Issue 13848: issue within UPDM with profile diagrams (uml2-rtf) Source: No Magic, Inc. (Mr. Andrius Strazdauskas, andriuss(at)nomagic.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: there is an issue within UPDM with profile diagrams. As there are multiple stereotypes in the diagrams, showing metaclass and extension clutters the diagrams. They become literally unreadable in the spec as they need to fit in the page, since every element takes addition space for extension: In MagicDraw, we have such notation: It saves time, is intuitive, but this is non standard thing, so we cannot use it in UPDM. I would like to raise an issue on the notation of extended metaclass, but I'm open for discussion :) Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: March 31, 2009: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== ted-NM: yes Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:24:48 +0300 From: Andrius Strazdauskas User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) To: "uml2-rtf@omg.org" Subject: Stereotype notation issue All, there is an issue within UPDM with profile diagrams. As there are multiple stereotypes in the diagrams, showing metaclass and extension clutters the diagrams. They become literally unreadable in the spec as they need to fit in the page, since every element takes addition space for extension: In MagicDraw, we have such notation: It saves time, is intuitive, but this is non standard thing, so we cannot use it in UPDM. I would like to raise an issue on the notation of extended metaclass, but I'm open for discussion :) Andrius -- -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=WDpaJT0vLfl/dUaMWRHNhrdwU3SLdfx44bbYSgFEtGg=; b=Gb2Vk9M2vZi6aRr51f2fbom7akQ3mC9CvvUCIc8JzTcqH/vYgc2g3N5r1xMUycZ0yl 06okxeMGonKxoerMRf9fIR1xYdpd6CnVUHD0W6F++o2HOTOlnBvzWImlSDc3JOKEl2q9 LDylMq8qBeLlHoWnC9NkrW5zieeQsZlBY8CU0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=Bx3NpYlaWY8vJdgUrjs9QUT0aiCmWeyjnB5ofMcx3v7IsXueF+nkWo8A42pDu/FnzL c9aUJG4N/1D98hRCFBxcqhJ1k5IG9wfmrlbi8zFg5cFeA04GFihfA0THLPN06ZcEXcLX nEiQvhHexDMzDMsvl5mjipUkCtVp12hQEe4Us= Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:43:45 -0400 Subject: Re: Stereotype notation issue From: Bran Selic To: Andrius Strazdauskas Cc: "uml2-rtf@omg.org" FWIW, I think that this is a good idea. Cheers...Bran On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 7:24 AM, Andrius Strazdauskas wrote: All, there is an issue within UPDM with profile diagrams. As there are multiple stereotypes in the diagrams, showing metaclass and extension clutters the diagrams. They become literally unreadable in the spec as they need to fit in the page, since every element takes addition space for extension: In MagicDraw, we have such notation: It saves time, is intuitive, but this is non standard thing, so we cannot use it in UPDM. I would like to raise an issue on the notation of extended metaclass, but I'm open for discussion :) Andrius -- -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="moz-screenshot-5.jpg" Content-ID: X-Attachment-Id: 0.1.2 Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="moz-screenshot-4.jpg" Content-ID: X-Attachment-Id: 0.1.1 Subject: RE: Stereotype notation issue Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:16:12 -0700 X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Stereotype notation issue Thread-Index: AcmyUkqGZXRFXgONRn2GbRnkFORJTwABAS6Q From: "Pete Rivett" To: "Bran Selic" , "Andrius Strazdauskas" Cc: I agree it.s a good idea (at least it does not reuse { }) and it may lessen the tendency for people to think of Stereotypes as subclasses of the metaclass. However I think such enhancements are probably outside the scope of an RTF. Pete From: Bran Selic [mailto:bran.selic@gmail.com] Sent: 31 March 2009 15:44 To: Andrius Strazdauskas Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Stereotype notation issue FWIW, I think that this is a good idea. Cheers...Bran On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 7:24 AM, Andrius Strazdauskas wrote: All, there is an issue within UPDM with profile diagrams. As there are multiple stereotypes in the diagrams, showing metaclass and extension clutters the diagrams. They become literally unreadable in the spec as they need to fit in the page, since every element takes addition space for extension: In MagicDraw, we have such notation: It saves time, is intuitive, but this is non standard thing, so we cannot use it in UPDM. I would like to raise an issue on the notation of extended metaclass, but I'm open for discussion :) Andrius -- -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple Subject: RE: Stereotype notation issue Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 11:18:27 +1100 X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Stereotype notation issue Thread-Index: AcmyUkqGZXRFXgONRn2GbRnkFORJTwABAS6QAAJDTDA= From: "Sam Mancarella" To: "Pete Rivett" , "Bran Selic" , "Andrius Strazdauskas" Cc: agreed. on both points. Best Regards, Salvatore (Sam) Mancarella Chief Technology Officer Sparx Systems Pty Ltd. sam.mancarella@sparxsystems.com http://www.sparxsystems.