| Re: [mdt-papyrus.dev] general UML 2.5 questions |
hi ed, On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 07:57:38PM +0100, Ed Willink wrote: > <xmi:XMI ...> > <uml:Package xmi:type="uml:Package" ...> > ... > <umldi:Diagram xmi:type="umldi:UMLClassDiagram" ...> > .... > </umldi:Diagram> > </uml:Package> > </xmi:XMI> > > and uml:Package is nested in xmi:XMI. Does that make XMI inherently dependent on UML? admittedly, and this is a bit confusing. however the top-level XMI element is special anyway, and explicitely talked about in the XMI spec ([0], page 10). In this particular case, with only one top-level uml element, you could even omit the encapsulating XMI element and move the namespace declarations right onto the uml:Package. more importantly however, there is no object in the abstract model that represents the XMI element, it is purely notation of the serialization. The uml:Package element however does have a representation in the abstract model. But it really boils down to the question from earlier in the thread: do you think that in the snippet above the fact that umldi:Diagram is nested in uml:Package has any meaning? would the XMI have the same meaning if it was somewhere else? And if it does have meaning, how would that manifest itself in the abstract model? regards robert [0] http://www.omg.org/spec/XMI/2.4.2/PDF/ -- Robert Lemmen http://www.semistable.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature