[Modeling] Comments on interaction diagram modeling doc

James Odell email@jamesodell.com
Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:48:24 -0500


>> The UML 2.0 format is effectively <agentName:agentRole>, where you can
> Why not keep the format <agentName:agentRole/agentType>?
> This would allow to express Lin's problem of modeling
> the interaction for shop assistants by using lifelines
> associated with agentrole/agenttype combinations, like
> <:customerWelcoming:shopAssistant>.

The format you are suggesting is in UML 1.x.  In working on UML 2.0, we
found that the term "role" was used in three different ways.  So, we needed
to clean that up and make it consistent.  In doing so, the difference
between objectClass and and role quickly became unclear.  So, in UML 2.0, by
using a class name in an interaction diagram implies that it is a role.  In
other words, if a class is used for interactive purposes, it is -- by
definition -- a role.     In UML 2.0, a role used for such collaborative
situations is defined as "The named set of behaviors possessed by a class or
part participating in a particular context. "