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pete Rivett [mailto:pete.rivett@adaptive.com] Sent: Wednesday, 1 April 2009 10:16 AM To: Bran Selic; Andrius Strazdauskas Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Stereotype notation issue I agree it.s a good idea (at least it does not reuse { }) and it may lessen the tendency for people to think of Stereotypes as subclasses of the metaclass. However I think such enhancements are probably outside the scope of an RTF. Pete From: Bran Selic [mailto:bran.selic@gmail.com] Sent: 31 March 2009 15:44 To: Andrius Strazdauskas Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Stereotype notation issue FWIW, I think that this is a good idea. Cheers...Bran On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 7:24 AM, Andrius Strazdauskas wrote: All, there is an issue within UPDM with profile diagrams. As there are multiple stereotypes in the diagrams, showing metaclass and extension clutters the diagrams. They become literally unreadable in the spec as they need to fit in the page, since every element takes addition space for extension: In MagicDraw, we have such notation: It saves time, is intuitive, but this is non standard thing, so we cannot use it in UPDM. I would like to raise an issue on the notation of extended metaclass, but I'm open for discussion :) Andrius -- -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple X-Trusted-NM: yes Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:22:41 +0300 From: Andrius Strazdauskas User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) To: Pete Rivett CC: Bran Selic , uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Stereotype notation issue Pete, Point taken. So I guess issue should not be raised? Or should it be raised and defered? Andrius -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple Pete Rivett wrote: I agree it.s a good idea (at least it does not reuse { }) and it may lessen the tendency for people to think of Stereotypes as subclasses of the metaclass. However I think such enhancements are probably outside the scope of an RTF. Pete From: Bran Selic [mailto:bran.selic@gmail.com] Sent: 31 March 2009 15:44 To: Andrius Strazdauskas Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Stereotype notation issue FWIW, I think that this is a good idea. Cheers...Bran On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 7:24 AM, Andrius Strazdauskas wrote: All, there is an issue within UPDM with profile diagrams. As there are multiple stereotypes in the diagrams, showing metaclass and extension clutters the diagrams. They become literally unreadable in the spec as they need to fit in the page, since every element takes addition space for extension: In MagicDraw, we have such notation: It saves time, is intuitive, but this is non standard thing, so we cannot use it in UPDM. I would like to raise an issue on the notation of extended metaclass, but I'm open for discussion :) Andrius -- -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple Subject: RE: Stereotype notation issue Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 18:23:09 +1100 X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Stereotype notation issue Thread-Index: AcmymOUGLHMbJYQzSa6wElBNCy6tgQAAdArI From: "Sam Mancarella" To: "Andrius Strazdauskas" , "Pete Rivett" Cc: "Bran Selic" , Unless I'm mistaken, issues raised at the RTF would have to constitute 'bugs' and omissions in the current spec, rather than requests to 'enhance' non-broken features. Correct? Best Regards, Salvatore (Sam) Mancarella CTO, Sparx Systems PL. sam.mancarella@sparxsystems.com http://www.sparxsystems.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrius Strazdauskas [mailto:andriuss@nomagic.com] Sent: Wed 1/04/2009 5:22 PM To: Pete Rivett Cc: Bran Selic; uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Stereotype notation issue Pete, Point taken. So I guess issue should not be raised? Or should it be raised and defered? Andrius -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple Pete Rivett wrote: I agree it.s a good idea (at least it does not reuse { }) and it may lessen the tendency for people to think of Stereotypes as subclasses of the metaclass. However I think such enhancements are probably outside the scope of an RTF. Pete From: Bran Selic [mailto:bran.selic@gmail.com] Sent: 31 March 2009 15:44 To: Andrius Strazdauskas Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Stereotype notation issue FWIW, I think that this is a good idea. Cheers...Bran On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 7:24 AM, Andrius Strazdauskas wrote: All, there is an issue within UPDM with profile diagrams. As there are multiple stereotypes in the diagrams, showing metaclass and extension clutters the diagrams. They become literally unreadable in the spec as they