From: "BJ Freeman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I guess i am a zealot. Just trying not to show it. LOL > from http://www.uml.org/ > The Unified Modeling Language™ - UML - is OMG's most-used specification, > and the way the world models not only application structure, behavior, > and architecture, but also business process and data structure. > I use eclipse > http://www.visual-paradigm.com/product/sde/ec/productinfosdeceec.jsp
Thanks for the link BJ Jacques > > Jacques Le Roux sent the following on 6/29/2006 1:08 PM: > > I'm not a zealot of UML and I'm not using it for the moment. But I think it's a > > good way to ease understanding between people, even not techies. > > > > In fact, Neogia http://www.nereide.biz/ is build this way partially. They write > > UML graphs with Poseidon http://gentleware.com/index.php and they use a > > technology that they created with Code Lutin http://www.codelutin.com/ to > > generate files (every types ASA there is generator to do it). They wrote enough > > generators to ease 70% of the work on Neogia side (Neogia is using OFBiz) they > > claim. > > > > Jacques > > > >> Parkinson's law, though is about work expanding to meet the resources. > >> a lesser known one is the way to win an argument is to speak in an area > >> that the others can not comprehend so they will not show their ignorance > >> by speaking against it. > >> > >> Most of these modeling proposition, are the same, unless you are a > >> zealot about it. > >> > >> which boils down to good luck. > >> LOL. > >> > >> David Welton sent the following on 6/29/2006 4:18 AM: > >>>> I believe that was the Idea behind UML (unified Modeling Language) > >>>> http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/formal/uml.htm > >>>> It really never got accepted. . > >>> I think this aims to be much more specific than UML, which is used for > >>> all kinds of things. It describes services, and how they interact, > >>> rather than database tables or objects, or other low level things of > >>> that nature. Perhaps it has a shot at working if it doesn't try to be > >>> everything to everyone. > >>> > >>> Some healthy skepticism is in order, but the idea is interesting. I > >>> would love to offload the design of these processes to my boss, and > >>> let a computer worry about translating them into something runnable > >>> (rather than sitting down and doing it myself:-). But perhaps that's > >>> just a dream, and in reality the system doesn't work out that well, or > >>> requires an army of people to implement. > >>> > >>> Anyway, just sort of curious what others thought. > >>> > > > >
