XML Metadata Interchange Avatar
  1. OMG Specification

XML Metadata Interchange — Closed Issues

  • Acronym: XMI
  • Issues Count: 6
  • Description: Issues resolved by a task force and approved by Board
Closed All
Issues resolved by a task force and approved by Board

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
XMI11-99 MOF and UML DTDs XMI 1.0 XMI 1.1 Resolved closed
XMI11-98 Reference to ""restrictions"" is unclear." XMI 1.0 XMI 1.1 Resolved closed
XMI11-94 Multiple Inheritance hard to handle in XMI XMI 1.0 XMI 1.1 Resolved closed
XMI11-97 . XMI has specific rules for attribute ordering. Can this be relaxed? XMI 1.0 XMI 1.1 Resolved closed
XMI11-96 Is it valid to use alternative DTD generation rules? XMI 1.0 XMI 1.1 Resolved closed
XMI11-95 How should null values be transmitted XMI 1.0 XMI 1.1 Resolved closed

Issues Descriptions

MOF and UML DTDs

  • Key: XMI11-99
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4393
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Mr. Tim Grose)
  • Summary:

    I propose that the XMI RTF not regenerate UML and MOF DTDs, for the
    following reasons:

    1) UML 1.1 and MOF 1.1 are now out of date.
    2) Both the UML RTF and the MOF RTF are now creating their own DTDs, so it
    is not appropriate for the XMI RTF to continue to create them.
  • Reported: XMI 1.0 — Tue, 3 Jul 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — XMI 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above
  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 19:58 GMT

Reference to ""restrictions"" is unclear."

  • Key: XMI11-98
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3828
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: David Frankel Consulting ( David Frankel)
  • Summary:

    The second and third paragraphs in 6.6.1 define exactly how to use Namespaces in XMI DTDs and serve as both the restriction and the solution. Accept. Clarify to indicate that the following text is the definition of the restriction.
  • Reported: XMI 1.0 — Wed, 13 Sep 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — XMI 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Accept. Clarify to indicate that the following text is the definition of the restriction.
  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 19:58 GMT

Multiple Inheritance hard to handle in XMI

  • Key: XMI11-94
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2854
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: THe background it is the use of XMI for interchange of warehouse
    information. The person prototyping
    the exchange is Brain Volpi so if you have follow on questions, please
    copy him since I am on vacation for the next two weeks.

    1. We are using UML to define the meta models and the created the DTD"s
    and document streams.

    • our model contains multiple inheritance which is hard to handle
      in XMI. Does anyone have any
      comments or suggestion on the mapping to XMI we should consider.
    • our model contains UML interface definitions which we have mapped
      into abstract classes
      any comments on a better way to do this?
    • UML has ordered associations and we are currently assuming the
      XMI stream will always be
      in the correct order. Is this valid?
  • Reported: XMI 1.0 — Fri, 20 Aug 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — XMI 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved in XMI 1.1 RTF
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

. XMI has specific rules for attribute ordering. Can this be relaxed?

  • Key: XMI11-97
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2857
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: 4. XMI has specific rules for attribute ordering. Can this be relaxed?
  • Reported: XMI 1.0 — Fri, 20 Aug 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — XMI 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved in XMI 1.1 RTF
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

Is it valid to use alternative DTD generation rules?

  • Key: XMI11-96
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2856
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: 3. XMI uses containment rules to drive the document generation process.
    Is it valid to use alternative
    DTD generation rules that allow for reference semantics where we can
    use bi-directional references
    instead of the single direction references you are limited to with
    containment. We need roles at both
    ends.
  • Reported: XMI 1.0 — Fri, 20 Aug 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — XMI 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved in XMI 1.1 RTF
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

How should null values be transmitted

  • Key: XMI11-95
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2855
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: 2. How should null values be transmitted. Currently we don"t transmit
    them. This is really the issue of
    partial models versus null values that Steve raised in the original
    submission discussions.
  • Reported: XMI 1.0 — Fri, 20 Aug 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — XMI 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved in XMI 1.1 RTF
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT