Re: Multi Valued Interface Models?

x wrote:
> mAsterdam wrote:
>

>>x wrote:

>>>I don't know UML but I was exposed to some OMT after I've learned about
>>>formal languages, automata theory and RM. For this reason it was easy to
>>>grasp.
>>>
>>>http://microgold.com/Stage/UML_FAQ.html  say it is an object oriented
>>>modeling method.

>>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.

Anecdote time.
These very questions were asked at a lecture by Grady Booch when UML was in the making.

I dont't recall the exact wording of his rather long answer, but I remember this:
(a language or several) ... That is the whole point of the Unified Modeling Language - there are several at the moment, we (the three amigos, google for it) are unifying them.

(requirement to build all the diagrams) ... No, definitely not. Just as you choose your vocabulary to express yourself, you choose the appropriate diagramming technique to express one or several aspects of your model. It's your "formal" or "red-tape" method (some say methodology) which may or may not require the presence of certain deliverables (later the term artifacts became fashionable) to a certain level of detail at the certain stages of development. OTOH, we (3 amigos) are in the process of verifying the UML with OCL (object constraint language) that it is theoretically possible to have all diagrams of a model.

Then he made a joke along the lines: a method requiring all diagrams to the most detailed level would be very stupid, but I'm sure such methods will be invented.

> Thank you for the explanation.

Welcome. Received on Mon Feb 13 2006 - 21:04:13 CET