM RTF in Danvers. The only issue raised there was the name of the SimpleComplexContent class. I will try to find a better name for it. Regards, Dan e-business Data Technology and Standard IBM Silicon Valley Laboratory Notes: Dan Chang/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS Internet: dtchang@us.ibm.com VM: IBMUSM50(DTCHANG) Phone: (408)-463-2319 Juergen Boldt cc: Subject: issues 4400 - 4405 CWM RTF issues 07/24/01 02:26 PM This is issue # 4400 "Tolbert, Doug M" XML Schema package issue The planned XML Schema package proposed for inclusion in CWM 1.1 should be cognizant of and wherever possible, equivalent to, the XML Schema model planned for the inclusion in the XMI specification. Within reason, corresponding XML Schema-specific class in the two specifications show share the same names, attributes, and relationships to other classes. ----------------------------- This is issue # 4401 "Tolbert, Doug M" package may fail to permit definition of transformations Usage experience with the CWM 1.0 Transformation package has uncovered several situations in which the package may fail to permit definition of transformations that fully capture the intent of implementors. Such problems have appeared in several unrelated modeling venues and have led some implementors to seek alternative means for describing transformations. The existing transformation package should be reviewed by the RTF and changed as needed to improve its ability to represent the breadth of transformation semantics found in practical usage scenarios. As part of this effort, the RTF should consider incorporating the existing TypeMapping package into an evolved Transformation package -- TypeMappings are, after all, really just lightweight transformations. ------------------------------- This is issue # 4402 "Tolbert, Doug M" consider changing DeployedComponent from being subclass of Core::Package In the SoftwareDeployment package, consider changing DeployedComponent from being a subclass of Core::Package to being as subclasss of Core::Subsystem. This change preserves the package nature of DeployedComponents and, at the same time, adds the ability of DeployedComponents to have features (because Core::Subsystem is a subclass of Core::Classifier, as well as Core::Package). -------------------------- This is issue # 4403 "Tolbert, Doug M" Identify precise CWM definition to which interchange doc. conforms Provide in the body of a CWM interchange document, a means for identifying the precise CWM definition to which the interchange document conforms. Something similar to the way the XML documents identify the URI of the XML definition they conform to would do nicely. Such a mechanism in effect creates a name space within which the contents of the CWM interchange document can be evaluated. Useful side effects of having such a namespace include: (1) the definition of CWM extension packages without the present need that they be accompanied by the CWM definition itself, (2) a framework in which Universally Unique Identifiers (UUIDs) can be defined for each CWM object. Several requests for CWM UUIDs have already been received informally. ----------------------------- This is issue # 4404 "Tolbert, Doug M" Review the semantics of existing attribute types that are also CWM classes The precise semantics of the use of the CWM Expression class (and its subclasses) as the type of attributes of CWM classes is not clearly delineated (as discussed at the 7/12/01 CWM RTF meeting in Danvers, MA). Review the semantics of exi From: "Tolbert, Doug M" To: Dan Chang , "Tolbert, Doug M" Cc: cwm-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 4400 Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 15:16:23 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-UIDL: g=5e9,M*e9Ue&!!i_K!! Dan, Sridhar says Steve Brodsky, of your facility, has the necessary info. Perhaps you should contact him. Doug -----Original Message----- From: Dan Chang [mailto:dtchang@us.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 12:20 PM To: Doug.Tolbert@unisys.com Cc: cwm-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 4400 Doug, I am responsible for resolving this issue. Thank you for raising it. Since the XMI specification that you cited is not an adopted OMG technology, I have no access to it. Please send me what you think I should consider (draft XMI specification and XML Schema metamodel in Rose 2000) by 7/30 so that I will have time to take them into consideration. As you know, I have reviewed all classes and associations of the XML Schema metamodel in the revised XML package to the CWM RTF in Danvers. The only issue raised there was the name of the SimpleComplexContent class. I will try to find a better name for it. Regards, Dan e-business Data Technology and Standard IBM Silicon Valley Laboratory Notes: Dan Chang/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS Internet: dtchang@us.ibm.com VM: IBMUSM50(DTCHANG) Phone: (408)-463-2319 Juergen Boldt cc: Subject: issues 4400 - 4405 CWM RTF issues 07/24/01 02:26 PM This is issue # 4400 "Tolbert, Doug M" XML Schema package issue The planned XML Schema package proposed for inclusion in CWM 1.1 should be cognizant of and wherever possible, equivalent to, the XML Schema model planned for the inclusion in the XMI specification. Within reason, corresponding XML Schema-specific class in the two specifications show share the same names, attributes, and relationships to other classes. ----------------------------- This is issue # 4401 "Tolbert, Doug M" package may fail to permit definition of transformations Usage experience with the CWM 1.0 Transformation package has uncovered several situations in which the package may fail to permit definition of transformations that fully capture the intent of implementors. Such problems have appeared in several unrelated modeling venues and have led some implementors to seek alternative means for describing transformations. The existing transformation package should be reviewed by the RTF and changed as needed to improve its ability to represent the breadth of transformation semantics found in practical usage scenarios. As part of this effort, the RTF should consider incorporating the existing TypeMapping package into an evolved Transformation package -- TypeMappings are, after all, really just lightweight transformations. ------------------------------- This is issue # 4402 "Tolbert, Doug M" consider changing DeployedComponent from being subclass of Core::Package In the SoftwareDeployment package, consider changing DeployedComponent from being a subclass of Core::Package to being as subclasss of Core::Subsystem. This change preserves the package nature of DeployedComponents and, at the same time, adds the ability of DeployedComponents to have features (because Core::Subsystem is a subclass of Core::Classifier, as well as Core::Package). -------------------------- This is issue # 4403 "Tolbert, Doug M" Identify precise CWM definition to which interchange doc. conforms Provide in the body of a CWM interchange document, a means for identifying the precise CWM definition to which the interchange document conforms. Something similar to the way the XML documents identify the URI of the XML definition they conform to would do nicely. Such a mechanism in effect creates a name space within which the contents of the CWM interchange document can be evaluated. Useful side effects of having such a namespace include: (1) the definition of CWM extension packages without the present need that they be accompanied by the CWM definition itself, (2) a framework in which Universally Unique Identifiers (UUIDs) can be defined for each CWM object. Several requests for CWM UUIDs have already been received informally. ----------------------------- This is issue # 4404 "Tolbert, Doug M" Review the semantics of existing attribute types that are also CWM classes The precise semantics of the use of the CWM Expression class (and its subclasses) as the