Re: Questions about action languages

Re: Questions about action languages

From: Les Munday <>
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 17:19:21 -0400
Message-Id: <>
Just my opinion, but I think you will find the real answer is to
be found in the authors quoted at the end this thread.

Stephen Mellor, a methodoligist whose work I have followed for
many years. One of the founders of OOA/D methods. Although he
was not part of the original UML team, a lot of his work
(actually, if you ask him he'll tell you it was mostly Sally
Schlaer's work) was adopted in the UML. 

Stephen and Sally owned BridgePoint. One of the first OOA/D
modeling tools that generated code. The tool did not support
their complete notation. It could generate code from class and
state diagrams, but not the equivalent of activity diagrams.
Their workaround was to add an action language to the tool,
which is really just a high level programming language. 

This is the one aspect of their work which was driven by the
tool, rather than the best methods driving the notation. 

I agree, there is no need for action language in UML. I am a
staunch believer that a modeling language should be completely
independent of any spoken langauge, especially English.

I wasn't there so I don't know anything - just putting 2&2
together to form an opnion.


Thanks for the reference. I will take a look in it.
To clarify my second question, I would like to know why UML
iteration diagrams in particular, were not sufficient to make
the models
precise and complete to be able to generate executable code.
What were the
deficiencies found at iteration diagrams? Were
diagrams not sufficient?
I did not find any reference that explain these questions. I
defined an
action language in my master thesis, and now I am looking for
documents/articles explaining why UML diagrams are not precise
and, as
consequence, the action language was adopted.

Thanks again,


> @InProceedings{MeTAL99,
>   author =   {Stephen J. Mellor and Stephen R. Tockey and
> Arthaud and Philippe Leblanc},
>   title =   {An Action Language for UML: Proposal for a
> Execution Semantics},
>   booktitle =  {{UML} 1998 - Beyond the Notation: First
> Workshop.},
>   pages =  {307-318},
>   year =  1999,
>   editor =  {Jean B\'{e}zivin and Pierre-Alain Muller},
>   series =  {LNCS},
>   number =       1618,
>   publisher =  {Springer}
> }
> -- 

Get your own "800" number
Voicemail, fax, email, and a lot more
Received on Sun 04 Jun 2006 - 22:19:56 BST