Legacy Issue Number: 4635
Source: gmail.com ( Barbara Price)
Despite the 'Metadata' in its name, XMI has often been proposed as a
model-driven approach to XML for Data interchange: this is also reflected
in the car-related examples in the submission and indeed in the RFP
Is this valid and if so should it be reflected in the evaluation or even
the name of the standard?
For example, in 4.5.6 it should also be explained how the (Meta)Model
elements are to be used (if at all) when the XMI file is being used for
instance data (e.g. actual cars as opposed to the model for cars). I
presume that the MetaModel element would refer to the Cars model and the
Model element would somehow describe this set of cars (e.g. "Cars in the
company car pool as of 1/1/2001"). It might be better if these element
names were not wedded to the 4-layer approach: more generally "Model" would
be better worded "Content" and "MetaModel" would be better named "Model"
(i.e. the metadata for the content).
It would help if the M2, M1, and M0 examples were given for the same model.
Reported: XMI 1.2 — Tue, 23 Oct 2001 04:00 GMT
Disposition: Resolved — XMI 1.3
Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:37 GMT