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



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

From: Ian.Oliver_at_nokia.com
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 11:07:34 +0300
Message-ID: <F0072FC8D78CC142A86DADA66BFCCF6B01F1D6CC@esebe106.NOE.Nokia.com>
I though I'd just make a few "industrial" comments regarding this:

"Is it still a good idea to try to make UML precise?"

Yes, but what you do mean by precise - see the excellent Harel & Rumpe article at http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/1501

Formality however does tend to scare some industrial people with visions of obscure Z-like symbols :-)
Can we formalise the extension mechansims too?

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

My take would be: if you can't beat them, join them...

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

Bad, bad, bad :-)   Making SDL look like UML is once instance of this and it has caused all sorts of weird problems, both syntactical and semantic.


My line would be that UML has reached a place where either it must return to its roots as a language for describing systems using OO concepts or become an unusable syntax for a whole host of domain specific languages, none of which are compatible...personally I prefer the former, which UML, IMHO is better at

Ian

>-----Original Message-----
>From: puml-list-request@cs.york.ac.uk 
>[mailto:puml-list-request@cs.york.ac.uk] On Behalf Of ext 
>Pierre-Yves Schobbens
>Sent: 14 May, 2006 22:59
>To: puml-list@cs.york.ac.uk
>Subject: Re: Where are we at? Where to from here?
>
>
>Le 14-mai-06 à 11:00, Greg O'Keefe a écrit :
>
>> 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.
>
>
>
>
>To remove yourself from this list please mail 
>puml-list-request@cs.york.ac.uk
>with a message containing the word "unsubscribe".
>
>
Received on Mon 29 May 2006 - 09:07:41 BST