W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > September 2005

RE: [SE] Suggestion of new note

From: Uschold, Michael F <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 12:50:40 -0700
Message-ID: <4301AFA5A72736428DA388B73676A381B4C925@XCH-NW-6V1.nw.nos.boeing.com>
To: "Holger Knublauch" <holger@SMI.Stanford.EDU>
Cc: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>

RE: MDA:

My main point is that the text suggests that MDA does not even exist,
because it says that the current way of doing software development does
NOT retain the link between model and software. This WAS true, but is
not for people who use MDA. 

I don't suggest that you limit anything to MDA or focus on it a lot,
only to acknowledge that it exists, and how it fits into the picture.
--

RE: Object-oriented software vs. modeling languages 

I got a sense that the note kind of conflated the two, yet there is an
important difference. MDA bridges the gap by spitting out [some of the]
code directly from the model.
PS I'm not an MDA-nut, but I do strongly believe that the general
approach that MDA is taking/pioneering? is the right one (ie. Link
models to code).
--

Re: Restriction

I will try and have a look... I will send separately a few slides I
created to explain restrictions for an OWL tutorial in 2003 in Madrid.
This may or may not be worth skimming.

Mike



-----Original Message-----
From: Holger Knublauch [mailto:holger@SMI.Stanford.EDU] 
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 12:24 PM
To: Uschold, Michael F
Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [SE] Suggestion of new note


Mike,

a thousand thanks for these very helpful and constructive comments!

The new draft is available from

http://www.knublauch.com/oop/2005/09/23

I fully agree with almost all your comments and tried to integrate them 
as good as possible - my apologies where I failed to address them. 
Below are some comments on your comments.

Holger



Uschold, Michael F wrote:
> The note should have a better introduction. It starts by diving right 
> in, w/o any context setting. Say much earlier what is the 
> storyline/contents/overview of the paper as well as outline the 
> specific objectives. The latter can be accomplished by the sentence 
> used in the email announcing this draft (see below).
> 
> Here is some sample text that attempts to describe the overall story 
> and motivates the note:
> 
> ==
> Great progress has been made in the use of models in software 
> engineering, the benefits are (blah blah blah).  Recent MDA-based 
> software development tools move this forward significantly, addressing

> some of the common issued in software engineering such as: models 
> being use only at the beginning and getting out of date as code 
> develops. However, there are still challenges. <name them, like 
> interoperability>

I believe we should be careful not to limit our discussion to MDA. 
Software development reality also contains agile approaches, and our 
goal should be to attract real-world programmers.  Some programmers 
don't believe in MDA.  MDA is fine for some things but has also 
limitations.  What we suggest with OWL is a kind of agile MDA that 
should suit many people.  In a sense, software development with OWL 
takes MDA to extremes, in so far that design models are even used at run

time.


> It seems you should make a distinction between object-oriented 
> software languages like Java, C++, etc. and object-oriented modeling 
> languages like UML [and frame-based representation languages that 
> pre-dated OWL].

I did not understand the context of this comment.  Could you be a bit 
more specific and tell me where this distinction is needed?  Thanks.


> Instead of a laundry list of added expressivity, motivate the need for
them with some examples. This brings it to life.   Start with an example
with some depth and detail to it, and show in that single example how
the various features of the language are used and how they help. It is
one thing to merely be ABLE to express something, it is another for that
to add value somehow.  

The old draft was clumsy and incomplete with respect to explaining 
restrictions.  I have totally restructurd this part, and added a Venn 
diagram which should make things clearer and motivate reasoning.
Received on Friday, 23 September 2005 19:50:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:12 UTC