[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] UML Meta-Model and Notation

To: "ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Duane Nickull <dnickull@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:15:43 -0800
Message-id: <C7AD41BF.BB07%dnickull@xxxxxxxxx>
HI Ian:    (01)

On 2/26/10 1:42 AM, "Ian Bailey" <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:    (02)

> Hi Randall,
> 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.    (03)

This is essentially what I was trying to (and failing to) say. UML itself is
independent of what is being modeled, therefore assuming code generation or
the need to use any methodology is illogical.    (04)

Section 6.2.2 of the latest complete spec does have a section on Semantics
architecture.  This is interesting for the FO discussion.  For example, if
you have two "things" and a binary relation between them, the UML notation
does allow you to define more precise details for the relationship than a
simple concept map. The Causality model is also very cool.    (05)

Duane     (06)

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    (07)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>