[Modeling] Re: Seq. diag. answer to Michael Winikoff
Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:55:09 -0500
Considering how forthcoming the CASE companies have been and how good (8^)
) are the tools, it will be a fight to get to support any AUML at all. I do
agraa that were we can simplify UML 2.0 we should try to. I find it a very
"bulky" for the lack of better word notation.
ps: Michael, I also personally agree that the icons would work better. I'm
just playing devil's advocate, because I know that we will be questioned in it.
> > Briefly, I believe that some sort of suggestive icon is a lot easier to
> > process than a three letter acronym (especially for casual users of the
> > - "what does ign mean again?")
>Sure! It is better also for non English speaking people. But UML 2.0 has
>already defined acronyms and all UML users will know them. That's a pity
>that we are late little bit.
> > Regarding multiple notations, any half-decent tool should be able to
> > automatically switch presentations, i.e. show "alt" as "?" (or whatever
> > is chosen) so I don't see this as a significant issue.
>Yes, but we should not have any expectations on dynamic behavior of CASE
>tools supporting AUML. I do not think that the key-players in the area of
>UML 2.0 compliant CASE tools will implement also AUML with optional
>notations. At least not in several months (years?) after AUML specification
> > Ideally, I'd argue for REPLACING the three letter acronyms with
> > however it is too late for this, so I'm just suggesting that we define and
> > permit an alternative presentation. I believe that this will AID the
> > and understandability of the notation. I appreciate your concerns over
> > notations, but in this case the difference is very small and, more
> > completely localised.
>OK We can offer presentation options in AUML for these elements, in sense of
>presentation options occurred in UML specification.
>BTW looking at UML 2.0, I feel that there could be more cases for which we
>will offer alternative notations. Not only replacing some acronyms by icons,
>but also replacing maybe several modeling elements by one visual element (of
>course with unambiguous metamodel mapping). E.g. while modeling some AUML
>concept that is naturally represented by a dependency and a constraint. It
>can be drawn e.g. as a line with special arrowhead and guard, instead of
>drawing dependency and constraint as two separate visual elements...
Intelligent Automation, Inc.
7519 Standish Place, ste 200
Rockville, MD 20855