type of attributes of CWM classes is not clearly delineated (as discussed at the 7/12/01 CWM RTF meeting in Danvers, MA). Review the semantics of existing attribute types that are also CWM classes and correct them as needed. ---------------------------- This is issue # 4405 "Tolbert, Doug M" diagram named "CWM Package Dependencies" shows wrong dependency arrow In the CWM .mdl file, the diagram named "CWM Package Dependencies" contains a dependency arrow showing that the Relational package depends on the SoftwareDeployment package. This dependency arrow is erroneous and should be removed (the dependency does not appear in the definitional CWM XMI file). ================================================================ Juergen Boldt Senior Member of Technical Staff Object Management Group Tel. +1-781 444 0404 ext. 132 250 First Avenue, Suite 201 Fax: +1-781 444 0320 Needham, MA 02494, USA Email: juergen@omg.org URL: www.omg.org ================================================================ Subject: RE: issue 4400 To: "Tolbert, Doug M" Cc: cwm-rtf@omg.org, "Tolbert, Doug M" X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.7 March 21, 2001 Message-ID: From: "Dan Chang" Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 13:24:40 -0700 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM069/03/M/IBM(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 07/25/2001 02:24:42 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: YF#"!i7,e92kJ!!nQ7e9 Doug, Since you raised the issue, I would like get the draft XMI specification and metamodel in Rose 2000 from you. This will avoid any potential misunderstanding and confusion. Besides, like you, I am extremely busy. Regards, Dan e-business Data Technology and Standard IBM Silicon Valley Laboratory Notes: Dan Chang/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS Internet: dtchang@us.ibm.com VM: IBMUSM50(DTCHANG) Phone: (408)-463-2319 "Tolbert, Doug M" To: Dan Chang/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS, "Tolbert, Doug M" nisys.com> cc: cwm-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 4400 07/25/01 01:16 PM Dan, Sridhar says Steve Brodsky, of your facility, has the necessary info. Perhaps you should contact him. Doug -----Original Message----- From: Dan Chang [mailto:dtchang@us.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 12:20 PM To: Doug.Tolbert@unisys.com Cc: cwm-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 4400 Doug, I am responsible for resolving this issue. Thank you for raising it. Since the XMI specification that you cited is not an adopted OMG technology, I have no access to it. Please send me what you think I should consider (draft XMI specification and XML Schema metamodel in Rose 2000) by 7/30 so that I will have time to take them into consideration. As you know, I have reviewed all classes and associations of the XML Schema metamodel in the revised XML package to the CWM RTF in Danvers. The only issue raised there was the name of the SimpleComplexContent class. I will try to find a better name for it. Regards, Dan e-business Data Technology and Standard IBM Silicon Valley Laboratory Notes: Dan Chang/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS Internet: dtchang@us.ibm.com VM: IBMUSM50(DTCHANG) Phone: (408)-463-2319 Juergen Boldt cc: Subject: issues 4400 - 4405 CWM RTF issues 07/24/01 02:26 PM This is issue # 4400 "Tolbert, Doug M" XML Schema package issue The planned XML Schema package proposed for inclusion in CWM 1.1 should be cognizant of and wherever possible, equivalent to, the XML Schema model planned for the inclusion in the XMI specification. Within reason, corresponding XML Schema-specific class in the two specifications show share the same names, attributes, and relationships to other classes. ----------------------------- This is issue # 4401 "Tolbert, Doug M" package may fail to permit definition of transformations Usage experience with the CWM 1.0 Transformation package has uncovered several situations in which the package may fail to permit definition of transformations that fully capture the intent of implementors. Such problems have appeared in several unrelated modeling venues and have led some implementors to seek alternative means for describing transformations. The existing transformation package should be reviewed by the RTF and changed as needed to improve its ability to represent the breadth of transformation semantics found in practical usage scenarios. As part of this effort, the RTF should consider incorporating the existing TypeMapping package into an evolved Transformation package -- TypeMappings are, after all, really just lightweight transformations. ------------------------------- This is issue # 4402 "Tolbert, Doug M" consider changing DeployedComponent from being subclass of Core::Package In the SoftwareDeployment package, consider changing DeployedComponent from being a subclass of Core::Package to being as subclasss of Core::Subsystem. This change preserves the package nature of DeployedComponents and, at the same time, adds the ability of DeployedComponents to have features (because Core::Subsystem is a subclass of Core::Classifier, as well as Core::Package). -------------------------- This is issue # 4403 "Tolbert, Doug M" Identify precise CWM definition to which interchange doc. conforms Provide in the body of a CWM interchange document, a means for identifying the precise CWM definition to which the interchange document conforms. Something similar to the way the XML documents identify the URI of the XML definition they conform to would do nicely. Such a mechanism in effect creates a name space within which the contents of the CWM interchange document can be evaluated. Useful side effects of having such a namespace include: (1) the definition of CWM extension packages without the present need that they be accompanied by the CWM definition itself, (2) a framework in which Universally Unique Identifiers (UUIDs) can be defined for each CWM object. Several requests for CWM UUIDs have already been received informally. ----------------------------- This is issue # 4404 "Tolbert, Doug M" Review the semantics of existing attribute types that are also CWM classes The precise semantics of the use of the CWM Expression class (and its subclasses) as the type of attributes of CWM classes is not clearly delineated (as discussed at the 7/12/01 CWM RTF meeting in Danvers, MA). Review the semantics of existing attribute types that are also CWM classes and correct them as needed. ---------------------------- This is issue # 4405 "Tolbert, Doug M" diagram named "CWM Package Dependencies" shows wrong dependency arrow In the CWM .mdl file, the diagram named "CWM Package Dependencies" contains a dependency arrow showing that the Relational package depends on the SoftwareDeployment package. This dependency arrow is erroneous and should be removed (the dependency does not appear in the definitional CWM XMI file). ================================================================ Juergen Boldt Senior Member of Technical Staff Object Management Group Tel. +1-781 444 0404 ext. 132 250 First Avenue, Suite 201 Fax: +1-781 444 0320 Needham, MA 02494, USA Email: juergen@omg.org URL: www.omg.org ================================================================ From: "Tolbert, Doug M" To: "Steve Brodsky (E-mail)" Cc: "Iyengar, Sridhar" , cwm-rtf@omg.org Subject: FW: issue 4400 Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 16:07:55 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-UIDL: /*~e9n-?!!PW1!!LpNe9 Steve, I understand from Sridhar that you have the material that Dan is requesting. The subject issue is the first in the list below. Can you please forward a copy of the proposed XML Schema for XMI to him and copy me? Thanks for your help, Doug Tolbert -----Original Message----- From: Dan Chang [mailto:dtchang@us.