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

["W. Eliot Kimber" <eliot@isogen.com>]

Robert Barta wrote:
> 
> Sam Hunting wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> 
> > --- Alexander Sigel <sigel@bonn.iz-soz.de> wrote:
> .....
> > > 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.
> 
> Sam,
> 
> Well, UML certainly helps to understand relationships between items
> under specification but - I agree - UML itself is notoriously
> "meaningless".

It is the responsibility of the modeler to define the intended semantics
of the UML graphical components they use. This is done both through
prose documentation of the model itself and through the use of
stereotypes that specialize the syntactic components. We were certainly
careful to do this in the initial modeling work we did in Paris.

One cannot expect to be able to read a UML diagram in isolation any more
than you can a DTD or source code--it must be supported with additional
documentation that clearly explains the intended semantics.

Cheers,

E.
-- 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

W. Eliot Kimber | Lead Brain

1016 La Posada Dr. | Suite 240 | Austin TX  78752
    T 512.656.4139 |  F 512.419.1860 | eliot@isogen.com

w w w . d a t a c h a n n e l . c o m

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

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