Talk:XML Metadata Interchange

"However it brings XMI closer to idiomatic XML usage, but is unfortunately very rarely supported by modeling tools. The lack of good XMI support is slightly incomprehensible, since it is not a particularly complicated standard to adhere to. Then again good interoperability might not be in the best interest of the tool vendors themselves due to "vendor lock-in"."

Since there's no reference for the grossly POV statement above, I'm going to remove it. Bihal 02:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what any of this says. - anon.

I seems to me that the references should only link to topics on general modelling or to specific model-driven environments (like EMF and GME), because integrating different environments is what XMI is about. However, references to specific tools that don't have anything specifically to do with XMI (other than being a model-driven tool) don't seem relevant and appear more like advertising (so I removed them). I also removed MBT and QVT because again, there's not much relevance to XMI beyond being other aspects of MDE. I'd also be in favour of removing OWL as a reference, because I don't see much direct relevance, but have left it for now. Links I removed:

Model-based testing (MBT)
ATL
VIATRA
OCL
MTL
QVT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.221.159 (talk) 08:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eclipse Modeling Framework[edit]

Would be nice to know how EMF relates to XMI. I think this is an important issue. --141.76.176.79 14:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is incomprehensible[edit]

Why can't we have a simple example to make this thing comprehensible? Kallerdis (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OWL: A Metadata standard??[edit]

OWL is used to express the structure and content of ontologies: it does what it does reasonably well. As a tool to represent concepts now expressed in UML (classes, relationships, sequences, activities) it would be a complete mismatch - like trying to eat watery soup with a fork and knife. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prakash Nadkarni (talk • contribs) 23:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OWL works fine to represent UML-like concepts. Although I'd agree that OWL isn't a metadata standard (and will people please stop calling RDF a metadata format), that UML usage isn't metadata. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irony[edit]

Does anyone else enjoy the irony of an article about metadata interchange that is so lacking in citations? LeadSongDog come howl! 15:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]