RE: asn06/OWL vs. UML [was: asn06 take 2 (Abstract Syntax as a kind of ontology?)]

> > Yes, it is. UML provides sophisticated ways of merging packages
> > (similar to XMLS's possibilities with import and redefine).
> 
> In several efforts I was involved in using UML, we ran into 
> *significant* problems with UMLs packaging.  Several aspects 
> of the ODM 
> spec, for example, had to be redesigned to account for the 
> failures of the packaging mechanism.
> 
> Most importantly, UML did not support the ability to add a 
> superclass to 
> a class in an imported package.  So you can always extend classes 
> defined in an imported package by specialization, but you 
> cannot generalize.

I don't think that this is a restriction of UML, but
probably of the UML tool you have been using.

Also, I don't quite see the point this would make
against the use of MOF/UML: why would such a 
construction really be needed, and if it would,
how would it be supported by the planned abstract
syntax?

-Gerd