Lofi Dewanto wrote:
Interesting discussion ;-)
my humble opinion to this topic:
>>UML allows you the freedom to express things the way you want" No, UML has semantics defined. There is possibility for interpretation, but in the limits of the UML semantic. Some special aspects may throw special light on the constructs, e.g. metamodelling, but the basic semantics are clear.
the semantic is clear no doubt, something like "a Class can have one or more Attributes", etc. But like Chad said, what you want to do with a Class or Attributes its your "modeling style". This is all about the modeling activity. And a model IMHO is always "subjective to the modelers". I don't believe in a pure objective models ;-)
Surely you have some best practices and definitions like you said from the UML spec. but again, it's your freedom to model the things just what you think the best for your purpose... There is no wrong or bad models as far as you can mention your motivation...
Very well said Lofi...my thoughts exactly :)
Cheers,
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by Oracle Space Sweepstakes Want to be the first software developer in space? Enter now for the Oracle Space Sweepstakes! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7393&alloc_id=16281&op=click _______________________________________________ Andromda-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/andromda-devel
