[Tdwg-tag] Automatic derivation of XML schemas from models

Javier de la Torre jatorre at gmail.com
Thu Feb 23 18:33:19 CET 2006

Hi all,

I think I also agree with what you are saying, but I suppose is also  
too general and that in the details can arise differences. Specially  
if we want TAG only to define a shared vocabulary or classes, how  
complicate should these classes be?

Also something I would like to have as a kind of requirement is the  
possible automatic derivation of XML schemas from whatever modeling  
language we choose now.

In the real world there will be lot of times where we will need to  
create XML schemas from these TAG classes and the TDWG subgroups  
classes. The best example, as pointed out by Flip in a previous  
message, is that we will need to implement our models in GML. Why?  
Because all OGC standards are based on it so if we want to play with  
them we will have to use their rules.
I think he also pointed out about a document to do GML app schemas  
from UML models with automatic derivation. There is also an article  
from IBM about modeling  XML using UML (http://www-128.ibm.com/ 
In this article is discussed the need to do automatic derivation to  
keep synchronize the modeling task with the programming task.

I think this is importance so maybe it is worth to include it as a  
kind of requirement. But again, depending on how far TAG wants to go  
this might be more a discussion for the different TDWG subgroups.


PD: Here are the links:


On 22/02/2006, at 16:50, Roger Hyam wrote:

> Hi All,
> It is generally agreed that we need an representation independent  
> object model or ontology of some kind. I would like to put together  
> a list of the things that need to be agreed or investigated in  
> order to do this.
> Firstly the things I believe we can all agree on (stop me if I am  
> wrong).
> It should be representation independent (i.e. we should be able to  
> move it between 'languages' UML, OWL, BNF etc).
> It should be dynamic (i.e. capable of evolving through time).
> It should be polymorphic. This is a result of it being dynamic.  
> There will, at a minimum, be multiple version of any one part of  
> the model when new version are introduced.
> It should NOT attempt to be omniscient i.e. it will not cover  
> everything in our domain, only the parts that need to be communicated.
> It will be managed in a distributed fashion. Different teams will  
> take responsibility for different parts of it.
> My first Question is:
> Does the centralization of the ontology need to go beyond a small  
> shared vocabulary of terms or base classes?
> I envisage this ontology containing things like Collection,  
> Specimen, TaxonConcept, TaxonName but not defining the detailed  
> structure of these objects. It would contain a maximum of a few  
> 10's of objects and properties. TDWG subgroups would be responsible  
> for building ontologies that extend these base objects but that  
> generally didn't refer to each other - only to the core. If this is  
> true then I think the definition of the top level object falls  
> within the remit of the TAG ( in consultation with others).
> If this is not a valid way forward what are the alternatives?
> Are their questions we should ask before this one?
> Once again I'd be grateful for your thoughts.
> Roger
> -- 
> -------------------------------------
>  Roger Hyam
>  Technical Architect
>  Taxonomic Databases Working Group
> -------------------------------------
>  http://www.tdwg.org
>  roger at tdwg.org
>  +44 1578 722782
> -------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Tdwg-tag mailing list
> Tdwg-tag at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag_lists.tdwg.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.tdwg.org/pipermail/tdwg-tag/attachments/20060223/1749a8e4/attachment.html 

More information about the tdwg-tag mailing list