Hi Randall, (01)
I'm afraid I've got to disagree with you. When you look at how UML is
actually *used* all you can really say about it is that it's a notation. The
diagrams *are* the essence of UML because UML is used for so many different
purposes (e.g. data modelling, software modelling, system modelling,
military architecture, services, ontologies, etc.) there is little in the
way of common semantic across the various uses of the language. For
particular uses of it (e.g. UPMS, MODAF M3, SysML, etc.), there may be
formal semantics, and even some ontological commitments (e.g. SysML and
MODAF M3 commit to physical entities in the real world), but for UML in
general, you'd be struggling to find a common thread. (02)
The UML meta-model provides an implementable structure, but it does not
provide what most people on this forum would consider to be formal
semantics. (03)
If you want to ground UML in common logic, the obvious choice would be the
ontology profile that OMG is working on. In fact, I think there is a CL
mapping in the spec. (04)
We used UML on the IDEAS Foundation (www.ideasgroup.org/foundation), and
were very pleased with the result. However, we put together a very tightly
controlled UML profile, with stereotypes based on the ontic categories in
the IDEAS foundation itself. We haven't mapped IDEAS back onto CL - John
Sowa is very keen that we do this, but the project is on hold at the moment.
If you want to see how it's used, the key objects diagram shows a number of
stereotypes in use -
http://www.ideasgroup.org/foundation/EARoot/EA2/EA20.htm - note that Type is
stereotyped as Type. This is a short-hand for it being an instance of itself
(cf tag names in OWL can indicate the type). The underlying principles of
the profile are explained here -
http://www.ideasgroup.org/foundation/EARoot/EA1/EA7.htm (05)
We'll be putting the UML Profile and plug-in (for Sparx EA) on the web
shortly. If anyone wants to be a guinea pig...er...I mean...beta tester, let
me know and I'll send you the link when it's up. (06)
Cheers (07)
Ian (08)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Randall R
Schulz
Sent: 25 February 2010 00:51
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] MVC (was: Defining UML in Common Logic) (09)
On Wednesday February 24 2010, Duane Nickull wrote:
> When I say "UML" I refer to a 2 dimensional
> syntax/notation/convention for representing models or data. (010)
UML is a language for modeling systems. The diagrammatic portion,
as popular as it is, is really not the essence of UML. (011)
Diagrammatic languages and other visualization schemes appeal to a very
large majority of humans 'cause of our outsized visual cortex, but
ultimately visual languages very limiting. They scale very poorly,
which is a large part of why visual programming languages have never
gotten any traction beyond a few limited settings. (012)
> Duane (013)
Randall Schulz (014)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (015)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (016)
|