Re: Comparison : Ada and UML (comparison… indeed)

["J-P. Rosen" <rosen@adalog.fr>]

Le 10/11/2010 10:23, Matteo Bordin a �crit :
>> I guess you mean UML models use with HOOD... HOOD objects definitely
>> have semantics!
> 
> Either HOOD is a language with an abstract syntax (a metamodel), or it
> is not. It was you the one who said "HOOD is not a language".
Yes. HOOD is a design method; it defines precise steps that guide you
from a specification to an implementation.

Your design decisions and refinments are captured in what is called the
"textual form"; this is a standardized language, defined by a syntax.
There is also a graphical form, which is basically an abstraction of the
textual form, to help the reader to understand more easily the general
organization of the design.

HOOD defines its own shapes for the graphical form; using UML "shapes"
can make a HOOD design more readable for those who already know UML, and
that's what STOOD can do. I didn't mean anything else.
[...]

> It is on the
> appropriateness of this mapping that I have doubts. For whatever
> reason you seem to perceive this as a critique to HOOD.
No, just that stating that HOOD had no semantic. You may not have meant
it, but it is always dangerous to leave that kind of statement publicly
on the internet...

> [...]
> This is the point: in STOOD the use of UML/AADL/HOOD/HRT-HOOD is
> purely a skin with no semantic meaning at all. The abstract syntax is
> always the same; what changes is just the concrete syntax. Note that
> the same comments can be made for the AADL view...
For sure. HOOD in UML notation is still HOOD...

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------
           J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr)
Adalog a d�m�nag� / Adalog has moved:
2 rue du Docteur Lombard, 92441 Issy-les-Moulineaux CEDEX
Tel: +33 1 45 29 21 52, Fax: +33 1 45 29 25 00