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 1:25 PM To: Tolbert, Doug M Cc: cwm-rtf@omg.org; Tolbert, Doug M Subject: RE: issue 4400 Doug, Since you raised the issue, I would like get the draft XMI specification and metamodel in Rose 2000 from you. This will avoid any potential misunderstanding and confusion. Besides, like you, I am extremely busy. Regards, Dan e-business Data Technology and Standard IBM Silicon Valley Laboratory Notes: Dan Chang/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS Internet: dtchang@us.ibm.com VM: IBMUSM50(DTCHANG) Phone: (408)-463-2319 "Tolbert, Doug M" To: Dan Chang/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS, "Tolbert, Doug M" nisys.com> cc: cwm-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 4400 07/25/01 01:16 PM Dan, Sridhar says Steve Brodsky, of your facility, has the necessary info. Perhaps you should contact him. Doug -----Original Message----- From: Dan Chang [mailto:dtchang@us.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 12:20 PM To: Doug.Tolbert@unisys.com Cc: cwm-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 4400 Doug, I am responsible for resolving this issue. Thank you for raising it. Since the XMI specification that you cited is not an adopted OMG technology, I have no access to it. Please send me what you think I should consider (draft XMI specification and XML Schema metamodel in Rose 2000) by 7/30 so that I will have time to take them into consideration. As you know, I have reviewed all classes and associations of the XML Schema metamodel in the revised XML package to the CWM RTF in Danvers. The only issue raised there was the name of the SimpleComplexContent class. I will try to find a better name for it. Regards, Dan e-business Data Technology and Standard IBM Silicon Valley Laboratory Notes: Dan Chang/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS Internet: dtchang@us.ibm.com VM: IBMUSM50(DTCHANG) Phone: (408)-463-2319 Juergen Boldt cc: Subject: issues 4400 - 4405 CWM RTF issues 07/24/01 02:26 PM This is issue # 4400 "Tolbert, Doug M" XML Schema package issue The planned XML Schema package proposed for inclusion in CWM 1.1 should be cognizant of and wherever possible, equivalent to, the XML Schema model planned for the inclusion in the XMI specification. Within reason, corresponding XML Schema-specific class in the two specifications show share the same names, attributes, and relationships to other classes. ----------------------------- This is issue # 4401 "Tolbert, Doug M" package may fail to permit definition of transformations Usage experience with the CWM 1.0 Transformation package has uncovered several situations in which the package may fail to permit definition of transformations that fully capture the intent of implementors. Such problems have appeared in several unrelated modeling venues and have led some implementors to seek alternative means for describing transformations. The existing transformation package should be reviewed by the RTF and changed as needed to improve its ability to represent the breadth of transformation semantics found in practical usage scenarios. As part of this effort, the RTF should consider incorporating the existing TypeMapping package into an evolved Transformation package -- TypeMappings are, after all, really just lightweight transformations. ------------------------------- This is issue # 4402 "Tolbert, Doug M" consider changing DeployedComponent from being subclass of Core::Package In the SoftwareDeployment package, consider changing DeployedComponent from being a subclass of Core::Package to being as subclasss of Core::Subsystem. This change preserves the package nature of DeployedComponents and, at the same time, adds the ability of DeployedComponents to have features (because Core::Subsystem is a subclass of Core::Classifier, as well as Core::Package). -------------------------- This is issue # 4403 "Tolbert, Doug M" Identify precise CWM definition to which interchange doc. conforms Provide in the body of a CWM interchange document, a means for identifying the precise CWM definition to which the interchange document conforms. Something similar to the way the XML documents identify the URI of the XML definition they conform to would do nicely. Such a mechanism in effect creates a name space within which the contents of the CWM interchange document can be evaluated. Useful side effects of having such a namespace include: (1) the definition of CWM extension packages without the present need that they be accompanied by the CWM definition itself, (2) a framework in which Universally Unique Identifiers (UUIDs) can be defined for each CWM object. Several requests for CWM UUIDs have already been received informally. ----------------------------- This is issue # 4404 "Tolbert, Doug M" Review the semantics of existing attribute types that are also CWM classes The precise semantics of the use of the CWM Expression class (and its subclasses) as the type of attributes of CWM classes is not clearly delineated (as discussed at the 7/12/01 CWM RTF meeting in Danvers, MA). Review the semantics of existing attribute types that are also CWM classes and correct them as needed. ---------------------------- This is issue # 4405 "Tolbert, Doug M" diagram named "CWM Package Dependencies" shows wrong dependency arrow In the CWM .mdl file, the diagram named "CWM Package Dependencies" contains a dependency arrow showing that the Relational package depends on the SoftwareDeployment package. This dependency arrow is erroneous and should be removed (the dependency does not appear in the definitional CWM XMI file). ================================================================ Juergen Boldt Senior Member of Technical Staff Object Management Group Tel. +1-781 444 0404 ext. 132 250 First Avenue, Suite 201 Fax: +1-781 444 0320 Needham, MA 02494, USA Email: juergen@omg.org URL: www.omg.org ================================================================ From: "Tolbert, Doug M" To: "Dan Chang (E-mail)" Cc: "Steve Brodsky (E-mail)" , "Iyengar, Sridhar" , cwm-rtf@omg.org Subject: FW: issue 4400 Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 18:04:53 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-UIDL: $mUd9JM""!XJ!e92bPe9 Dan, Attached are pointers from Steve Brodsky that should fulfill the information needs you have for Issue #4400. I don't see any need to convert these to a Rose model as you suggested -- the XML Schema Rose model is your area. The issue asks that CWM XML Schema model be as consistent as possible with the XMI representation of the same ideas, but it does not require capturing the XMI schema in Rose. Doug -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Brodsky [mailto:sbrodsky@us.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 2:53 PM To: Tolbert, Doug M Cc: Iyengar, Sridhar; cwm-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: FW: issue 4400 Doug, The XMI Production of XML Schema revised submission includes a model of XML Schema. The URL of the submission is http://www.omg.org/techprocess/meetings/schedule/XMI_Prod. _of_XML_Schema_RFP.html http://cgi.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/01-06-12 The revised June 18th submission was presented to the ADTF in Boston and will be available for voting at the Toronto OMG meeting. ftp://ftp.omg.org/pub/docs/ad/01-07-09.pdf Please let me know if I can be of assistance regarding this model or XMI in general. Thanks, -Steve Stephen A. Brodsky, Ph.D. Software Architect Notes Address: Stephen Brodsky/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS Internet Address: sbrodsky@us.ibm.com Phone: 408.463.5659 "Tolbert, Doug M" on 07/25/2001 02:07:55 PM To: Stephen Brodsky/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS cc: "Iyengar, Sridhar" , cwm-rtf@omg.org Subject: FW: issue 4400 Steve, I understand from Sridhar that you have the material that Dan is requesting. The subject issue is the first in the list below. Can you please forward a copy of the proposed XML Schema for XMI to him and copy me? Thanks for your help, Doug Tolbert -----Original Message----- From: Dan Chang [mailto:dtchang@us.