[Modeling] Document structure

Marc-Philippe Huget M.P.Huget@csc.liv.ac.uk
Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:22:57 +0000

Hello Radovan and all,

Radovan Cervenka wrote:

> Dear Marc-Philippe,
> > >   a.. <Title>! {name of the area}
> >
> > Agree but maybe we can use a path and a name, as a consequence, we can
> > have a first idea of the use of the document and we can have several
> > documents with the same name but different paths
> What paths do you mean? The modeling areas are given by Jim's list (see
> http://www.fipa.org/activities/modeling.html, 3rd point of the Status
> section) and they seem to be unambiguous. For now we use just a flat
> structure (list), and I see it as sufficient.

OK. Point taken

> > >   c.. Abstract Syntax! {UML diagram(s) of proposed metamodel; UML 2.0
> > > metamodel can be taken as the basis}
> >
> > Except the name of the field, I agree with you
> Which one would you use instead? Metamodel?

Yes, I prefer to

> > b. Description: do we speak about the description of the class or the
> > semantics of the class, the former is usually a natural language
> > document, the latter a formal definition
> I was thinking about two sections: description and semantics. But, they are
> more-or-less about the same, because semantics is defined in natural
> language as well. Therefore I put them into one. But no problem for me if
> people decide to have them separated.

Not at all, never say to some formal people that semantics is defined as a
natural language document, you will be killed at that moment, if you define
semantics, define it formally or do not define it, OK, UML missed this point
but not formal methods

> > Once again, we do not feel obliged to follow strictly UML and maybe we
> > can have several other fields in the class description
> I agree. Do you have some ideas about further fields?

Actually not really, I just think about what Bernhard did in agent class where
the class is no longer a UML class with just attributes and operations but with
services, protocols, organizations, etc

> > XMI might be a good idea as long as we share some strong links with UML,
> > else it would be more efficient to define our specific language (based
> > on XML?)
> I'm afraid we will have not enough time to define our format...

It depends, as far as I am concerned, I found XMI specs really difficult to
read and if you don't have a tool to play with the format, you have no clear
idea what is it exactly, reinventing the wheel is something computer scientists
are good and maybe a new format won't be difficult to get, based on XML with
some ideas of XMI...

> > Tool? Well, I strongly agree that Rational Rose is a good solution, my
> > concern is money, what to do if your team does not consider this
> > expensive tool as essential for the team? Does it mean I am out for
> > several things?
> We will see... In the worst case we can exchange just pictures... But Rose
> is winner for now :-)

I know, I know but that would be really frustrating for "poor" people like me


Marc-Philippe Huget

Agent Applications, Research and Technology Group
Department of Computer Science
University of Liverpool
Chadwick Building, Peach Street
L69 7ZF Liverpool
United Kingdom

email: mph@csc.liv.ac.uk