[Modeling] Re: Seq. diag. answer to Michael Winikoff

[Radovan Cervenka]

Dear all,

I do no think that symbols like ?, !, ||, etc. are more understandable than
alt, brk, par, etc. They are maybe better readable, ... but reader/writer
needs to know exact semantics anyhow. I think that original intention of UML
2.0 developers, when they proposed using of textual shortcuts, was to give a
hint about the semantics to English speaking users.

But why to use another notation for standardized modeling elements?
Alternative notations with exactly the same semantics can confuse users. Do
not you think that it would make (small) problems with compatibility,
usability and understandability of the language. Imagine joining of
models/diagrams built by several groups of analysts, and each group used
different notation.

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.

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Odell" <email@jamesodell.com>
To: <modeling@fipa.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 2:52 PM
Subject: [Modeling] Re: Seq. diag. answer to Michael Winikoff


> Ooops, I forgot to answer this item:
>
> >Page 12: "the abbreviations are alt, brk ..." These are not at all easy
to read
> >and understand. I'd like to suggest that we allow graphical/mnemonic
> >alternatives. How about these as a first suggestion:
> >alt = ? or diamond
> >brk = ! or stop symbol
> >par = || or an arrow to a thick horizontal bar with two arrows coming out
of it
> >neg = - or x or a logical negation symbol (probably not the latter)
> >ign = . (can't think of a good symbol for this - a cross over a human ear
is
> >getting too complex ... :-)
> >loop = little loop symbol (or @ if using ASCII?)
> >
> >Answer: I think Jim has the answer but I think it is not possible to use
> >graphical symbol since I am rather doubt that UML 2 CombinedFragment
allows
> >graphical symbol, Jim, do you have an answer?
>
> What we could do is extend UML by offering both options.  That way it
would
> be backward and forward compatible.  We do need to be concerned about
using
> symbols that are too specialized.  I think the ones that Michael proposes
> should be OK.  It's the upsidedown "A" and backward "E" type of thing we
> need to avoid.