Re: Where are we at? Where to from here?



Re: Where are we at? Where to from here?

From: Pierre-Yves Schobbens <pys_at_info.fundp.ac.be>
Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 21:58:40 +0200
Message-Id: <892C494A-AC1A-4553-BF71-32C41136B889@info.fundp.ac.be>
Le 14-mai-06  11:00, Greg O'Keefe a crit :

> Precise UMLeers,
>
> I am interested to know your opinions of the state of play in  
> making UML
> precise.
>
>
> Is it still a good idea to try to make UML precise?

I think yes; and also the main players of UML are more receptive to  
the idea than before.

>
> Can work outside the large IBM funded project have any influence?

If we want to have influence, it is useful to set up large consortia  
involving both industrial and academics.

>
> Perhaps we should look instead to a new, well defined language, or
> giving UML-like notation to an existing formalism?

I don't think so. There are many academic papers in this vein,
"I take my favorite language and disguise its syntax into an UML-ish  
syntax". However, the results are usually rejcted by industrials .  
Further, the unifying aspect of UML is usually lost, since UML is  
understood in a very specific way, usually incompatible with the  
standard (UML2.0 Superstructure) and certainly with all variants of  
this approach.

I think we should start afresh from the approved UML2.0  
Superstructure, and try to be faithful to it as far as possible.
Received on Sun 14 May 2006 - 20:58:52 BST