[gme-users] Interoperability with XMI-compliant tools

[Zoltan Molnar]

Since it seems that it makes sense to be, it ought to be.
(Based on user feedback, right?)

Zoli

Joe Porter wrote:
> Zoli,
>
> Are these tools going to be included in an upcoming GME release?  It 
> sounds like they would be very useful, particularly in light of the 
> fairly strong reverse engineering capabilities of EA.
>
> -Joe
>
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Zoltan Molnar 
> <zoltan.molnar at vanderbilt.edu <mailto:zoltan.molnar at vanderbilt.edu>> 
> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>     What i can tell, is my little experience about interoperability:
>     We have created a tool a while ago (kind of a standalone modelbuilder,
>     operating on MgaProjects like an interpreter) for migrating Enterprise
>     Arcihtect models (UML) into GME, the result was a MetaGME model,
>     that is
>     a metamodel.
>     We we have seen that the models exported through 'Export to MOF/XMI'
>     command from Enterprise Architect, left out completely the
>     associations.
>     (I can't recall which MOF/XMI version pair did support EA, but the
>     bottom line is that it was not suitable.)
>
>     So we had to use the 'Export to UML' feature, and after figuring
>     out the
>     logic of the exported file, our tool was able to build a MetaGME
>     model,
>     by supposing that each UML element in EA will be mapped into a
>     <<Model>>
>     in the destination MetaGME model.
>     Associations were preserved. So we can conclude, that we created
>     basicly
>     a tool which was able to map UML models automatically from a EA's XML
>     custom format (just like our non-standard .XME file format) to GME's
>     custom MetaGME model.
>
>     [Note: This process gave born to another tool QuickReplace, an
>     interpreter basicly, in MetaGME, which could change the selected
>     object's stereotype instantly: for example from a <<Model>> to an
>     <<Atom>>, while preserving certain (e.g. ReferTo, SetMember,
>     ContainedBy) relationships.]
>
>     br, Zoli
>
>     jhoffert at dre.vanderbilt.edu <mailto:jhoffert at dre.vanderbilt.edu>
>     wrote:
>     > Hello, all.
>     >
>     > One disadvantage I've heard for using GME is the lack of
>     interoperability
>     > with XMI-compliant tools. If this is the case is this simply
>     because a GME
>     > metamodel can not be expressed in Meta-Object Facility (MOF)? If
>     so, why
>     > can't it be? If not, why not?
>     >
>     > Is the .xme format that GME uses not compatible with MOF?
>     >
>     > Thanks.
>     >
>     > -Joe
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > gme-users mailing list
>     > gme-users at list.isis.vanderbilt.edu
>     <mailto:gme-users at list.isis.vanderbilt.edu>
>     > http://list.isis.vanderbilt.edu/mailman/listinfo/gme-users
>     >
>     >
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     gme-users mailing list
>     gme-users at list.isis.vanderbilt.edu
>     <mailto:gme-users at list.isis.vanderbilt.edu>
>     http://list.isis.vanderbilt.edu/mailman/listinfo/gme-users
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> gme-users mailing list
> gme-users at list.isis.vanderbilt.edu
> http://list.isis.vanderbilt.edu/mailman/listinfo/gme-users
>