[Uml-devel] Re: karbon14 and uml

[Andrew Sutton]

On Tuesday 15 April 2003 4:59 am, Dirk Schönberger wrote:
> I think stereotypes are not really a part of the "object model" of UML, but
> rather a way to express custom meanings to elements. So as long as you
> don't provide renderers for my stereotypes <<clone>> and <<rather
> unimportant package>> I think it would be appropriate to render the
> underlying relationships as simple hyperlinks, with the stereotypes as
> labels.

stereotypes certainly are part of the UML object model. they're applied to the 
UML::ModelElement class to specialize or alter the semantics of the object. 
note that relationships are instances of the UML::ModelElement class too.

you're touching on an interesting concept that i haven't thought alot about. 
some relationships aren't fit to be rendered in a diagram. it's kind of a 
tough topic. let's hold off on that one.

> No. Konqueror provides a framework for multiple views which are used over a
> general model, an abstract file system and come contained documents. A
> treeview is a possible view, but not the most important. Normally I browse
> without treeview.

which are all techniques for navigating and managing a hierarchical data 
structure.

> I think a file system like approach would be nice for communicating with
> the rest of the system. Something like "lets copy this diagram from this
> package in this XMI file to the local file system". The process of copying
> would involve generating of HTML or SVG content, which would be some kind
> of "external representation" of the diagram / package.
>
> An DOM tree (or rather an internal representation based on the DOM tree)
> would be find for internal work, like a overview about the classes in a
> package, or the fields and methods in a class.

which does a good job differentiating diagram management and model management 
:) right you are.

> But these are not really views, i.e. multiple visual representations of the
> same data. I think you should rather see it as different documents showing
> different contents. It would be not feasible to e.g. drop a class icon from
> component view to usecase view.

these views are essentially just packages. officially, we call each one an 
architectural view. they comprise an architectural framework like the 4+1 
view or the zachman enterprise architecture framework (see 
www.zifa.org/com?). this can get to be a pretty sticky conversation.

i'll update my paper before i head off to school today.

andy