Re: Multi Valued Interface Models?

x wrote:
> dawn wrote:

>>x wrote:

>>>You have not shown a complete model of the interface.

>>A complete model?  Maybe we need to look at what a model is.  A model
>>is a metaphor or a, well, model of the real thing.  It is not the real
>>thing.  A model car doesn't usually have a working engine.  It might
>>not have working brakes or even any brakes.

>>>HTML and XML are not UML.
>>>I don't think UML is generally acceptable.
>>
>>Nothing is completely acceptable everywhere.  Prototypes might come as
>>close as possible to be generally acceptable, but you always get
>>comments about how it is not a "complete prototype" which I gather
>>would be, well, the final product.  What diagramming specification is
>>more commonly accepted than UML?  That is not a rhetorical question.
>>I'd be happy to use something else for showing a diagram of a logical
>>model of data.

Which is a common misconception due to sloppy wording.

> And you have not given :
> -Use-case diagrams
> - Class diagrams
> - State-machine diagrams
> - Message-trace diagrams
> - Object-message diagrams
> - Process diagrams
> - Module diagrams
> -Platform diagrams
> so I don't know if you have given an UML model after all.

Strictly, there is no such thing as a UML model.

You can think of a model, and describe it using expressions from your modelling language. It's hard to communicate about models when everybody uses different languages to express similar things. Booch, Rumbaugh and Jacobson did a very good thing to come up with a language acceptable to many different schools.

Now think of a model, use the UML to express aspects of it. If somebody would say "where is the UML model?" - you still would understand, no? Received on Mon Feb 13 2006 - 15:17:55 CET