|
so:text
|
I assume that a precisely defined, verifiable, executable, and translatable UML is a Good Thing and leave it to others to make that case... In the summer of 1999, the UML has definitions for the semantics of its components. These definitions address the static structure of UML, but they do not define an execution semantics. They also address the meaning of each component, but there are "semantic variation points" which allow a component to have several different meanings. Multiple views are defined, but there is no definition of how the views fit together to form a complete model. When alternate views conflict, there is no definition of how to resolve them. There are no defined semantics for actions...
To determine what requires formalization, the UML must distinguish clearly between essential, derived, auxiliary, and deployment views. An essential view models precisely and completely some portion of the behavior of a subject matter, while a derived view shows some projection of an essential view...
All we need now is to make the market aware that all this is possible, build tools around the standards defined by the core, executable UML, and make it so... (en) |
