[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] On UML
My thoughts on UML and Concepts Maps are that it is best to start with the simplest presentation (Concept map) and see if we have a firm need for UML. A concept map often groups many things that may not appear in the same UML diagram which often make them easier to grok than UML. The position paper Matt and I submitted uses the concept maps that we used in the W3C Web Services Architecture document. Concept maps are easy to compose, however they can also be the death of a standard since they are often very open ended. It is very easy to keep adding concepts until you get something that looks like the large concept map in the W3C WSAG Technical Note. UML, by comparison, is far more strict however leads to multiple views of the same things in attempts to relay information about them. I encourage everyone to read the 3 different submissions so far into the group to see how the concept/mind maps work and analyze how they can also be open ended. Some basic modelling conventions for keeping things simple are to use no more than 5-6 concepts per model, then layer the more technical aspects in UML. You can use concept maps and UML to show architectural patterns too. Let's start with concept/mind maps to model "what" we are going to be dealing with, then delve into whether or not we need UML based on that. Duane -- *********** Senior Standards Strategist - Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://www.adobe.com Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT Bureau Plenary - http://www.unece.org/cefact/ Adobe Enterprise Developer Resources - http://www.adobe.com/enterprise/developer/main.html ***********
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]