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

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

Murray Altheim wrote:

>      using UML itself to clearly and concisely create the model. IOW, if
>      the UML doesn't suffice to describe the model, why not just use text?

This is an important statement. There's no particular magic in the UML,
it's just a tool for narrowing the focus of a particular discussion and,
hopefully, to provide an effective way to distinguish, for example,
abstract ideas (data model) from implementation ideas (representation
syntax). This is, in essence, no different from using a DTD to define
document structure constraints--at the end of the day, what's critical
is the words, not the formal syntax, but the formal syntax is still
useful and important.

But symbolic formalisms are always valuable--at a minimum, they provide
a shorthand that speeds communication and understanding.

Please do not throw out this particular form of formalism just because
the supporting prose is missing or inadequate--rather, provide the
necessary supporting prose.

By the same token, if you can't summarize the model clearly in a few
paragraphs, there's probably a problem either with the model or with the
collective understanding of the model, either of which would need to be
fixed.

The primary reason I like using UML (or any similar graphical modeling
language) to do modeling is because it makes it easy for me to draw a
concise picture that I can then point at in order to say "this is the
scope of what I'm talking about now", e.g., "I'm talking about the
abstract data model" or "I'm talking about the implementation model" or
"I'm talking about somewhat tangential metaphysical stuff". Without a
symbolic formalism that makes these domains more distinct, it can be
difficult to either convey the distinction in order to establish
conversation scope or for a newcomer to quickly intuit scope. 

How many conversations have we collectively had that ultimately ended
with "Oh, I was in the X domain, not the Y domain. Nevermind". The
number of these can be reduced if you have clear ways of distinguishing
the domains. We have demonstrated that prose-only standards seldom, if
ever, do a good job of this, simply because prose does not provide many
tools for making such distinctions clearly and the cost of using the
tools it does provide well is high.

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