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 1:25 PM To: Tolbert, Doug M Cc: cwm-rtf@omg.org; Tolbert, Doug M Subject: RE: issue 4400 Doug, Since you raised the issue, I would like get the draft XMI specification and metamodel in Rose 2000 from you. This will avoid any potential misunderstanding and confusion. Besides, like you, I am extremely busy. Regards, Dan e-business Data Technology and Standard IBM Silicon Valley Laboratory Notes: Dan Chang/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS Internet: dtchang@us.ibm.com VM: IBMUSM50(DTCHANG) Phone: (408)-463-2319 "Tolbert, Doug M" To: Dan Chang/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS, "Tolbert, Doug M" nisys.com> cc: cwm-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 4400 07/25/01 01:16 PM Dan, Sridhar says Steve Brodsky, of your facility, has the necessary info. Perhaps you should contact him. Doug -----Original Message----- From: Dan Chang [mailto:dtchang@us.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 12:20 PM To: Doug.Tolbert@unisys.com Cc: cwm-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 4400 Doug, I am responsible for resolving this issue. Thank you for raising it. Since the XMI specification that you cited is not an adopted OMG technology, I have no access to it. Please send me what you think I should consider (draft XMI specification and XML Schema metamodel in Rose 2000) by 7/30 so that I will have time to take them into consideration. As you know, I have reviewed all classes and associations of the XML Schema metamodel in the revised XML package to the CWM RTF in Danvers. The only issue raised there was the name of the SimpleComplexContent class. I will try to find a better name for it. Regards, Dan e-business Data Technology and Standard IBM Silicon Valley Laboratory Notes: Dan Chang/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS Internet: dtchang@us.ibm.com VM: IBMUSM50(DTCHANG) Phone: (408)-463-2319 Juergen Boldt cc: Subject: issues 4400 - 4405 CWM RTF issues 07/24/01 02:26 PM This is issue # 4400 "Tolbert, Doug M" XML Schema package issue The planned XML Schema package proposed for inclusion in CWM 1.1 should be cognizant of and wherever possible, equivalent to, the XML Schema model planned for the inclusion in the XMI specification. Within reason, corresponding XML Schema-specific class in the two specifications show share the same names, attributes, and relationships to other classes. ----------------------------- This is issue # 4401 "Tolbert, Doug M" package may fail to permit definition of transformations Usage experience with the CWM 1.0 Transformation package has uncovered several situations in which the package may fail to permit definition of transformations that fully capture the intent of implementors. Such problems have appeared in several unrelated modeling venues and have led some implementors to seek alternative means for describing transformations. The existing transformation package should be reviewed by the RTF and changed as needed to improve its ability to represent the breadth of transformation semantics found in practical usage scenarios. As part of this effort, the RTF should consider incorporating the existing TypeMapping package into an evolved Transformation package -- TypeMappings are, after all, really just lightweight transformations. ------------------------------- This is issue # 4402 "Tolbert, Doug M" consider changing DeployedComponent from being subclass of Core::Package In the SoftwareDeployment package, consider changing DeployedComponent from being a subclass of Core::Package to being as subclasss of Core::Subsystem. This change preserves the package nature of DeployedComponents and, at the same time, adds the ability of DeployedComponents to have features (because Core::Subsystem is a subclass of Core::Classifier, as well as Core::Package). -------------------------- This is issue # 4403 "Tolbert, Doug M" Identify precise CWM definition to which interchange doc. conforms Provide in the body of a CWM interchange document, a means for identifying the precise CWM definition to which the interchange document conforms. Something similar to the way the XML documents identify the URI of the XML definition they conform to would do nicely. Such a mechanism in effect creates a name space within which the contents of the CWM interchange document can be evaluated. Useful side effects of having such a namespace include: (1) the definition of CWM extension packages without the present need that they be accompanied by the CWM definition itself, (2) a framework in which Universally Unique Identifiers (UUIDs) can be defined for each CWM object. Several requests for CWM UUIDs have already been received informally. ----------------------------- This is issue # 4404 "Tolbert, Doug M" Review the semantics of existing attribute types that are also CWM classes The precise semantics of the use of the CWM Expression class (and its subclasses) as the type of attributes of CWM classes is not clearly delineated (as discussed at the 7/12/01 CWM RTF meeting in Danvers, MA). Review the semantics of existing attribute types that are also CWM classes and correct them as needed. ---------------------------- This is issue # 4405 "Tolbert, Doug M" diagram named "CWM Package Dependencies" shows wrong dependency arrow In the CWM .mdl file, the diagram named "CWM Package Dependencies" contains a dependency arrow showing that the Relational package depends on the SoftwareDeployment package. This dependency arrow is erroneous and should be removed (the dependency does not appear in the definitional CWM XMI file). ================================================================ Juergen Boldt Senior Member of Technical Staff Object Management Group Tel. +1-781 444 0404 ext. 132 250 First Avenue, Suite 201 Fax: +1-781 444 0320 Needham, MA 02494, USA Email: juergen@omg.org URL: www.omg.org ================================================================ From: "Pete Rivett" To: "'Tolbert, Doug M'" , "'Dan Chang'" , Cc: Subject: RE: issue 4400 Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 00:44:20 +0100 Message-ID: <002701c11563$ba6b8a00$114c04c8@CHIMAY> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300 In-Reply-To: <97F39596DEEECF11BC020000C09361E502B1722C@mv_exchange_2.mv.unisys.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-UIDL: h(!"!a81!!jiB!!7o(!! Dan, Unfortunately I had to leave the Danvers meeting early so could not attend the CWM RTF discussion on the XML Schema metamodel. So could I put the reverse request back to you please and ask you to please post 'your' model on the OMG server (for completeness, the XMI for XML Schema Specification has been available since 18th June on the OMG server - document ref ad/2001-06-12); When you say 'I am responsible for resolving this issue', I presume this means that you have volunteered yourself for the action of proposing a resolution, which the RTF will then discuss and vote on? For this issue there seem to be 2 separate aspects: - what's the best metamodel for XML Schemas? - which specification should it be in? It would seem wrong to have two distinct XML Schema models, both adopted by OMG within a month of each other. As things stand, the XMI-originating metamodel will be adopted at the September Toronto meeting. Or is it the case that the two metamodels have such radically different objectives (e.g. XMI needs a complete representation; CWM does not need to model all aspects) that it's not a problem to have two (though I'd at least like to see a mapping between them). I raised this 'management issue' about potentially incompatible XML Schema metamodels in my evaluation report of the XMI for XML Schema Spec which I presented at ADTF in Danvers. Sridhar said that the set of management issues would be considered at the AB (I don't know if it's happened yet or if this one was discussed). One option is to take the view that the XMI people are the 'center of excellence' for XML modeling, in the same way that the UML people are for object-oriented modeling/resources. And so XMI for XML Schema should 'own' the model, but it should also be incorporated into CWM in the same way that UML was (at Adopted version) - since the model is a lot smaller and more focused there should not be the practical need copy and to subset it. CWM users should participate in the XMI for XML Schema FTF to ensure the model meets the needs of CWM. I'm not arguing here about the merits or demerits of the different models (I have not seen Dan's) - just trying to look for a compromise to find it a (single) sensible home. Regards Pete Pete Rivett (pete.rivett@adaptive.com) Chief Technology Officer, Adaptive Ltd Dean Park House, 8-10 Dean Park Crescent, Bournemouth, BH1 1HL, UK Tel: +44 (0)1202 449419 Fax: +44 (0)1202 449448 http://www.adaptive.