need to fit in the page, since every element takes addition space for extension: In MagicDraw, we have such notation: It saves time, is intuitive, but this is non standard thing, so we cannot use it in UPDM. I would like to raise an issue on the notation of extended metaclass, but I'm open for discussion :) Andrius -- -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple X-Trusted-NM: yes Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 10:32:32 +0300 From: Andrius Strazdauskas User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) To: Sam Mancarella CC: Pete Rivett , Bran Selic , uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Stereotype notation issue If spec prevents nice diagrams - this is indeed a bug :) Andrius -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple Sam Mancarella wrote: Unless I'm mistaken, issues raised at the RTF would have to constitute 'bugs' and omissions in the current spec, rather than requests to 'enhance' non-broken features. Correct? Best Regards, Salvatore (Sam) Mancarella CTO, Sparx Systems PL. sam.mancarella@sparxsystems.com http://www.sparxsystems.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrius Strazdauskas [mailto:andriuss@nomagic.com] Sent: Wed 1/04/2009 5:22 PM To: Pete Rivett Cc: Bran Selic; uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Stereotype notation issue Pete, Point taken. So I guess issue should not be raised? Or should it be raised and defered? Andrius -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple Pete Rivett wrote: I agree it.s a good idea (at least it does not reuse { }) and it may lessen the tendency for people to think of Stereotypes as subclasses of the metaclass. However I think such enhancements are probably outside the scope of an RTF. Pete From: Bran Selic [mailto:bran.selic@gmail.com] Sent: 31 March 2009 15:44 To: Andrius Strazdauskas Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Stereotype notation issue FWIW, I think that this is a good idea. Cheers...Bran On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 7:24 AM, Andrius Strazdauskas wrote: All, there is an issue within UPDM with profile diagrams. As there are multiple stereotypes in the diagrams, showing metaclass and extension clutters the diagrams. They become literally unreadable in the spec as they need to fit in the page, since every element takes addition space for extension: In MagicDraw, we have such notation: It saves time, is intuitive, but this is non standard thing, so we cannot use it in UPDM. I would like to raise an issue on the notation of extended metaclass, but I'm open for discussion :) Andrius -- -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple Subject: RE: Stereotype notation issue Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 00:36:49 -0700 X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Stereotype notation issue Thread-Index: AcmynAom02eqQnM+QXWzbc5X55sWYQAAGTZQ From: "Pete Rivett" To: "Andrius Strazdauskas" , "Sam Mancarella" Cc: "Bran Selic" , Agree with both. But not convinced the current spec is that bad . does it not depend on how much you try to cram onto one diagram? Do you have an example of a bad diagram? Pete From: Andrius Strazdauskas [mailto:andriuss@nomagic.com] Sent: 01 April 2009 00:33 To: Sam Mancarella Cc: Pete Rivett; Bran Selic; uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Stereotype notation issue If spec prevents nice diagrams - this is indeed a bug :) Andrius -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple Sam Mancarella wrote: Unless I'm mistaken, issues raised at the RTF would have to constitute 'bugs' and omissions in the current spec, rather than requests to 'enhance' non-broken features. Correct? Best Regards, Salvatore (Sam) Mancarella CTO, Sparx Systems PL. sam.mancarella@sparxsystems.com http://www.sparxsystems.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrius Strazdauskas [mailto:andriuss@nomagic.com] Sent: Wed 1/04/2009 5:22 PM To: Pete Rivett Cc: Bran Selic; uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Stereotype notation issue Pete, Point taken. So I guess issue should not be raised? Or should it be raised and defered? Andrius -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple Pete Rivett wrote: I agree it.s a good idea (at least it does not reuse { }) and it may lessen the tendency for people to think of Stereotypes as subclasses of the metaclass. However I think such enhancements are probably outside the scope of an RTF. Pete From: Bran Selic [mailto:bran.selic@gmail.com] Sent: 31 March 2009 15:44 To: Andrius Strazdauskas Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Stereotype notation issue FWIW, I think that this is a good idea. Cheers...Bran On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 7:24 AM, Andrius Strazdauskas wrote: All, there is an issue within UPDM with profile diagrams. As there are multiple stereotypes in the diagrams, showing metaclass and extension clutters the