- 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>
+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 UTC