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

["Luis J. Martinez" <luisjm@luisjm.com>]

> --- In xtm-wg@egroups.com, Murray Altheim <murray.altheim@e...> wrote:
...

> As I mentioned in my previous message, I can certainly see the value
> in
> using UML internally as a tool for discussion. I'm just less convinced
> that we can gain the same level of understanding, and not actually add
> to the confusion, by promoting our flavour of UML as a formalism. And
> yes, if the UML ends up in the final spec (which it looks like it
> will),
> then I think we need to provide concise descriptions of exactly how
> we're
> using it. This is different than BNF, in that there can be many
> different
> interpretations of a box and an arrow. I'd also like to minimize the
> use
> of the textual notes, as they don't improve the diagrams themselves,
> and
> should simply exist in the prose of the Conceptual Model section. 

> [And as I hope I've already expressed to you privately, I can only
> thank
> you for the trouble you've taken in exposing us to UML and our use of
> it, and in writing that tutorial. I do think this has been valuable
> work.]

> Murray

I disagree when you said that uml has different interpretations. The
model uses basic, well known OO concepts. Class, Generalization,
Aggregation, and Association are all clear, well define concepts in
the OO community.

You have to remember that we are targeting different audiences. I
believe that the conceptual model targets the software implementers,
who should find the modeling information very important and probably
intuitively. A very important point is, as Eliot pointed out several
times, that the the modeling work is not finished. There are several
levels of abstraction to be explain. We only have two. The conceptual
model only tries to explain the basic components of Topic Maps. For
example, Topic Maps are compose of things and relationships between
things, with constructs to define types of relationships. What we are
missing is a more concrete model that defines the specific types of
relationships required in Topic Maps, like occurrences, and how they
relate to the basic concepts define in the conceptual model.

Unfortunately I will not be attending the Paris meeting. So, I will
like to express my opinion here that UML is a very useful tool for
modeling the XTM specification. We just need to do more work in
expressing all the levels of abstraction of the XTM model.

Luis


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

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