From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,57c80c1c1b1f8820 X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!o23g2000prh.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Matteo Bordin Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: =?windows-1252?Q?Re=3A_Comparison_=3A_Ada_and_UML_=28comparison=85_indeed=29?= Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 09:44:45 -0800 (PST) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.98.77.125 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1289324685 3064 127.0.0.1 (9 Nov 2010 17:44:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 17:44:45 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: o23g2000prh.googlegroups.com; posting-host=194.98.77.125; posting-account=0fK-ZgoAAACswzEJSZ3LA9AZ4FnRU7mX User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe) Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:16379 Date: 2010-11-09T09:44:45-08:00 List-Id: > > I personally don't see much sense in trying to semantically merge the > > HOOD modeling approach (based on the notion of static "class" > > instance) with the UML one (based on the dichotomy between classifiers > > [classes] and typed elements [objects and class members]). > > There is no UML modeling approach. UML is a language (used by various > modelling approaches, granted). If the purpose of UML is to reduce the > confusion by standardizing boxes and arrows, why not use it on HOOD? It > will make a HOOD design more understandable to people who are not used > to HOOD diagrams. > > > Decorating > > a UML class with an <> stereotype (or whatever) > > does not mean much: a UML class needs to be instantiated to have a run- > > time executable semantics, while a HOOD object doesn't. This > > inconsistency has a lot of repercussions on several model elements and > > on several levels. > > UML claims that it can represent any design method, thanks to stereotypes... I think that what you really mean is to support the HOOD method using UML. But to do so you would need to define a mapping between the elements which the HOOD method requires to manipulate and UML elements. This is not necessary straightforward/natural. Also note that UML profiles allow to extend/constraint the UML metamodel, but cannot contradict it. > > Of course, you can always come up with a GUI intelligent enough to > > hide the semantic inconsistency between the two languages, > > HOOD is not a language, but primarily a design method. Diagrams are just > used as a representation of the result of a design. You're right, sometimes I forgot that HOOD "models" does not have any semantics... whatever UML box and arrow you pick, it will work... > > but the > > underlying UML model (supposing models are serialized to UML and not > > to proprietary formats) > > Note that HOOD defines a portable, open format for representing HOOD > designs - and it did that long before UML. I was referring to the fact that a UML-like graphical front-end does not imply a UML-compliant back-end semantics. Visio or PowerPoint may be used to provide as UML front-end, but they do not produce any usable model. BTW, HRT-UML (like HRT-UML/RCM) was not compliant with UML neither in the graphical front-end nor back-end.