Re: Alloy paper



Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

Brian Henderson-Sellers (brian@socs.uts.edu.au)
Sun, 30 Jul 2000 14:22:27 +1000 (EST)


> > But what disturbs me about UML is that much of its informality is just > sloppiness. Take aggregation, for example. It's not as if the issue is new. > Clever people have been thinking about what it might mean for decades (eg, > in semantic data modelling long before object oriented methods were > popular). And more recently, there are a host of methods and books that seem > to have at least addressed such issues and come to some resolution: > Syntropy, Fusion, Catalysis, Fowler's patterns book, etc. So it seems a FYI Franck Barbier and I have published a number of papers on UML's aggregation and general aggregation theory over the last 18 months and have got the UML RTF chair to agree to put it onto the agenda for fixing for UML2.0. We have been asked to put in a submission at that time although we would be happy for pUML-ers to assist at that time if they have additional information and ideas. Probably the best synopsis of our work is in a pair of papers: (1) a paper on basic aggregation theory in Proceedings TOOLS Europe 1999 and (2) a paper suggesting fixes to UML, called "Black and White Diamonds" in the Proceedings of UML99. > great pity to me that after all this progress, UML should come and describe > such notions as if nobody had ever thought about them before. I agree. They either HAVE invented them afresh or they appear to have because no sources are ever cited. Regards Brian Henderson-Sellers > > --Daniel > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "robert france" <france@CS.ColoState.EDU> > To: "Daniel Jackson" <dnj@lcs.mit.edu> > Cc: <puml-list@cs.york.ac.uk> > Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 10:14 PM > Subject: Re: Alloy paper > > > > Hi Daniel, > > Sounds interesting! I'll definitely read it. The pUML > > approach has its critics in the informal and formal camps. > > Speaking in very loose terms: > > On the one hand there are those that feel that the > > problems with the UML and OCL are too severe and that > > a much cleaner, precise (and smaller) language can be built > > from scratch (using best experiences from the FM community); > > on the other hand there are those that view the informal nature of the UML > > as a plus. > > > > As an academician I can appreciate the first view; > > as an academician that has worked with industry - > > some would say I'm now contaminated :) - I have some > > sympathy for the second view. A solution that is > > acceptable to industry may lie somewhere in between. > > This is what we are trying to do within the pUML > > group. In the end a new language like > > Alloy may turn out to be a more > > superior language; but history reminds us that this > > is not enough to gain acceptance in industry. > > > > As an interesting option, have you considered defining > > a UML profile for Alloy (i.e., using a UML-like syntax > > for Alloy language elements) ... > > > > Robert > > > > ==================================================================== > > Robert B. France, Assoc Professor | Tel: 970-491-6356 > > Computer Science Department | Fax: 970-491-2466 > > Colorado State University | Email: france@cs.colostate.edu > > Fort Collins, CO 80523 | www.cs.colostate.edu/~france/ > > > > > > To remove yourself from this list please mail puml-list-request@cs.york.ac.uk > with a message containing the word "unsubscribe". > > -- ================================================================= Professor Brian Henderson-Sellers Director, Centre for Object Technology Applications and Research and Professor of Information Systems Faculty of Information Technology University of Technology, Sydney P.O. Box 123 Tel: +61 (0)2 9514 1687 Broadway Fax: +61 (0)2 9514 1807 NSW 2007 email: brian@it.uts.edu.au Australia http://www-staff.socs.uts.edu.au/~brian OPEN webpage is at http://www.open.org.au TOOLS Pacific webpage is at http://www.socs.uts.edu.au/tools/


Date view Thread view Subject view Author view