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Tolbert, Doug M [mailto:Doug.Tolbert@unisys.com] > Sent: 25 July 2001 21:16 > To: Dan Chang; Tolbert, Doug M > Cc: cwm-rtf@omg.org > Subject: RE: issue 4400 > > > Dan, > > Sridhar says Steve Brodsky, of your facility, has the necessary info. > Perhaps you should contact him. > > Doug > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Chang [mailto:dtchang@us.ibm.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 12:20 PM > To: Doug.Tolbert@unisys.com > Cc: cwm-rtf@omg.org > Subject: issue 4400 > > > > Doug, > > I am responsible for resolving this issue. Thank you for raising it. > > Since the XMI specification that you cited is not an adopted OMG > technology, I have no access to it. Please send me what you > think I should > consider (draft XMI specification and XML Schema metamodel in > Rose 2000) by > 7/30 so that I will have time to take them into consideration. > > As you know, I have reviewed all classes and associations of the XML > Schema metamodel in the revised XML package to the CWM RTF in > Danvers. The > only issue raised there was the name of the > SimpleComplexContent class. I > will try to find a better name for it. > > Regards, Dan > > e-business Data Technology and Standard > IBM Silicon Valley Laboratory > Notes: Dan Chang/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS > Internet: dtchang@us.ibm.com > VM: IBMUSM50(DTCHANG) > Phone: (408)-463-2319 > > > > > Juergen Boldt > > issues@emerald.omg.org, > cwm-rtf@emerald.omg.org > rg> cc: > > Subject: issues > 4400 - 4405 CWM > RTF issues > 07/24/01 02:26 > > PM > > > > > > > > > This is issue # 4400 "Tolbert, Doug M" > > > XML Schema package issue > > The planned XML Schema package proposed for inclusion in CWM 1.1 > should be cognizant of and wherever possible, equivalent to, > the XML Schema > model planned for the inclusion in the XMI specification. > Within reason, > corresponding XML Schema-specific class in the two specifications show > share > the same names, attributes, and relationships to other classes. > > ----------------------------- > > This is issue # 4401 "Tolbert, Doug M" > > > package may fail to permit definition of transformations > > Usage experience with the CWM 1.0 Transformation package has > uncovered several situations in which the package may fail to permit > definition of transformations that fully capture the intent of > implementors. > Such problems have appeared in several unrelated modeling > venues and have > led some implementors to seek alternative means for describing > transformations. The existing transformation package should > be reviewed by > the RTF and changed as needed to improve its ability to represent the > breadth of transformation semantics found in practical usage > scenarios. As > part of this effort, the RTF should consider incorporating > the existing > TypeMapping package into an evolved Transformation package -- > TypeMappings > are, after all, really just lightweight transformations. > > ------------------------------- > > This is issue # 4402 "Tolbert, Doug M" > > > consider changing DeployedComponent from being subclass of > Core::Package > > In the SoftwareDeployment package, consider changing > DeployedComponent from being a subclass of Core::Package to being as > subclasss of Core::Subsystem. This change preserves the > package nature of > DeployedComponents and, at the same time, adds the ability of > DeployedComponents to have features (because Core::Subsystem > is a subclass > of Core::Classifier, as well as Core::Package). > > -------------------------- > > This is issue # 4403 "Tolbert, Doug M" > > > Identify precise CWM definition to which interchange doc. conforms > > Provide in the body of a CWM interchange document, a means for > identifying the precise CWM definition to which the > interchange document > conforms. Something similar to the way the XML documents > identify the URI > of the XML definition they conform to would do nicely. Such > a mechanism in > effect creates a name space within which the contents of the CWM > interchange > document can be evaluated. Useful side effects of having > such a namespace > include: (1) the definition of CWM extension packages without > the present > need that they be accompanied by the CWM definition itself, > (2) a framework > in which Universally Unique Identifiers (UUIDs) can be > defined for each CWM > object. Several requests for CWM UUIDs have already been received > informally. > > ----------------------------- > > This is issue # 4404 "Tolbert, Doug M" > > > Review the semantics of existing attribute types that are > also CWM classes > > The precise semantics of the use of the CWM Expression class (and > its subclasses) as the type of attributes of CWM classes is > not clearly > delineated (as discussed at the 7/12/01 CWM RTF meeting in > Danvers, MA). > Review the semantics of existing attribute types that are > also CWM classes > and correct them as needed. > > ---------------------------- > > This is issue # 4405 "Tolbert, Doug M" > > > diagram named "CWM Package Dependencies" shows wrong dependency arrow > > In the CWM .mdl file, the diagram named "CWM Package Dependencies" > contains a dependency arrow showing that the Relational > package depends on > the SoftwareDeployment package. This dependency arrow is > erroneous and > should be removed (the dependency does not appear in the > definitional CWM > XMI file). > ================================================================ > > Juergen Boldt > Senior Member of Technical Staff > > Object Management Group Tel. > +1-781 444 0404 > ext. 132 > 250 First Avenue, Suite 201 Fax: > +1-781 444 > 0320 > Needham, MA 02494, USA Email: > juergen@omg.org > URL: > www.omg.org > > > > ================================================================ > > > > > The information contained in this email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the addressee(s). The e-mail may be legally privileged or prohibited from disclosure and unauthorised use. If you are not the named addressee you may not use, copy or disclose this information to any other person. If you received this message in error please notify the sender immediately. Any views or opinions presented here may be solely those of the originator and do not necessarily reflect those of the Company. Subject: RE: issue 4400 To: "Pete Rivett" Cc: cwm-rtf@omg.org, "'Tolbert, Doug M'" , sridhar.iyengar2@unisys.com X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.7 March 21, 2001 Message-ID: From: "Dan Chang" Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 17:13:03 -0700 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM069/03/M/IBM(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 07/25/2001 06:13:06 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: Id@!!ZBT!!TXTd9,IM!! Pete, By "I am responsible for resolving this issue", it means nothing more than I am responsible for bringing the issue to its resolution. How it is eventually resolved will, as always, be