diagrams. They become literally unreadable in the spec as they need to fit in the page, since every element takes addition space for extension: In MagicDraw, we have such notation: It saves time, is intuitive, but this is non standard thing, so we cannot use it in UPDM. I would like to raise an issue on the notation of extended metaclass, but I'm open for discussion :) Andrius -- -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple From: "DESFRAY Philippe" To: "'Bran Selic'" , "'Andrius Strazdauskas'" Cc: Subject: RE: Stereotype notation issue Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 09:48:10 +0200 Organization: Softeam X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AcmyUnn2My0xH0eHTCmr2sgWy5v1mwASveSA X-Softeam.fr-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Softeam.fr-MailScanner-SpamCheck: n'est pas un polluriel (inscrit sur la liste blanche), SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-0.587, requis 3.5, AWL -0.22, BAYES_00 -2.60, HTML_MESSAGE 0.00, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT 1.45, SHORT_HELO_AND_INLINE_IMAGE 0.78) X-Softeam.fr-MailScanner-From: philippe.desfray@softeam.fr X-Spam-Status: No Hum, one more specific character, which in additions doubles an existing one. We already have, <<, {, <, :, :: and more. And this reuses the famous table notation. Useful as a shorthand through. I am sure that opening that door may introduce a lot of additional shortcuts. (what about namespacing for example) If this applies to stereotypes, it would need to apply to any usual class as well. In summary, I am not enthousiastic. ========================================= Philippe Desfray VP for R&D - SOFTEAM 21 Avenue Victor Hugo - 75016 PARIS (+33) 0153968400 phd@softeam.fr www.softeam.com - www.objecteering.com De : Bran Selic [mailto:bran.selic@gmail.com] Envoyé : mercredi 1 avril 2009 00:44 À : Andrius Strazdauskas Cc : uml2-rtf@omg.org Objet : Re: Stereotype notation issue FWIW, I think that this is a good idea. Cheers...Bran On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 7:24 AM, Andrius Strazdauskas wrote: All, there is an issue within UPDM with profile diagrams. As there are multiple stereotypes in the diagrams, showing metaclass and extension clutters the diagrams. They become literally unreadable in the spec as they need to fit in the page, since every element takes addition space for extension: In MagicDraw, we have such notation: It saves time, is intuitive, but this is non standard thing, so we cannot use it in UPDM. I would like to raise an issue on the notation of extended metaclass, but I'm open for discussion :) Andrius -- -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple X-Trusted-NM: yes Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 10:55:05 +0300 From: Andrius Strazdauskas User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) To: Pete Rivett CC: Sam Mancarella , Bran Selic , uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Stereotype notation issue Pete, here's the one, nearly random pick. It does not have extensions show, but what would happen if it would :) There are bigger diagrams in UPDM. -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple Pete Rivett wrote: Agree with both. But not convinced the current spec is that bad . does it not depend on how much you try to cram onto one diagram? Do you have an example of a bad diagram? Pete From: Andrius Strazdauskas [mailto:andriuss@nomagic.com] Sent: 01 April 2009 00:33 To: Sam Mancarella Cc: Pete Rivett; Bran Selic; uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Stereotype notation issue If spec prevents nice diagrams - this is indeed a bug :) Andrius -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple Sam Mancarella wrote: Unless I'm mistaken, issues raised at the RTF would have to constitute 'bugs' and omissions in the current spec, rather than requests to 'enhance' non-broken features. Correct? Best Regards, Salvatore (Sam) Mancarella CTO, Sparx Systems PL. sam.mancarella@sparxsystems.com http://www.sparxsystems.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrius Strazdauskas [mailto:andriuss@nomagic.com] Sent: Wed 1/04/2009 5:22 PM To: Pete Rivett Cc: Bran Selic; uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Stereotype notation issue Pete, Point taken. So I guess issue should not be raised? Or should it be raised and defered? Andrius -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple Pete Rivett wrote: I agree it.s a good idea (at least it does not reuse { }) and it may lessen the tendency for people to think of Stereotypes as subclasses of the metaclass. However I think such enhancements are probably outside the scope of an RTF. Pete From: Bran Selic [mailto:bran.selic@gmail.com] Sent: 31 March 2009 15:44 To: Andrius Strazdauskas Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Stereotype notation issue FWIW, I think that this is a good idea. Cheers...Bran On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 