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



Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

Daniel Jackson (dnj@lcs.mit.edu)
Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:43:03 -0500


....>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".... ....Note that OMT is a method; UML is a NOTATION (yeah, they use ....the term "language", but ...). if you give a modelling language a low-level, implementation-based semantics, it's no longer appropriate for abstract modelling. of course you can often overcome language defects with good method -- that's why it's possible to develop good systems in C or COBOL. but in that case the language has become a hindrance, not a help. /daniel


Date view Thread view Subject view Author view