decided by the CWM RTF. Please send me the XMI spec that you cited. I did not find it in Steve's links. As I mentioned in my note to Doug, I took a quick look at the documents downloaded from Steve's links and could not find any XML Schema metamodel. As such, so far I don't see any overlap at all. XMLis a major data resource for data warehousing. As such, the XML metamodel has been an integral part of CWM since the beginning. Furthermore, it has been stated in the CWM specification (Adapted and 1.0) that the XML metamodel will be revised to represent XML Schema, in addition to DTD, as soon as XML Schema is adopted by W3C as a standard. The revised XML metamodel will be forwarded to the CWM RTF for review by 8/24, as with other revised metamodels. BTW, if anyone would like to take over ownership of the XML metamodel and this issue, please let me know. He/she is more than welcome. We have no immediate plan of implementing this package. I am doing it only because I feel responsible for the CWM RTF. BTW, please send me the issue you raised on XML Information Set. Somehow I lost it. Thanks. Regards, Dan e-business Data Technology and Standard IBM Silicon Valley Laboratory Notes: Dan Chang/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS Internet: dtchang@us.ibm.com VM: IBMUSM50(DTCHANG) Phone: (408)-463-2319 "Pete Rivett" , Dan ptive.com> Chang/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS, cc: 07/25/01 04:44 Subject: RE: issue 4400 PM Dan, Unfortunately I had to leave the Danvers meeting early so could not attend the CWM RTF discussion on the XML Schema metamodel. So could I put the reverse request back to you please and ask you to please post 'your' model on the OMG server (for completeness, the XMI for XML Schema Specification has been available since 18th June on the OMG server - document ref ad/2001-06-12); When you say 'I am responsible for resolving this issue', I presume this means that you have volunteered yourself for the action of proposing a resolution, which the RTF will then discuss and vote on? For this issue there seem to be 2 separate aspects: - what's the best metamodel for XML Schemas? - which specification should it be in? It would seem wrong to have two distinct XML Schema models, both adopted by OMG within a month of each other. As things stand, the XMI-originating metamodel will be adopted at the September Toronto meeting. Or is it the case that the two metamodels have such radically different objectives (e.g. XMI needs a complete representation; CWM does not need to model all aspects) that it's not a problem to have two (though I'd at least like to see a mapping between them). I raised this 'management issue' about potentially incompatible XML Schema metamodels in my evaluation report of the XMI for XML Schema Spec which I presented at ADTF in Danvers. Sridhar said that the set of management issues would be considered at the AB (I don't know if it's happened yet or if this one was discussed). One option is to take the view that the XMI people are the 'center of excellence' for XML modeling, in the same way that the UML people are for object-oriented modeling/resources. And so XMI for XML Schema should 'own' the model, but it should also be incorporated into CWM in the same way that UML was (at Adopted version) - since the model is a lot smaller and more focused there should not be the practical need copy and to subset it. CWM users should participate in the XMI for XML Schema FTF to ensure the model meets the needs of CWM. I'm not arguing here about the merits or demerits of the different models (I have not seen Dan's) - just trying to look for a compromise to find it a (single) sensible home. Regards Pete Pete Rivett (pete.rivett@adaptive.com) Chief Technology Officer, Adaptive Ltd Dean Park House, 8-10 Dean Park Crescent, Bournemouth, BH1 1HL, UK Tel: +44 (0)1202 449419 Fax: +44 (0)1202 449448 http://www.adaptive.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Tolbert, Doug M [mailto:Doug.Tolbert@unisys.com] > Sent: 25 July 2001 21:16 > To: Dan Chang; Tolbert, Doug M > Cc: cwm-rtf@omg.org > Subject: RE: issue 4400 > > > Dan, > > Sridhar says Steve Brodsky, of your facility, has the necessary info. > Perhaps you should contact him. > > Doug > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Chang [mailto:dtchang@us.ibm.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 12:20 PM > To: Doug.Tolbert@unisys.com > Cc: cwm-rtf@omg.org > Subject: issue 4400 > > > > Doug, > > I am responsible for resolving this issue. Thank you for raising it. > > Since the XMI specification that you cited is not an adopted OMG > technology, I have no access to it. Please send me what you > think I should > consider (draft XMI specification and XML Schema metamodel in > Rose 2000) by > 7/30 so that I will have time to take them into consideration. > > As you know, I have reviewed all classes and associations of the XML > Schema metamodel in the revised XML package to the CWM RTF in > Danvers. The > only issue raised there was the name of the > SimpleComplexContent class. I > will try to find a better name for it. > > Regards, Dan > > e-business Data Technology and Standard > IBM Silicon Valley Laboratory > Notes: Dan Chang/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS > Internet: dtchang@us.ibm.com > VM: IBMUSM50(DTCHANG) > Phone: (408)-463-2319 > > > > > Juergen Boldt > > issues@emerald.omg.org, > cwm-rtf@emerald.omg.org > rg> cc: > > Subject: issues > 4400 - 4405 CWM > RTF issues > 07/24/01 02:26 > > PM > > > > > > > > > This is issue # 4400 "Tolbert, Doug M" > > > XML Schema package issue > > The planned XML Schema package proposed for inclusion in CWM 1.1 > should be cognizant of and wherever possible, equivalent to, > the XML Schema > model planned for the inclusion in the XMI specification. > Within reason, > corresponding XML Schema-specific class in the two specifications show > share > the same names, attributes, and relationships to other classes. > > ----------------------------- > > This is issue # 4401 "Tolbert, Doug M" > > > package may fail to permit definition of transformations > > Usage experience with the CWM 1.0 Transformation package has > uncovered several situations in which the package may fail to permit > definition of transformations that fully capture the intent of > implementors. > Such problems have appeared in several unrelated modeling > venues and have > led some implementors to seek alternative means for describing > transformations. The existing transformation package should > be reviewed by > the RTF and changed as needed to improve its ability to represent the > breadth of transformation semantics found in practical usage > scenarios. As > part of this effort, the RTF should consider incorporating > the existing > TypeMapping package into an evolved Transformation package -- > TypeMappings > are, after all, really just lightweight transformations. > > ------------------------------- > > This is issue # 4402 "Tolbert, Doug M" > > > consider changing DeployedComponent from being subclass of > Core::Package > > In the SoftwareDeployment package, consider changing > DeployedComponent from being a subclass of Core::Package to being as > subclasss of Core::Subsystem. This change preserves the > package nature of > DeployedComponents and, at the same time, adds the ability of > DeployedComponents to have features (because Core::Subsystem > is a subclass > of Core::Classifier, as well as Core::Package). > > -------------------------- > > This is issue # 4403 "Tolbert, Doug M" > > > Identify precise CWM definition to which interchange doc. conforms > > Provide in the body of a CWM interchange document, a means for > identifying the precise CWM definition to which the > interchange document > conforms. Something similar to the way the XML documents > identify the URI > of the XML definition they conform to would do nicely. Such > a mechanism in > effect creates a name space within which the contents