[Modeling] Comments on interaction diagram modeling doc
Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:59:45 -0500
One tiny comment:
1) the types/classes that are specified in a sequence diagram within UML 2.0
are assumed to effectively be roles. In UML 1.x, this was not true.
On 3/18/03 12:40 PM, "Wagner, G.R." indited:
> In terms of the work we are doing, this document raises the question
>> as to whether protocol specifications should be between agents (or
>> agent types) or between roles.
> How do you distinguish these two concepts? Ontologically,
> there is a distinction between what Guarino has called
> a "rigid" type and a "non-rigid" type: an instance of
> a rigid type will always be an instance of that type
> (during its lifetime), while an instance of a non-rigid
> type may cease to be an instance of that type. A role
> corresponds to a non-rigid type. UML allows for dynamic
> classification, which means that a role type, say
> Customer, can be modeled as a subtype/subclass of a
> rigid type, say Person. Of course, it would be good
> to designate role types in UML diagrams, e.g. by means
> of a stereotype <<role>>. We may use this flexibility
> of UML classes to represent both rigid and role types
> also in AUML interaction diagrams.