- From: Austin, Daniel <Austin.D@ic.grainger.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 13:46:13 -0500
- To: "'Hao He'" <Hao.He@thomson.com.au>, "'www-ws-arch@w3.org '" <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
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 > >
Received on Thursday, 13 June 2002 14:48:10 UTC