R: [Modeling] Comments on interaction diagrams

[Paola Turci]

Dear All,

I completely agree with Hong.
When I was reading the document on Interaction Diagrams I had the same
feeling.
Before we proceed any further with the document, I think it is necessary to
define a meta-model. May be, we can start defining a meta-model for the
Interaction Diagrams only (if it is possible), without taking into
consideration a comprehensive meta-model for AUML.

I am aware that it is not a trivial job, but it is necessary and I would
like to contribute to it.

Kind regards,
Paola


Hong wrote:

> Dear Jim,
>
> I am reading the document on Interaction Diagrams and trying to make some
> comments. I have only read a few pages, but I have a number of questions.
> Many of the questions are related to the 'meta-model'. For example,
whether
> or not agents and objects can mix (i.e. both appear)  in the same sequence
> diagram? If so, are there any restrictions on what objects cannot do while
> agents can? Is sending messages the only way that agent communicate with
> each other? Such questions cannot be answered satisfactorily without a
> meta-model of agent-orientation, and they will have a significant impact
on
> the design and specification of sequence diagrams' syntax and semantics.
>
> >From the emails we had earlier and the information on the AUML web, it
seems
> to me that we haven't got a meta-model for AUML. May I suggest that we set
> up a project on meta-model? As you requested, I am looking into the
> meta-model. I have read the papers that you suggested and am now reading
the
> very thick document of UML 2.0 and re-reading UML's earlier versions. I
feel
> that setting up a meta-model is not a trivial job at all. It deserve a
> separate project and the project should have a high priority.
>
> Another issue that I think is global (i.e. it is not just about the
document
> on interaction diagrams) is the 'style' of the document. There are two
types
> of information contained in the docment: background information (including
> the history and rationale of the design of the language), and the
> specification of the language. For example, the first paragraph on page 2,
> is more about the background. I would suggest a different approach. That
is,
> to separate these two types of information in two documents: one as the
> specification of the language, and the other as a complimentary to explain
> the background, and to give the rationale of the design of the language,
> etc. These two documents can be linked together through hyperlinks embeded
> into electronic versions and hosted on the web. Therefore, the
specification
> document can be short and concise. UML 2.0 proposal is already over 800
> pages. We need to think very hard about how to reduce the length of AUML
> documents. Otherwise, AUML could be too lengthy to handle and put people
> away.
>
> Best regards,
> Hong
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Modeling mailing list
> Modeling@www.fipa.org
> http://fipa.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling
>
>