7:24 AM, Andrius Strazdauskas wrote: All, there is an issue within UPDM with profile diagrams. As there are multiple stereotypes in the diagrams, showing metaclass and extension clutters the diagrams. They become literally unreadable in the spec as they need to fit in the page, since every element takes addition space for extension: In MagicDraw, we have such notation: It saves time, is intuitive, but this is non standard thing, so we cannot use it in UPDM. I would like to raise an issue on the notation of extended metaclass, but I'm open for discussion :) Andrius -- -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple Subject: RE: Stereotype notation issue Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 10:04:35 +0200 X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Stereotype notation issue Thread-Index: Acmyn4APYzZO6rMZQpmJekR3goZOYgAAIh3A From: "GERARD Sebastien 166342" To: "Andrius Strazdauskas" , "Pete Rivett" Cc: "Sam Mancarella" , "Bran Selic" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Apr 2009 08:04:35.0699 (UTC) FILETIME=[7F4C5430:01C9B2A0] To make this diagram simpler, split it in different smaller diagrams and it will be simpler without needed additional shortcuts -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : Andrius Strazdauskas [mailto:andriuss@nomagic.com] Envoyé : mercredi 1 avril 2009 09:55 À : Pete Rivett Cc : Sam Mancarella; Bran Selic; uml2-rtf@omg.org Objet : Re: Stereotype notation issue Pete, here's the one, nearly random pick. It does not have extensions show, but what would happen if it would :) There are bigger diagrams in UPDM. -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple Pete Rivett wrote: Agree with both. But not convinced the current spec is that bad . does it not depend on how much you try to cram onto one diagram? Do you have an example of a bad diagram? Pete From: Andrius Strazdauskas [mailto:andriuss@nomagic.com] Sent: 01 April 2009 00:33 To: Sam Mancarella Cc: Pete Rivett; Bran Selic; uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Stereotype notation issue If spec prevents nice diagrams - this is indeed a bug :) Andrius -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple Sam Mancarella wrote: Unless I'm mistaken, issues raised at the RTF would have to constitute 'bugs' and omissions in the current spec, rather than requests to 'enhance' non-broken features. Correct? Best Regards, Salvatore (Sam) Mancarella CTO, Sparx Systems PL. sam.mancarella@sparxsystems.com http://www.sparxsystems.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrius Strazdauskas [mailto:andriuss@nomagic.com] Sent: Wed 1/04/2009 5:22 PM To: Pete Rivett Cc: Bran Selic; uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Stereotype notation issue Pete, Point taken. So I guess issue should not be raised? Or should it be raised and defered? Andrius -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple Pete Rivett wrote: I agree it.s a good idea (at least it does not reuse { }) and it may lessen the tendency for people to think of Stereotypes as subclasses of the metaclass. However I think such enhancements are probably outside the scope of an RTF. Pete From: Bran Selic [mailto:bran.selic@gmail.com] Sent: 31 March 2009 15:44 To: Andrius Strazdauskas Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Stereotype notation issue FWIW, I think that this is a good idea. Cheers...Bran On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 7:24 AM, Andrius Strazdauskas wrote: All, there is an issue within UPDM with profile diagrams. As there are multiple stereotypes in the diagrams, showing metaclass and extension clutters the diagrams. They become literally unreadable in the spec as they need to fit in the page, since every element takes addition space for extension: In MagicDraw, we have such notation: It saves time, is intuitive, but this is non standard thing, so we cannot use it in UPDM. I would like to raise an issue on the notation of extended metaclass, but I'm open for discussion :) Andrius -- -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple X-Trusted-NM: yes Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 11:08:53 +0300 From: Andrius Strazdauskas User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) To: DESFRAY Philippe CC: "'Bran Selic'" , uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Stereotype notation issue Philippe, What is wrong with additional symbol? Why other elements should use this notation? This is for extensions only, so for Stereotypes only. Andrius -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple DESFRAY Philippe wrote: Hum, one more specific character, which in additions doubles an existing one. We already have, <<, {, <, :, :: and more. And this reuses the famous table notation. Useful as a shorthand through. I am sure that opening that door may introduce a lot of additional shortcuts. (what about namespacing for example) If this applies to stereotypes, it