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

[James Odell]

On 3/25/03 3:14 AM, Radovan Cervenka scribed:

> BTW looking at UML 2.0, I feel that there could be more cases for which we
> will offer alternative notations. Not only replacing some acronyms by icons,
> but also replacing maybe several modeling elements by one visual element (of
> course with unambiguous metamodel mapping). E.g. while modeling some AUML
> concept that is naturally represented by a dependency and a constraint. It
> can be drawn e.g. as a line with special arrowhead and guard, instead of
> drawing dependency and constraint as two separate visual elements...

At some point, we have to decide how much to *deviate* from UML 2.0 and how
much to *extend" it.  By "extending" I mean adding to UML 2.0; by
"deviating" I mean changing the UML 2.0 notation without extending it.
Deviation carries with it the problem that the thousands of people that are
using it in its non-extended version will not be able to move easily to the
extended version a minimum of change to the base notation.


-Jim