of the CWM > interchange > document can be evaluated. Useful side effects of having > such a namespace > include: (1) the definition of CWM extension packages without > the present > need that they be accompanied by the CWM definition itself, > (2) a framework > in which Universally Unique Identifiers (UUIDs) can be > defined for each CWM > object. Several requests for CWM UUIDs have already been received > informally. > > ----------------------------- > > This is issue # 4404 "Tolbert, Doug M" > > > Review the semantics of existing attribute types that are > also CWM classes > > The precise semantics of the use of the CWM Expression class (and > its subclasses) as the type of attributes of CWM classes is > not clearly > delineated (as discussed at the 7/12/01 CWM RTF meeting in > Danvers, MA). > Review the semantics of existing attribute types that are > also CWM classes > and correct them as needed. > > ---------------------------- > > This is issue # 4405 "Tolbert, Doug M" > > > diagram named "CWM Package Dependencies" shows wrong dependency arrow > > In the CWM .mdl file, the diagram named "CWM Package Dependencies" > contains a dependency arrow showing that the Relational > package depends on > the SoftwareDeployment package. This dependency arrow is > erroneous and > should be removed (the dependency does not appear in the > definitional CWM > XMI file). > ================================================================ > > Juergen Boldt > Senior Member of Technical Staff > > Object Management Group Tel. > +1-781 444 0404 > ext. 132 > 250 First Avenue, Suite 201 Fax: > +1-781 444 > 0320 > Needham, MA 02494, USA Email: > juergen@omg.org > URL: > www.omg.org > > > > ================================================================ > > > > > The information contained in this email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the addressee(s). The e-mail may be legally privileged or prohibited from disclosure and unauthorised use. If you are not the named addressee you may not use, copy or disclose this information to any other person. If you received this message in error please notify the sender immediately. Any views or opinions presented here may be solely those of the originator and do not necessarily reflect those of the Company. From: "Tolbert, Doug M" To: Dan Chang , Pete Rivett Cc: Stephen Brodsky , "Tolbert, Doug M" , cwm-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: FW: issue 4400 Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 11:24:35 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-UIDL: OR!!!,`?!!W\@!!UmX!! Thanks, Dan. The comparison table should be sufficient to convince everyone that the two are as similar as we all believe they need to be. As to Pete's point about having a single model, I too think this would be desirable but I'm not sure how to achieve it. To acquire the infrastructural benefits of CWM (traceability, common services, transformations, etc) the XML Schema used by CWM needs to be incorporated into CWM proper; unfortuately, we don't have a good way to simply reference a model in another specification without sacrificing the infrastructural features (nor does the XMI team, I suspect). Recognizing the (probable) need for an XML Schema model in two places, the intent of the issue was to ensure that the two models were as similar as they can be so that mapping between them would be obvious. I think the best we can hope for is two models that are identical in names of classes, name of attributes and their types. I except the two models to differ in the ways they make connections to any required modeling superstructures. In the case of CWM, I'd expect XML Schema classes to subclass CWM classes in the fashion common to other CWM packages. I'm not familiar with details of what the XML Schema model in XMI must do to "attach" to its model superstructure, but I certainly expect that they will be different from the things that a CWM package must do. So, the "leaf" classes should be identical, but how they connect to the "tree" might be different. Doug -----Original Message----- From: Dan Chang [mailto:dtchang@us.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 5:56 PM To: Pete Rivett Cc: Stephen Brodsky; Doug.Tolbert@unisys.com; cwm-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: FW: issue 4400 Pete, Thanks much for sending me the June spec. It has the XML Schema metamodel. I am very glad to inform you that the two metamodels are almost identical. Both Steve and I have derived our metamodels, respectively, from the same source. We both have made some needed changes, with different considerations. In my case, I have had to make sure that the metamodel is consistent with that for DTD and with all other resource metamodels. I will prepare a comparison chart between the two and provide it as part of the review in Toronto. I don't see any problem resolving this issue (knock on wood) quickly. Regards, Dan e-business Data Technology and Standard IBM Silicon Valley Laboratory Notes: Dan Chang/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS Internet: dtchang@us.ibm.com VM: IBMUSM50(DTCHANG) Phone: (408)-463-2319 "Pete Rivett" cc: Subject: RE: FW: issue 4400 07/25/01 05:16 PM Dan, It's section 8 of doc ref ad/01-06-12: the OMG web site seems to be down at the moment so I cannot test the actual links he sent. Attached is my copy and also the supporting files including xsdmodel.xmi which you might be able to import into Rose (but not with the Unisys integration which crashes!). Hope that helps Pete > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Chang [mailto:dtchang@us.ibm.com] > Sent: 26 July 2001 00:41 > To: Tolbert, Doug M > Cc: cwm-rtf@omg.org; Iyengar, Sridhar; Steve Brodsky (E-mail) > Subject: Re: FW: issue 4400 > > > > Doug, > > I have downloaded and looked at Steve's links, but I could > not find any XML > Schema metamodel that I can readily use as design reference or for > comparison. Please download the same and take a look at them > and point me > to where and what I should use. Please feel free to give me a > call if it is > more convenient to do so over the phone. > > Regards, Dan > > e-business Data Technology and Standard > IBM Silicon Valley Laboratory > Notes: Dan Chang/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS > Internet: dtchang@us.ibm.com > VM: IBMUSM50(DTCHANG) > Phone: (408)-463-2319 > > > > > "Tolbert, Doug > > M" To: Dan > Chang/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS > Brodsky/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS, "Iyengar, > nisys.com> Sridhar" > , cwm-rtf@omg.org > Subject: FW: > issue 4400 > 07/25/01 04:04 > > PM > > > > > > > > > Dan, > > Attached are pointers from Steve Brodsky that should fulfill the > information > needs you have for Issue #4400. I don't see any need to > convert these to a > Rose model as you suggested -- the XML Schema Rose model is > your area. The > issue asks that CWM XML Schema model be as consistent as > possible with the > XMI representation of the same ideas, but it does not require > capturing the > XMI schema in Rose. > > Doug > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Brodsky [mailto:sbrodsky@us.ibm.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 2:53 PM > To: Tolbert, Doug M > Cc: Iyengar, Sridhar; cwm-rtf@omg.org > Subject: Re: FW: issue 4400 > > > > Doug, > > The XMI Production of XML Schema revised submission includes > a model of XML > Schema. The URL of the submission is > http://www.omg.org/techprocess/meetings/schedule/XMI_Prod. > _of_XML_Schema_RFP.html > http://cgi.