would need to apply to any usual class as well. In summary, I am not enthousiastic. ========================================= Philippe Desfray VP for R&D - SOFTEAM 21 Avenue Victor Hugo - 75016 PARIS (+33) 0153968400 phd@softeam.fr www.softeam.com - www.objecteering.com Subject: RE: Stereotype notation issue Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 10:09:36 +0200 X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Stereotype notation issue Thread-Index: AcmyUlIXwvMf14XNQK6VANcr0xss/wATtQkw From: "GERARD Sebastien 166342" To: "Bran Selic" , "Andrius Strazdauskas" Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Apr 2009 08:09:36.0930 (UTC) FILETIME=[32D88820:01C9B2A1] And it you do it for extenssion, may good idea to do it also for Generalizations. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : Bran Selic [mailto:bran.selic@gmail.com] Envoyé : mercredi 1 avril 2009 00:44 À : Andrius Strazdauskas Cc : uml2-rtf@omg.org Objet : Re: Stereotype notation issue FWIW, I think that this is a good idea. Cheers...Bran On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 7:24 AM, Andrius Strazdauskas wrote: All, there is an issue within UPDM with profile diagrams. As there are multiple stereotypes in the diagrams, showing metaclass and extension clutters the diagrams. They become literally unreadable in the spec as they need to fit in the page, since every element takes addition space for extension: In MagicDraw, we have such notation: It saves time, is intuitive, but this is non standard thing, so we cannot use it in UPDM. I would like to raise an issue on the notation of extended metaclass, but I'm open for discussion :) Andrius -- -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple Subject: RE: Stereotype notation issue Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 10:16:54 +0200 X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Stereotype notation issue Thread-Index: Acmyn4APYzZO6rMZQpmJekR3goZOYgAAIh3AAAA+lkA= From: "BERNARD, Yves" To: "GERARD Sebastien 166342" , "Andrius Strazdauskas" , "Pete Rivett" Cc: "Sam Mancarella" , "Bran Selic" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Apr 2009 08:16:55.0025 (UTC) FILETIME=[37F88610:01C9B2A2] I agree with Sébastien. The interest of such a "big picture" is to provide a global view over the relationships. With the proposed notation, those relationships won't be displayed anymore: it reduces the added value of those pig picture. Note that your sample does not show any Extension relationships but only Generalizations... ;o) Cheers, Yves -----Message d'origine----- De : GERARD Sebastien 166342 [mailto:Sebastien.GERARD@cea.fr] Envoyé : mercredi 1 avril 2009 10:05 À : Andrius Strazdauskas; Pete Rivett Cc : Sam Mancarella; Bran Selic; uml2-rtf@omg.org Objet : RE: Stereotype notation issue To make this diagram simpler, split it in different smaller diagrams and it will be simpler without needed additional shortcuts -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : Andrius Strazdauskas [mailto:andriuss@nomagic.com] Envoyé : mercredi 1 avril 2009 09:55 À : Pete Rivett Cc : Sam Mancarella; Bran Selic; uml2-rtf@omg.org Objet : Re: Stereotype notation issue Pete, here's the one, nearly random pick. It does not have extensions show, but what would happen if it would :) There are bigger diagrams in UPDM. -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple Pete Rivett wrote: Agree with both. But not convinced the current spec is that bad . does it not depend on how much you try to cram onto one diagram? Do you have an example of a bad diagram? Pete From: Andrius Strazdauskas [mailto:andriuss@nomagic.com] Sent: 01 April 2009 00:33 To: Sam Mancarella Cc: Pete Rivett; Bran Selic; uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Stereotype notation issue If spec prevents nice diagrams - this is indeed a bug :) Andrius -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple Sam Mancarella wrote: Unless I'm mistaken, issues raised at the RTF would have to constitute 'bugs' and omissions in the current spec, rather than requests to 'enhance' non-broken features. Correct? Best Regards, Salvatore (Sam) Mancarella CTO, Sparx Systems PL. sam.mancarella@sparxsystems.com http://www.sparxsystems.