| Re: [mdt-papyrus.dev] general UML 2.5 questions |
hi camille, thanks for the reply! this is pretty much what I would expect as well, and of course it wouldn't be too hard to do the sort of "tweaks" that you describe. On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 12:10:06PM +0000, LETAVERNIER Camille wrote: > So, in my understanding, this is valid: > > <xmi:XMI ...> > <umldi:Diagram xmi:type="umldi:UMLClassDiagram" .../> > <uml:Package xmi:type="uml:Package" name="PrimitiveTypes" .../> > </xmi:XMI> > > And this is not: > > <xmi:XMI ...> > <uml:Package xmi:type="uml:Package" name="PrimitiveTypes" ...> > <umldi:Diagram xmi:type="umldi:UMLClassDiagram" .../> > </uml:Package> > </xmi:XMI> note that the second is verbatim from the OMG specification examples! I could imagine that rather than it being invalid, it just means that they are equivalent on an XMI level, in other words according to the pure specification there is no link between the diagram and the package. But of course a tool could use a tweak to interpret the XMI as one would expect... and another comment on the thread in general that I forgot earlier: I am of course aware that people have different expectations when it comes to UML, and that context is important. If you are for example only interested in UML itself, then the simplifications in 2.5 make a lot of sense, and my original questions are not so relevant because building extra knwoledge into the tool is ok. If you are however after the original MDA meta-modelling, where you e.g. create your own model defined in UML, and then want to manage "instances" of your own model using the same toolset that you used to manage the model itself, then these become very interesting questions. and that's what I am really after, creating my own models and managing them as well as stuff defined in those models... regards robert -- Robert Lemmen http://www.semistable.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature