[Modeling] Document structure suggestions

[Radovan Cervenka]

Dear Renato,

> I agree with the format proposed by Radovan, but it is very important that
> we share our UML profiles and try to reuse as much as possible whenever
> they overlap (maybe that's what he called "to share UML models"), in order
> to avoid two relatively equal concepts with two different profiles. I
don't
> know how often this may happen, but we should be aware of it.

Yes. By sharing of our UML models we can avoid complicated merging of
different metamodels (built by different people/groups) in the phase of
unification and preparing one common metamodel. I think that since the
beginning we could circulate our model fragments by email in order to be
"inspired" by each other... but they should be also placed into some
web-based archive/repository... and all our working artifacts as well...
that's why I asked Jim about FIPA Modeling TC Web pages some days ago.

> In terms of tool, although I think that in the end we should have a XMI
> format defined; in order to keep it practical, unless someone does not
have
> access to it, we could stick with Rational as the initial tool.

Ok. Rational Rose is good also for me.

Regards,

Rado1.
--
Radovan Cervenka | rce@whitestein.com
Whitestein Technologies | www.whitestein.com
Panenska 28 | SK-81103 Bratislava | Slovak Republic
Tel +421(2)5443-5502 | Fax +421(2)5443-5512
--
If you are not the intended recipient of this email,
you are not authorized to make any use of it;
please delete it and notify us by return email.
Thank you.