[xtm-wg] TM Conceptual Model: Semantics of the UML "modern dinosaur"?

[Sam Hunting <sam_hunting@yahoo.com>]

I noticed that there were no responses to Alexander's posting, so I
decided to repost it, on the theory that some of the ideas expressed
there-in might be useful to the group's deliberations in Paris.

S.


--- Alexander Sigel <sigel@bonn.iz-soz.de> wrote:
> To: xtm-wg@eGroups.com
> From: Alexander Sigel <sigel@bonn.iz-soz.de>
> Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 11:05:15 +0100
> Reply-to: xtm-wg@egroups.com
> Subject: [xtm-wg] TM Conceptual Model: Semantics of the UML "modern
> dinosaur"?
> 
> dear hard-working XTMers,
> 
> in this mail i want to share what i recently learnt
> about conceptual modelling, TM processing, and UML in particular,
> which may or may not be of value for you modelers and implementers.
> 
> what makes me worry is the lack of semantics in UML which might
> hold us from fully understanding and clearly expressing the semantics
> of the TM conceptual model.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 1. conceptual model:
>    discussion about TM processing with XSLT/XPathScript vs. OODBMS
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> i agree with lars that ideally one should regard topic map processing
> on the conceptual, OO layer of the underlying TM model, not on the
> XML
> node layer. which presupposes a clear understanding of this
> conceptual
> model. and i agree with nikita that XML tools are appropriate to
> work on a TM marked up in the interchange syntax format (in order
> to construct a higher-level internal representation). it appears
> to me that several basic TM processing functions can be built e.g.
> with XPathScript (part of AxKit). (but code will become complex).
> with the right conceptual API on top of it in place, it makes no
> difference to me if the persistent store underneath is a
> fully-fledged
> OODMS or raw XTM (in perl terms: OO data structures may be
> transparently
> tied. in OO vs. RDMBS speak: with the right schema you can roll your
> own
> object wrapper from relational stuff). however, performance may
> differ.
> for me, the essence of this discussion is:
> - what is the appropriate level of conceptual model?
> - how can we best express what we intend with this model?
> - what kind of functionalities do we want in a high-level API?
> suggestions for working or even efficient physical data models are
> interesting, but at this point not crucial.
> 
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 2. conceptual model:
>    discussion about DTD and UML in the spec, readability,
> interrelationship
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> i am both interested in the interchange format, and the conceptual
> model, but the conceptual model appears more important to me.
> 
> after my recent isi 2000 topic map presentation, i was asked by prof.
> bernhard thalheim of BTUniv. Cottbus, Germany, dept. of database
> and information systems, which methodology is used to model the
> conceptual model of TMs. it turned out that he did not really like
> my response: UML. so i asked him to explain, and thus today he sent
> me his recent paper "Codesign of Database Systems and Interaction
> = Time and Consistent UML" [1], and a pointer to an even more
> critical
> recent paper by his colleague and co-author klaus-dieter schewe:
> "UML: A Modern Dinosaur? A Critical Analysis of the Unified Modelling
> Language" [2].
> 
> both show serious drawbacks of UML.
> the main point is that UML lacks clear semantics, is not better
> than earlier ISOTEC, and completely ignores certain advances in
> the scientific discussion of conceptual modelling.
> 
> so the main problem is not:
> * will people understand if we put both DTD and UML diagrams
>   in the annex spec, as they somehow differ, and we further explain
>   in prose.
> 
> BUT:
> * is our TM conceptual model already clear enough?
> * how might UML impede our (and others) clear understanding of what
>   is intended?
> 
> all the best
> alex
> 
> ===================================
> 
> References:
> -----------
> 1.
> Thalheim, Bernhard (2000):
> Codesign of Database Systems and Interaction = Thin and Consistent
> UML. 
> Paper presented on 5th OTS, 2000-06-20:
>   http://lisa.uni-mb.si/cot/ots2000/povzetki.html
> (I got the full .ps via personal communication)
> 
> Computer Science Institute, Brandenburg University of Technology at
> Cottbus,
> thalheim@informatik.tu-cottbus.de
> http://www.informatik.tu-cottbus.de/~thalheim/
> 
> Abstract:
> ---------
> Codesign of Database Systems and Interaction = Thin and Consistent
> UML
> 
> The Unified Modeling Language UML is becoming the quasi-standard for
> development of object-oriented systems although it lacks in formal
> semantics, integration of parts and pieces, validation and thus leads
> to inconsistent systems. For this reason, design of systems on the
> UML basis becomes as cumbersome as previous object-oriented
> approaches.
> Another obstacle of oo development languages is the understimation of
> user interaction support. Opposite to this situation the entity-
> relationship model has got such rich extensions which enable the
> developer to cope with all aspects of systems development in an
> integrated and consistent fashion. This rich theory is the basis for
> a design methodology for design of database structures, database
> functions, static and dynamic integrity constraints together with the
> design of the interaction space of users. In the paper we give a
> survey
> on the codesign approach to development of database systems and
> interaction. The codesign approach is based on the higher-order
> entity-relationship model [Tha00], allows to model applications on
> all levels of development and has a rich translation theory in order
> to transfer the specification to implementation structures and
> functions. Thus, the codesign approach might be understood together
> with the model as the next generation UML or Super-UML. The approach
> has been succesfully applied to large and complex applications
> including internet information services.
> 
> 2.
> Schewe, Klaus-Dieter (2000):
> UML -- A Modern Dinosaur?: A Critical Analysis of the Unified
> Modelling Language
> 
> in H. Kangassalo et al. (Eds.) Information Modelling and Knowledge
> Bases
> XII, IOS Press (to appear).
> Proc. 1oth European-Japanese Conference on
> Information Modelling and Knowledge Bases, Saariselkae (Finland)
> 
> K.D.Schewe@massey.ac.nz
> http://fims-www.massey.ac.nz/%7Ekdschewe/publ.html
> 
> paper:
>   http://fims-www.massey.ac.nz/~kdschewe/pub/articles/EJC00.ps
> slides:
>   http://fims-www.massey.ac.nz/~kdschewe/pub/slides/EJC00.ps
> 
> Abstract:
> ---------
> UML is claimed to become a standard tool for the conceptual
> modelling and development of modern Information Systems. In this
> paper we analyse the concepts of UML, and compare them with a
> rather old industrial development method ISOTEC and the Co-Design
> approach propagated by the author and others.
> We show that in many respects, UML is not new
> - syntax: just re-invents many of the old ISOTEC concepts and
>     introduces new names for them
> - semantics: it does not present precise semantic definitions
>     if these were added, the limitations of the expressiveness
>     of the UML became apparent
> - pragmatics: falls behind ISOTEC
> On the other hand the UML ignores almost all theoretically-based
> work on object-oriented modelling with respect to structures,
> dynamics, contraints and interfaces and the co-design method
> based on this theory.
> 
> From the conclusion:
> --------------------
> ... Therefore, we dare to classify UML as a modern dinosaur: It
> is a semantically retarded, mighty ruler oppressing the development
> of sophisticated methods for conceptual modelling and information
> system design.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------
> Alexander Sigel, M.A. sigel@bonn.iz-soz.de
> Informationszentrum Sozialwissenschaften, R&D
> Lennéstr. 30, D-53113 Bonn, Germany
> +49 228 2281 170 tel, +49 228 2281 120 fax
> Homepage: http://index.bonn.iz-soz.de/~sigel/
> 
> -------------------------- eGroups Sponsor
> 
> To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com
> 
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
> xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
> 


=====
<!-- "To imagine a language is to imagine a form of life."
     - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations -->

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/

To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com