Hi Diego, it has never been said that ADL is intended to be any kind of replacement of UML. Instead it relies on the UML object meta-model, and defines a constraint formalism on top of it. This allows you to define a static class model in the normal way, e.g. in a UML tool or whatever, and then define an archetype on that, which has the effect of defining a constrained object structure based on the class model. So we do use both - every day. The openEHR and CEN Reference Models are of course published in UML, and this is what allows archetypes to be created on top of them.
In short: UML is good for static /class/ models; ADL is good for static /instance/ models. - thomas On 09/11/2010 00:57, Diego Bosc? wrote: > Reading your post I have remembered something I have read sometimes > but I haven't still gotten a satisfactory answer: > If UML and ADL are that similar, why don't we use both? What does UML > can express that ADL can not express that makes some people to dislike > it (and also what can ADL express that UML can not express that makes > some people to dislike it) > I get that UML could be complicated, but again I don't think nobody > expects someone to model a concept in UML without the right tools > * * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20101109/90becb52/attachment.html>
