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

[Michael Winikoff]

On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 12:17:37PM +0100, Radovan Cervenka wrote:
> 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.

Briefly, I believe that some sort of suggestive icon is a lot easier to read and
process than a three letter acronym (especially for casual users of the notation
- "what does ign mean again?")

Regarding multiple notations, any half-decent tool should be able to
automatically switch presentations, i.e. show "alt" as "?" (or whatever symbol
is chosen) so I don't see this as a significant issue.

Ideally, I'd argue for REPLACING the three letter acronyms with symbols/icons,
however it is too late for this, so I'm just suggesting that we define and
permit an alternative presentation. I believe that this will AID the readability
and understandability of the notation. I appreciate your concerns over different
notations, but in this case the difference is very small and, more importantly,
completely localised.

Cheers,

Michael
 
> 
> 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Modeling mailing list
> Modeling@www.fipa.org
> http://fipa.org/mailman/listinfo/modeling

-- 
Michael Winikoff, Senior Lecturer
School of Computer Science and Information Technology
RMIT University
http://www.cs.rmit.edu.au/~winikoff