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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,fceb4e36ba4d570f X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-04-24 20:50:21 PST Path: newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!grolier!fr.usenet-edu.net!usenet-edu.net!enst!enst.fr!not-for-mail From: "Robert C. Leif, Ph.D." Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: RE: Ada95 and UML Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 20:54:37 -0700 Organization: ENST, France Sender: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org Message-ID: Reply-To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin.enst.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: avanie.enst.fr 988170621 8011 137.194.161.2 (25 Apr 2001 03:50:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@enst.fr NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 03:50:21 +0000 (UTC) To: Return-Path: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 In-Reply-To: <3AE585AD.FA264B4C@home.com> Importance: Normal Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.3 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: comp.lang.ada mail<->news gateway List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Xref: newsfeed.google.com comp.lang.ada:6909 Date: 2001-04-24T20:54:37-07:00 From: Bob Leif To: Robert Palasek et al. The first question to ask is, what would be useful for the Ada community? Ada specifications include a significant and very useful part of a model. I believe that the Ada paradigm is correct--Leave the details to the body and probably the private parts. Therefore I believe that the private part of the specification should be omitted from a model. Since a graphical method of describing the software appears to be useful, it makes sense to create or preferably extend an already existing technology. As some of you know, I suffer from an XML fixation. Actually, I view XML as a very good means to improve Ada's use. XML has the common features with Ada of enumerated types and ranges. Therefore the same graphical tool could be employed to model and perhaps generate Ada specifications and/or XML schemas. Or any one of the three could be used to generate part or all of the other two. This would permit one to storyboard a project. The screens including forms could be created with commercial XML tools. The appropriate schemas would then be created. DTDs should be translated into schemas, which are much easier to understand. -----Original Message----- From: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org [mailto:comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org]On Behalf Of Robert Palasek Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 6:53 AM To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Subject: Re: ada95 and uml bobpalasek wrote: > > But I don't understand the idea that you are supposed to be able to > > generate one from the other. That seems wrong and misguided to me. > > > > A model is an abstraction that carries some proper subset of > > salient points of the thing being modeled. For it to be useful, the > > model has to leave other stuff out. If it doesn't leave anything > > out, it's just an alternate representation. > Simon writes: > True; model + translation rules -> code. This is possible provided > your model is expressed with the precision required by the translation > rules[1]. What Simon writes is true of any formal rewriting system. As stated, it maybe too general to be useful. Let us suppose, however, that in this context "model" is limited to UML, and "code" stands for Ada. In this hypothetical situation, it should be possible to go from the model to an executable, and not very many people at all need to be concerned with the intermediate representation. Assembly language or machine code is fine. No need to bother anyone with Ada. Keep it simple. But my conceit misses the point of using modeling as an abstraction to help understand the problem and/or the solution. The model is deliberately more simple than the final design and implementation. That is the nature of modeling. To require the model to carry all the details seems misguided, sophomoric, to me.