RE: Sets and bags || UML and PUML going astray



Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

robert france (france@CS.ColoState.EDU)
Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:00:43 -0700 (MST)


>i disagree. one of the most valuable ideas in OMT, now apparently lost in >UML, was that of an "analysis model" that abstracted away from >implementation details. if your modelling language is built around >programming language notions, you'll never be able to use it in the stages >where it's most valuable -- long before you're worrying about code. OK, I'll weigh in on this ... The analysis model is not "lost" - as Dov pointed out methodology can address this "deficiency". This is what I'm currently doing with a telecom company: we have developed a UML-based method that utilizes business models, conceptual models (what you call analysis model; the developers preferred the term conceptual), solution class diagram, etc. These models consist of UML diagrams and we use the extension mechanisms (stereotypes, tags) to tailor the usage of the models. Note that OMT is a method; UML is a NOTATION (yeah, they use the term "language", but ...). Cheers, 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/


Date view Thread view Subject view Author view