Uppercase and lowercase at archetype nodes

[Thomas Beale]

David,
the AOM certainly doesn't care, you are right about that. Since we treat 
that as the normative form, we should logically say it is the same as 
UML, i.e. a guideline for readability. I think the ADL parsers do use 
this convention at the moment to match class and attribute names more 
easily, but I imagine this dependency could be removed as well. I will 
need to investigate on this.

- thomas

On 11/11/2010 07:21, David Moner wrote:
>
> No comments or opinions about this?
>
>
> 2010/11/4 David Moner mailto:damoca at upv.es>>
>
> While working with archetypes for different reference models we
> have faced a problem regarding the uppercase/lowercase rules for
> naming archetype nodes at ADL.
>
> The ADL specifications imposes the following rule: "A type name is
> any identifier with an initial upper case letter, followed by any
> combination of letters, digits and underscores. A generic type
> name (including nested forms) additionally may include commas and
> angle brackets, but no spaces, and must be syntactically correct
> as per the UML. An attribute name is any identifier with an
> initial lower case letter, followed by any combination of letters,
> digits and underscores. Any convention that obeys this rule is
> allowed" (ADL 1.5 draft, page 26).
>
> However, at the UML specifications I have only found the following
> style guidelines: "Capitalize the first letter of class names (if
> the character set supports uppercase)" and "Begin attribute and
> operation names with a lowercase letter". But I understand these
> as style recommendations and not as a mandatory specification
> since they are accompanied with others such as: "Center class name
> in boldface" and "Put the class name in italics if the class is
> abstract".
>
> In any case, as we all know, object-oriented programming is not
> just UML. We can use other modeling tools or programming languages
> that do not impose the uppercase/lowercase rule. And moreover, at
> the AOM specifications I cannot find any reference about the fact
> that the rm_type_name String should begin with uppercase or the
> rm_attribute_name String with lowercase.
>
> For example, all the attributes of the CDISC ODM standard are
> defined starting with an uppercase.
>
> So, from a generic perspective of the dual modeling process, I
> think that archetypes (or more specifically, ADL) should not
> impose rules in this aspect. What's your opinion?
>
> David
>
*
*
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

Uppercase and lowercase at archetype nodes

[David Moner]

No comments or opinions about this?


2010/11/4 David Moner 

> While working with archetypes for different reference models we have faced
> a problem regarding the uppercase/lowercase rules for naming archetype nodes
> at ADL.
>
> The ADL specifications imposes the following rule: "A type name is any
> identifier with an initial upper case letter, followed by any combination of
> letters, digits and underscores. A generic type name (including nested
> forms) additionally may include commas and angle brackets, but no spaces,
> and must be syntactically correct as per the UML. An attribute name is any
> identifier with an initial lower case letter, followed by any combination of
> letters, digits and underscores. Any convention that obeys this rule is
> allowed" (ADL 1.5 draft, page 26).
>
> However, at the UML specifications I have only found the following style
> guidelines: "Capitalize the first letter of class names (if the character
> set supports uppercase)" and "Begin attribute and operation names with a
> lowercase letter". But I understand these as style recommendations and not
> as a mandatory specification since they are accompanied with others such as:
> "Center class name in boldface" and "Put the class name in italics if the
> class is abstract".
>
> In any case, as we all know, object-oriented programming is not just UML.
> We can use other modeling tools or programming languages that do not impose
> the uppercase/lowercase rule. And moreover, at the AOM specifications I
> cannot find any reference about the fact that the rm_type_name String should
> begin with uppercase or the rm_attribute_name String with lowercase.
>
> For example, all the attributes of the CDISC ODM standard are defined
> starting with an uppercase.
>
> So, from a generic perspective of the dual modeling process, I think that
> archetypes (or more specifically, ADL) should not impose rules in this
> aspect. What's your opinion?
>
> David
>
> --
> David Moner Cano
> Grupo de Inform?tica Biom?dica - IBIME
> Instituto ITACA
> http://www.ibime.upv.es
>
> Universidad Polit?cnica de Valencia (UPV)
> Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3? planta
> Valencia ? 46022 (Espa?a)
>



-- 
David Moner Cano
Grupo de Inform?tica Biom?dica - IBIME
Instituto ITACA
http://www.ibime.upv.es

Universidad Polit?cnica de Valencia (UPV)
Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3? planta
Valencia ? 46022 (Espa?a)
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

Uppercase and lowercase at archetype nodes

[David Moner]

While working with archetypes for different reference models we have faced a
problem regarding the uppercase/lowercase rules for naming archetype nodes
at ADL.

The ADL specifications imposes the following rule: "A type name is any
identifier with an initial upper case letter, followed by any combination of
letters, digits and underscores. A generic type name (including nested
forms) additionally may include commas and angle brackets, but no spaces,
and must be syntactically correct as per the UML. An attribute name is any
identifier with an initial lower case letter, followed by any combination of
letters, digits and underscores. Any convention that obeys this rule is
allowed" (ADL 1.5 draft, page 26).

However, at the UML specifications I have only found the following style
guidelines: "Capitalize the first letter of class names (if the character
set supports uppercase)" and "Begin attribute and operation names with a
lowercase letter". But I understand these as style recommendations and not
as a mandatory specification since they are accompanied with others such as:
"Center class name in boldface" and "Put the class name in italics if the
class is abstract".

In any case, as we all know, object-oriented programming is not just UML. We
can use other modeling tools or programming languages that do not impose the
uppercase/lowercase rule. And moreover, at the AOM specifications I cannot
find any reference about the fact that the rm_type_name String should begin
with uppercase or the rm_attribute_name String with lowercase.

For example, all the attributes of the CDISC ODM standard are defined
starting with an uppercase.

So, from a generic perspective of the dual modeling process, I think that
archetypes (or more specifically, ADL) should not impose rules in this
aspect. What's your opinion?

David

-- 
David Moner Cano
Grupo de Inform?tica Biom?dica - IBIME
Instituto ITACA
http://www.ibime.upv.es

Universidad Polit?cnica de Valencia (UPV)
Camino de Vera, s/n, Edificio G-8, Acceso B, 3? planta
Valencia ? 46022 (Espa?a)
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: