Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [mdt-papyrus.dev] general UML 2.5 questions

Hi

UML models are conceptaually self-contained and so complete. Look at the Eclipse UML project; UML without diagrams. Diagrams add value and so Diagram models may reference UML models. There is no need for the reverse references. What is the problem?

As of today UML diagram interchange is not achieved between UML tools, since UMLDI only became available with UML 2.5. I understand that Papyrus is committed to supporting UMLDI which may encourage other vendors to follow suit. More practically the DOD are prime movers in the OMG Model Interchange Working Group, so once the DOD says UMLDI shall be available ....

My understanding is that the semantics of PackageMerge have never been entirely clear and that the Eclipse UML is the best/reference implementation. I think this was another reason to eliminate the PackageMerge from UML 2.5. PackageMerge is still modelable with UML 2.5 but is no longer used by UML so the inadequate semantics are not a problem for UML. Use of PackageMerge by users is discouraged.

    Regards

        Ed Willink

On 15/10/2014 08:24, Robert Lemmen wrote:
hi ed,

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 04:29:01PM +0100, Ed Willink wrote:
If you want to mangle elements together you are free to create whatever
variety of spaghetti satisfies you.
obviously, and of course that spaghetti mess and non-standard behaviour
is what I am trying to avoid :)

XMI and tooling have policies for resolving href's so your comments about
knowing how to find things leave me totally confused. I see no significant
difference for users between UML 2.4 and 2.5.
there may not be a significant difference between 2.4 and 2.5, except
for the fact that I have not seen XMI output from any 2.4 tool that
actually uses DI, all I have seen is self-brewed bits for the diagrams.
With 2.5 DI becomes more relevant, and that's where this comes up.

also note that this has nothing to do with hrefs at all, it is the
"implicit" relationships that get me confused. looking at the example
(from the OMG mind you):

<xmi:XMI ...>
    <uml:Package xmi:type="uml:Package" name="PrimitiveTypes" ...>
        <packageMerge xmi:type="uml:PackageMerge" ...>
            <mergedPackage xmi:type="uml:Package" href=""
        </packageMerge>
        <umldi:Diagram xmi:type="umldi:UMLClassDiagram" ...>
the href in the mergedPackage is of course easy to resolve, but you will
notice that there is also a relationship between the packageMerge and
the uml:Package that is not expressed through references, but merely
through the fact that the packageMerge is a child node of the
uml:Package in the XMI. And the tag name "packageMerge" is relevant
because it says which property of the object representing the package in
the abstract model receives the packageMerge object. agreed?

now where my confusion comes in us the umldi:Diagram element, which has
the same type of relationship with the uml:Package element. This also
nicely lines up with the general user experience of a UML tool, where
diagrams are typically associated with a package. However, I do not see
how that association can possibly be expressed in the abstract model.
Which property of the object representing the package would hold the
reference? even if there was such a property? how would the XMI reader
know which property to use given that it doesn't say in the XMI?

again, please keep in mind that I am coming from a MDA / metamodeling
point of view. If the tool "just" needs to support UML, and loads of
knowledge about the metamodel can be built into the tool, then that is
of course not an issue.

thanks  robert



_______________________________________________
mdt-papyrus.dev mailing list
mdt-papyrus.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mdt-papyrus.dev


-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8387 - Release Date: 10/14/14


Back to the top