- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:27:50 -0400 (EDT)
- To: ekendall@sandsoft.com
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
From: "Elisa F. Kendall" <ekendall@sandsoft.com> Subject: Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-82: UML diagrams Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:51:32 -0700 > I am on holiday this week with my family, and was unable to call in > today, but find this completely unacceptable. > The UML should, at a > minimum, be correct UML given that there are folks in this working > group willing to assist to make it correct, including but not limited > to me. Sure, the UML should be valid UML, I wasn't proposing that it not be. As far as I can tell, making the UML valid involves, the suggestions that Conrad made 1/ removing the <<set>> stuff 2/ moving the association names to the middle of the links 3/ changing dashed lines to solid lines 4/ changing <<list>> to ordered However, I'm not a UML expert so I was suggesting that a UML expert take a role in making the diagrams be valid UML. > Peter Haase (who created the metamodel in the first place) and > I have discussed working together to revise that as well. Revising what? > I am also willing to assist in educating folks in the working group > about the purpose of a metamodel, and why it is ideally suited to the > purposes specified in the FS&SS. Sure, go ahead. > Leaving it as is will only create > confusion among UML savvy folks who are looking to this working group > for leadership. Leaving what as is? > Elisa peter > Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > >I propose to reject alignment between the UML diagrams in the Syntax > >document and the OMG ODM, as the purpose of the diagrams in FS&SS is > >very different from the purpose of the OMG ODM. > > > >I propose to accept that the diagrams may not be not ideal UML and > >invite the raiser of the issue to make specific suggestions for changes > >to them. > > > >Peter F. Patel-Schneider > >Bell Labs Research
Received on Wednesday, 16 April 2008 20:29:06 UTC