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrius Strazdauskas [mailto:andriuss@nomagic.com] Sent: Wed 1/04/2009 5:22 PM To: Pete Rivett Cc: Bran Selic; uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Stereotype notation issue Pete, Point taken. So I guess issue should not be raised? Or should it be raised and defered? Andrius -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple Pete Rivett wrote: I agree it.s a good idea (at least it does not reuse { }) and it may lessen the tendency for people to think of Stereotypes as subclasses of the metaclass. However I think such enhancements are probably outside the scope of an RTF. Pete From: Bran Selic [mailto:bran.selic@gmail.com] Sent: 31 March 2009 15:44 To: Andrius Strazdauskas Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Stereotype notation issue FWIW, I think that this is a good idea. Cheers...Bran On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 7:24 AM, Andrius Strazdauskas wrote: All, there is an issue within UPDM with profile diagrams. As there are multiple stereotypes in the diagrams, showing metaclass and extension clutters the diagrams. They become literally unreadable in the spec as they need to fit in the page, since every element takes addition space for extension: In MagicDraw, we have such notation: It saves time, is intuitive, but this is non standard thing, so we cannot use it in UPDM. I would like to raise an issue on the notation of extended metaclass, but I'm open for discussion :) Andrius -- -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple This mail has originated outside your organization, either from an external partner or the Global Internet. Keep this in mind if you answer this message. The information in this e-mail is confidential. The contents may not be disclosed or used by anyone other then the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Airbus immediately and delete this e-mail. Airbus cannot accept any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this e-mail as it has been sent over public networks. If you have any concerns over the content of this message or its Accuracy or Integrity, please contact Airbus immediately. All outgoing e-mails from Airbus are checked using regularly updated virus scanning software but you should take whatever measures you deem to be appropriate to ensure that this message and any attachments are virus free. X-Trusted-NM: yes Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 11:19:07 +0300 From: Andrius Strazdauskas User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) To: GERARD Sebastien 166342 CC: Bran Selic , uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Stereotype notation issue Extension is not a Generalization, so this is a different case. Andrius -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple GERARD Sebastien 166342 wrote: And it you do it for extenssion, may good idea to do it also for Generalizations. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- D Subject: RE: Stereotype notation issue Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 10:21:00 +0200 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Stereotype notation issue Thread-Index: AcmyoosGqkj8H8VXSWOd68WbfhZoGwAABk5g From: "GERARD Sebastien 166342" To: "Andrius Strazdauskas" Cc: "Bran Selic" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Apr 2009 08:21:01.0049 (UTC) FILETIME=[CA9CCE90:01C9B2A2] Yes I know thank you. But the general idea was generalizable to Generalization => Enterprise Architect is doing so. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : Andrius Strazdauskas [mailto:andriuss@nomagic.com] Envoyé : mercredi 1 avril 2009 10:19 À : GERARD Sebastien 166342 Cc : Bran Selic; uml2-rtf@omg.org Objet : Re: Stereotype notation issue Extension is not a Generalization, so this is a different case. Andrius -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple GERARD Sebastien 166342 wrote: And it you do it for extenssion, may good idea to do it also for Generalizations. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- D X-Trusted-NM: yes Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 11:25:25 +0300 From: Andrius Strazdauskas User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) To: "BERNARD, Yves" CC: GERARD Sebastien 166342 , Pete Rivett , Sam Mancarella , Bran Selic , uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Stereotype notation issue Note that your sample does not show any Extension relationships but only Generalizations... ;o) This is the problem - there is an issue raised on UPDM, that extensions should be shown. Andrius Cheers, Yves -----Message d'origine----- De : GERARD Sebastien 166342 [mailto:Sebastien.GERARD@cea.fr] Envoyé : mercredi 1 avril 2009 10:05 À : Andrius Strazdauskas; Pete Rivett Cc : Sam Mancarella; Bran Selic; uml2-rtf@omg.org Objet : RE: Stereotype notation issue To make this diagram simpler, split it in different smaller diagrams and it will be simpler without needed additional shortcuts -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : Andrius Strazdauskas [mailto:andriuss@nomagic.com] Envoyé : mercredi 1 avril 2009 09:55 À : Pete Rivett Cc : Sam Mancarella; Bran Selic; uml2-rtf@omg.org Objet : Re: Stereotype notation issue Pete, here's the one, nearly random pick. It does not have extensions show, but what would happen if it would :) There are bigger diagrams in UPDM. -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple Pete Rivett wrote: Agree with both. But not convinced the current spec is that bad . does it not depend on how much you try to cram onto one diagram? Do you have an example of a bad diagram? Pete From: Andrius Strazdauskas [mailto:andriuss@nomagic.com] Sent: 01 April 2009 00:33 To: Sam Mancarella Cc: Pete Rivett; Bran Selic; uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Stereotype notation issue If spec prevents nice diagrams - this is indeed a bug :) Andrius -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple Sam Mancarella wrote: Unless I'm mistaken, issues raised at the RTF would have to constitute 'bugs' and omissions in the current spec, rather than requests to 'enhance' non-broken features. Correct? Best Regards, Salvatore (Sam) Mancarella CTO, Sparx Systems PL. sam.mancarella@sparxsystems.com http://www.sparxsystems.