[Uml-devel] CASE tools and IDEs

[Carsten Pfeiffer]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Thursday 30 January 2003 05:40, Andrew Sutton wrote:
> On Wednesday 29 January 2003 6:09 pm, Carsten Pfeiffer wrote:
> > Yes, those profiles extend the UML metamodel so that you can easily model
> > domain specific things. You could always do this with stereotypes, but
> > the advantage of metamodel extensions is, that you have not only new
> > elements to model with, but like the "normal" UML elements, they have
> > well-defined semantics.
>
> profiles are sets of stereotypes, not metamodel extensions. there really
> aren't a whole lot of things that you'd need metamodel extensions for -
> aspect oriented programming extensions are a good example.

Stereotypes, tagged values and constraints (OCL), yes. But those stereotypes 
are defined in accordance to the UML metamodel, giving them semantics.

A tool based on the UML metamodel, making use of profiles can interprete those 
constraints, e.g. prohibit you from adding a "supports" association in a CCM 
Component Interface that inherits another Component.

Without those semantics, you can't validate the model (or, only against the 
UML semantics).

Simply adding a stereotype Foo to a class makes it look like "Foo" but still 
has the same semantics as a normal class.

Cheers
Carsten Pfeiffer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEVAwUBPjk77aWgYMJuwmZtAQEl9wf8D2lkBlPzu7jh2LJGXlM9d8UA6saeehDD
GMaL5lt+v6HVseTv5WZ6U+aj2xzHR6R7aJcVCGd+2N3JU4HbbyrD2h9pGNFIvGZ3
SfKIUeHgb8N5kAe156bvfzdPzzFlLtoUEICxankk2aRWOlmi86q9vhyavg7+3Y+E
B+4d2F3WER0+j0C5whFd+Sn7bZwDUnKthjZzc4ARcdwywvqVeiyBWPTOJcLSvSBS
kpElvy2UO0r+HJ1Ficf1ZUpCScz7rB/LwB1sladOz1/iXnYhymlbAtFw06cqf/Kr
6f49Z4WCoBchnNd+Put8/E7x5d64FH0YfaL/rMd+WEHYlDDTvpSJdQ==
=cwqe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----