[Modeling] Interaction Diagram specs - first draft

Marc-Philippe Huget M.P.Huget@csc.liv.ac.uk
Wed, 05 Mar 2003 13:31:18 +0000


Hi all,

James Odell wrote:

> Formally, this was referred to as the Sequence Diagram specification.
> However, UML 2.0 now uses the term ≥Interaction Diagram≤ to refer to a
> family of diagrams ? the main one of which is the Sequence Diagram.  The
> remaining ones are called the Interaction Overview Diagram, Communication
> Diagram, and the Timing Diagram.  95% of the Interaction Diagram work is on
> Sequence Diagrams, while the Interaction Overview Diagram is vital to
> Sequence-Diagram usage.  Therefore, I propose that we change the name of the
> spec.  (The remaining communication diagram, and the timing diagram portions
> we can choose to omit or not; they are very short.)  Please let me know
> whether or not you agree with this change.  If I do not hear from you by 8
> March, I will assume that either you agree or do not care.  Although, I
> would like to hear explicitly, if possible.

Well, it would be difficult for me to say I disagree with this proposal since I
use as much as possible UML 2.0 in this specification. My concern is for
end-users in a near future. At Barcelona, a guy asked me why we use the term
protocol diagram to represent interaction protocols in AUML since he knows
sequence diagrams and not protocol diagrams. If we think FIPA AUML is indebted
to AUML, we have several names and the new one will need time to be accepted
since UML 2.0 is so new that a lot of people don't know it exists. Moreover, it
is the problem of consistency for people reading  _old_ papers on AUML and new
specifications.

Cheers,
Marc-Philippe

--
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
http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/~mph