Duane, (01)
I agree: (02)
> UML is only one of many ways to represent logic or models. (03)
The point I make is that there is no one-size-fits-all notation
for everything. Different notations -- graphic and linear --
have different advantages and disadvantages for different purposes. (04)
Remember that what was "unified" by the U of UML was the
squabbling among the "Three Amigos" who were using different
notations for related design methodologies. (05)
The various diagrams came from many different sources. Some
of them go back to the 1960s (Entity-Relationship diagrams
by P. P. Chen in 1976 were a variant of Bachman diagrams
from a decade earlier.) Drawing type hierarchies as trees
goes back to Porphyry in the 3rd century AD. And activity
diagrams go back to Carl Adam Petri's PhD dissertation in 1965. (06)
All those diagrams represent important aspects that could
also be represented in logic at the object level or the
metalevel. E-R diagrams, for example, represent the signature
of various relations, the number of arguments, the types of
the arguments, and the functional dependencies and cardinality
constraints. (07)
All those notations can and should be better integrated with
each other and with methodologies from other paradigms. (08)
John (09)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (010)
|