Re: Help...Current status of formalization of UML



Re: Help...Current status of formalization of UML

From: Daniel Jackson ^lt;dnj@mit.edu>
Date: Sun 30 Apr 2006 - 18:33:44 BST
Message-Id: <8C249C1D-1067-4F30-97FE-9B0D490B80F1@mit.edu>
Irum,

A different approach, which you might consider (or at least compare  
your work to), is the one we took in the development of Alloy. In  
short, we believe that you need to develop the semantics _with_ the  
language, not after. This results in a simpler language and allows  
more powerful tool support. I think UML should be reworked to  
eliminate the parts that have subtle semantics, because even if they  
are formalized, they'll be a constant source of problems for users  
and tool developers. For information about Alloy, see alloy.mit.edu,  
and my book (links at http://people.csail.mit.edu/dnj). The final  
chapter of my book includes a detailed comparison of Alloy and the  
Bremen OCL variant (the formalization by Richters and Gogolla, which  
you presumably know about).

--Daniel

On Apr 30, 2006, at 6:25 AM, Irum Rauf wrote:

> Thanks Greg and Pierre for your early response and kind help. I  
> will have a detailed look on the material you have sent me  
> regarding semantics and graph transformations and will get back to  
> you.
>
> Actually I am finding this topic very intriguing and want to take  
> it as my thesis topic of MS.
> What about the formalization approaches...OO-extended approach and  
> Method Integration approach? The papers I had studied said there is  
> great potential in future at industrial level for OO-extended  
> approach...Where are these standing currently? Are there are any  
> areas on which i should start focusing on as my research topic.
> I am looking forward to your guidance, to use my interest in this  
> area and my potential to work effectively, in a focused manner so  
> that my hard work is fruitful and contributes to your researches as  
> well.
>
> Thanks and Best Regards,
> Irum
Received on Sun Apr 30 18:33:37 2006