RE: UML

too borrow a phrase --- +1

UML is a great tool, for its purpose. Taken too far, it could mean
we need to use mof and xmi, and lots of other sideeffects that I 
am sure you don't intend.

perhaps the goal belongs more in the usage scenario task force?

Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Austin, Daniel [mailto:Austin.D@ic.grainger.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 12:46 PM
To: 'Hao He'; 'www-ws-arch@w3.org '
Subject: RE: UML



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 15:58:04 UTC