Juergen: <snip> I believe that a tool that generates a meaningful YANG data model out of a UML information model requires so many details in the UML model that the UML model stops being an information model. A data model has to be very clear about naming. If you use YANG, you need to transfer an arbitrary graph of classes and their relationships into a tree. The answer to the question what becomes a reference between branches in a tree and what can be captured through nesting does not naturally fall out of a UML class diagram. Perhaps I am overly pessimistic.
A key point of an information model is that it focusses on fundamental concepts and that it on purpose leaves out details that are needed in data models. So either your tool transforming UML class diagrams into YANG has a second information source or you have to overload your UML diagrams with details that turn your UML diagrams into a data model. [Sue-on]: Yes, I am focused on the depth of description. Thank you for mentioning it. I am using the concept library of information models. I'm hoping you can just state this links to this UML diagram in the library, and that details for a particular modular can be specified in that diagram. If there is I thought that this was reasonable - to use one level of detail in one diagram (so all could read), and a more detailed reference to the diagram. I'm read and re-reading my tutorial book to see if there is any problem with this in UML. I'm not sure the official way to call this. If there isn't, I'll have to invent it. [Sue-off] > I think the UML is readable. Please comment on my UML drawings that I > sent at the beginning of this post. If you wish a power point of the > UML so you can edit it, I'll send one. > At the Yang step, Andy assures me it is readable so debugging the tool > should be useful. I was answering the performance issue question with > the iterative code. I think this does provide what you require. [Sue] I like to see the UML input and the YANG output or even better the tool. I am happy to see the text I wrote above proven wrong. > Can you tell me where your experience states this is a misstep? See above. I have seen people who added lots of details to their UML class diagrams in order to drive automation until the UML diagrams filled walls and essentially lost their value of summarizing key concepts. [Sue]: Without levels of hierarchy or scoping, the tool is unworkable. The CAD/CAM guys learned to use scoping with diagrams - so would thing UML should do the same thing. Thank you for your kind and very knowledge hints to help me. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
