"John S. Gage" wrote:
>
> David Forslund wrote:
>
> >
> > I would recommend using tools where they are designed. That means using
> > UML and XML where appropriate. XML is a representation of data not a
> > design tool. UML can be expressed in XML (using XMI) if you like.
> >
>
> It seems to me that the very meta-data aspect of XML that is used to
> tell the XML parser what the XML document is all about is, in fact, a
> modeling function. Models, if there are more than one of them, have to
> be able to describe themselves (I think), and there are always going to
> be a myriad of models in medicine. The entire literature on practice
> variations tends to support this. So how do you handle multiple
> models? XML looks good for simple modeling that can describe itself and
> can easily be translated into an object database. Or am I completely
> off the mark?
>
> John
You are not wrong, but the modelling parts of XML are primarily for
machine consumption. UML models are specifically designed for
communication between people.
-Brian
