W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > January 2003

Re: Notes from Editors Breakout [UML/XML presentation syntax]

From: Masahiro Hori <HORIM@jp.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 19:30:03 +0900
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF1C010EB2.1F5CEF75-ON49256CAA.0011CA4E@LocalDomain>

Let me comment on the two points:

  (1) Option for the work on _UML_ presentation syntax
  (2) To appear in Note or Appendix

(1) Option for the work on _UML_ presentation syntax

In the minutes of Editors Breakout:

> UML presentation has been delegated to Masahiro Hori, who
> is also doing the XML presentation syntax (or did it).

I am willing to help the work on UML presentation syntax
(e.g., extensive review of the draft).  But I cannot
accept the full delegation of the work because it is too
much for me to work it out from now by myself. Of course,
it depends on the current status of the draft document,
but I do not know the current status other than the one
came out in the last April [1]

We may think about another option here. That is, not to
include the _UML_ presentation syntax into an outcome of
this WG.  I think this option could make sense because
another activity on UML profile for Web ontology is
being started in OMG Ontology WG [2][3][4], and Evan
is working as a co-chair of the WG (and I am also
participating in).

Of course, this decision relies primarily on the opinion
of Guus and Evan, but it would deserve on discussion now
in the f2f.

The OMG's WG is targeting UML 2.0 that is the next
major version-up of UML and will be much more enhanced
in the formal aspect of the UML specification with
improved preciseness.  It would be better for doing
the UML syntax, rather than relying on the current
UML 1.4 spec.

[1] http://www.swi.psy.uva.nl/usr/Schreiber/docs/owl-uml/owl-uml.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0251.html
[3] ontology/02-12-03: UML Profile for Web Ontology Definition draft RFP
[4] http://ontology.omg.org/

(2) To appear in Note or Appendix

In the minutes of Editors Breakout:

> These (UML/XML presentation syntax) should be notes, with
> examples in Guide appendices [does this create a problem
> if XML & UML are non-normative notes]

I am afraid it is strange if examples are included in
the Guide appendices, but the syntactic specification
is in a separate Note.  It's useful and reasonable
(to me) that examples are in Guide appendices and
syntax spec. is in Reference appendix.  If the syntax
spec. is going to be given as a separate Note, the
examples also should be in the separate Note.


Masahiro Hori, Ph.D.
Group Leader, Programming Models & Tools,
IBM Tokyo Research Laboratory
Tel: +81-46-215-4667 / Fax: +81-46-274-4282
Email: horim@jp.ibm.com
Received on Friday, 10 January 2003 05:42:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:50 UTC