W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > June 2002

Re: UML

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 03:26:10 -0400
To: "Austin, Daniel" <Austin.D@ic.grainger.com>
Cc: "'Hao He'" <Hao.He@thomson.com.au>, "'www-ws-arch@w3.org '" <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20020614032610.C3563@www.markbaker.ca>

+1

On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 01:46:13PM -0500, Austin, Daniel wrote:
> 
> I am not keen on this as a normative requirement; as someone who uses and
> teaches UML
> on a regular basis, I believe it to have serious drawbacks as an
> architectural tool. It is
> best suited to its intended use - software application design (which is
> quite different from architecture).
> 
> I can live with this if 'should' is changed to 'may'. 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> D-
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hao He [mailto:Hao.He@thomson.com.au]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 3:09 AM
> > To: 'www-ws-arch@w3.org '
> > Subject: UML
> > 
> > 
> > hi, All,
> > 
> > I propose the following to be added to D-AC005:
> > 
> > D-AC005.17 Artifacts in the reference architecture should be 
> > defined in UML
> > where applicable. 
> > 
> > Any support on this one?
> > 
> > Hao
> > 
> > 

-- 
Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Friday, 14 June 2002 03:16:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:00 GMT