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/01-06-12 > > The revised June 18th submission was presented to the ADTF in > Boston and > will be available for voting at the Toronto OMG meeting. > ftp://ftp.omg.org/pub/docs/ad/01-07-09.pdf > > Please let me know if I can be of assistance regarding this > model or XMI in > general. > > Thanks, > > -Steve > > Stephen A. Brodsky, Ph.D. > Software Architect > Notes Address: Stephen Brodsky/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS > Internet Address: sbrodsky@us.ibm.com > Phone: 408.463.5659 > > > "Tolbert, Doug M" on 07/25/2001 02:07:55 PM > > To: Stephen Brodsky/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS > cc: "Iyengar, Sridhar" , > cwm-rtf@omg.org > Subject: FW: issue 4400 > > > > Steve, > > I understand from Sridhar that you have the material that Dan is > requesting. > The subject issue is the first in the list below. Can you > please forward a > copy of the proposed XML Schema for XMI to him and copy me? > > Thanks for your help, > Doug Tolbert > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Chang [mailto:dtchang@us.ibm.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 1:25 PM > To: Tolbert, Doug M > Cc: cwm-rtf@omg.org; Tolbert, Doug M > Subject: RE: issue 4400 > > > > Doug, > > Since you raised the issue, I would like get the draft XMI > specification > and metamodel in Rose 2000 from you. This will avoid any potential > misunderstanding and confusion. Besides, like you, I am > extremely busy. > > Regards, Dan > > e-business Data Technology and Standard > IBM Silicon Valley Laboratory > Notes: Dan Chang/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS > Internet: dtchang@us.ibm.com > VM: IBMUSM50(DTCHANG) > Phone: (408)-463-2319 > > > > > "Tolbert, Doug > > M" To: Dan Chang/Santa > Teresa/IBM@IBMUS, "Tolbert, Doug M" > > > nisys.com> cc: cwm-rtf@omg.org > > Subject: RE: issue 4400 > > 07/25/01 01:16 > > PM > > > > > > > > > Dan, > > Sridhar says Steve Brodsky, of your facility, has the necessary info. > Perhaps you should contact him. > > Doug > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Chang [mailto:dtchang@us.ibm.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 12:20 PM > To: Doug.Tolbert@unisys.com > Cc: cwm-rtf@omg.org > Subject: issue 4400 > > > > Doug, > > I am responsible for resolving this issue. Thank you for raising it. > > Since the XMI specification that you cited is not an adopted OMG > technology, I have no access to it. Please send me what you > think I should > consider (draft XMI specification and XML Schema metamodel in > Rose 2000) by > 7/30 so that I will have time to take them into consideration. > > As you know, I have reviewed all classes and associations of the XML > Schema metamodel in the revised XML package to the CWM RTF in > Danvers. The > only issue raised there was the name of the > SimpleComplexContent class. I > will try to find a better name for it. > > Regards, Dan > > e-business Data Technology and Standard > IBM Silicon Valley Laboratory > Notes: Dan Chang/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS > Internet: dtchang@us.ibm.com > VM: IBMUSM50(DTCHANG) > Phone: (408)-463-2319 > > > > > Juergen Boldt > > issues@emerald.omg.org, > cwm-rtf@emerald.omg.org > rg> cc: > > Subject: issues > 4400 - 4405 > CWM > RTF issues > 07/24/01 02:26 > > PM > > > > > > > > > This is issue # 4400 "Tolbert, Doug M" > > > XML Schema package issue > > The planned XML Schema package proposed for inclusion in CWM 1.1 > should be cognizant of and wherever possible, equivalent to, > the XML Schema > model planned for the inclusion in the XMI specification. > Within reason, > corresponding XML Schema-specific class in the two specifications show > share > the same names, attributes, and relationships to other classes. > > ----------------------------- > > This is issue # 4401 "Tolbert, Doug M" > > > package may fail to permit definition of transformations > > Usage experience with the CWM 1.0 Transformation package has > uncovered several situations in which the package may fail to permit > definition of transformations that fully capture the intent of > implementors. > Such problems have appeared in several unrelated modeling > venues and have > led some implementors to seek alternative means for describing > transformations. The existing transformation package should > be reviewed by > the RTF and changed as needed to improve its ability to represent the > breadth of transformation semantics found in practical usage > scenarios. As > part of this effort, the RTF should consider incorporating > the existing > TypeMapping package into an evolved Transformation package -- > TypeMappings > are, after all, really just lightweight transformations. > > ------------------------------- > > This is issue # 4402 "Tolbert, Doug M" > > > consider changing DeployedComponent from being subclass of > Core::Package > > In the SoftwareDeployment package, consider changing > DeployedComponent from being a subclass of Core::Package to being as > subclasss of Core::Subsystem. This change preserves the > package nature of > DeployedComponents and, at the same time, adds the ability of > DeployedComponents to have features (because Core::Subsystem > is a subclass > of Core::Classifier, as well as Core::Package). > > -------------------------- > > This is issue # 4403 "Tolbert, Doug M" > > > Identify precise CWM definition to which interchange doc. conforms > > Provide in the body of a CWM interchange document, a means for > identifying the precise CWM definition to which the > interchange document > conforms. Something similar to the way the XML documents > identify the URI > of the XML definition they conform to would do nicely. Such > a mechanism in > effect creates a name space within which the contents of the CWM > interchange > document can be evaluated. Useful side effects of having > such a namespace > include: (1) the definition of CWM extension packages without > the present > need that they be accompanied by the CWM definition itself, > (2) a framework > in which Universally Unique Identifiers (UUIDs) can be > defined for each CWM > object. Several requests for CWM UUIDs have already been received > informally. > > ----------------------------- > > This is issue # 4404 "Tolbert, Doug M" > > > Review the semantics of existing attribute types that are > also CWM classes > > The precise semantics of the use of the CWM Expression class (and > its subclasses) as the type of attributes of CWM classes is > not clearly > delineated (as discussed at the 7/12/01 CWM RTF meeting in > Danvers, MA). > Review the semantics of existing attribute types that are > also CWM classes > and correct them as needed. > > ---------------------------- > > This is issue # 4405 "Tolbert, Doug M" > > > diagram named "CWM Package Dependencies" shows wrong dependency arrow > > In the CWM .mdl file, the diagram named "CWM Package Dependencies" > contains a dependency arrow showing that the Relational > package depends on > the SoftwareDeployment package. This dependency arrow is > erroneous and > should be removed (the dependency does not appear in the > definitional CWM > XMI file). > ================================================================ > > Juergen Boldt > Senior Member of Technical Staff > > Object Management Group Tel. > +1-781 444 0404 > ext. 132 > 250 First Avenue, Suite 201 Fax: > +1-781 444 > 0320 > Needham, MA 02494, USA Email: > juergen@omg.org > URL: > www.omg.org > > > > ================================================================ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The information contained in this email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the addressee(s). The e-mail may be legally privileged or prohibited from disclosure and unauthorised use. If you are not the named addressee you may not use, copy or disclose this information to any other person. If you received this message in error please notify the sender immediately. Any views or opinions presented here may be solely those of the originator and do not necessarily reflect those of the Company. #### XMI Production of XML Schemas final 01-06-12.pdf has been removed from this note on July 25 2001 by Dan Chang #### XMI Production of XML Schemas final appendices 01-06-13.zip has been removed from this note on July 25 2001 by Dan Chang