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andrius Strazdauskas [mailto:andriuss@nomagic.com] Sent: Wed 1/04/2009 5:22 PM To: Pete Rivett Cc: Bran Selic; uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Stereotype notation issue Pete, Point taken. So I guess issue should not be raised? Or should it be raised and defered? Andrius -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple Pete Rivett wrote: I agree it.s a good idea (at least it does not reuse { }) and it may lessen the tendency for people to think of Stereotypes as subclasses of the metaclass. However I think such enhancements are probably outside the scope of an RTF. Pete From: Bran Selic [mailto:bran.selic@gmail.com] Sent: 31 March 2009 15:44 To: Andrius Strazdauskas Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Stereotype notation issue FWIW, I think that this is a good idea. Cheers...Bran On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 7:24 AM, Andrius Strazdauskas wrote: All, there is an issue within UPDM with profile diagrams. As there are multiple stereotypes in the diagrams, showing metaclass and extension clutters the diagrams. They become literally unreadable in the spec as they need to fit in the page, since every element takes addition space for extension: In MagicDraw, we have such notation: It saves time, is intuitive, but this is non standard thing, so we cannot use it in UPDM. I would like to raise an issue on the notation of extended metaclass, but I'm open for discussion :) Andrius -- -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple This mail has originated outside your organization, either from an external partner or the Global Internet. Keep this in mind if you answer this message. The information in this e-mail is confidential. The contents may not be disclosed or used by anyone other then the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Airbus immediately and delete this e-mail. Airbus cannot accept any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this e-mail as it has been sent over public networks. If you have any concerns over the content of this message or its Accuracy or Integrity, please contact Airbus immediately. All outgoing e-mails from Airbus are checked using regularly updated virus scanning software but you should take whatever measures you deem to be appropriate to ensure that this message and any attachments are virus free. X-Trusted-NM: yes Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 11:26:25 +0300 From: Andrius Strazdauskas User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) To: GERARD Sebastien 166342 CC: Bran Selic , uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Stereotype notation issue It might be a valuable add on, but it should definitely use different notation, since stereotypes may have both extensions and generalizations. Andrius -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple GERARD Sebastien 166342 wrote: Yes I know thank you. But the general idea was generalizable to Generalization => Enterprise Architect is doing so. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : Andrius Strazdauskas [mailto:andriuss@nomagic.com] Envoyé : mercredi 1 avril 2009 10:19 À : GERARD Sebastien 166342 Cc : Bran Selic; uml2-rtf@omg.org Objet : Re: Stereotype notation issue Extension is not a Generalization, so this is a different case. Andrius -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple GERARD Sebastien 166342 wrote: And it you do it for extenssion, may good idea to do it also for Generalizations. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- D Subject: RE: Stereotype notation issue Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 10:26:54 +0200 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Stereotype notation issue Thread-Index: Acmyo5G8URFu40JHTCyV9C3JLOgztQAAAj0A From: "GERARD Sebastien 166342" To: "Andrius Strazdauskas" Cc: "Bran Selic" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Apr 2009 08:26:55.0540 (UTC) FILETIME=[9DE7D740:01C9B2A3] Agree. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : Andrius Strazdauskas [mailto:andriuss@nomagic.com] Envoyé : mercredi 1 avril 2009 10:26 À : GERARD Sebastien 166342 Cc : Bran Selic; uml2-rtf@omg.org Objet : Re: Stereotype notation issue It might be a valuable add on, but it should definitely use different notation, since stereotypes may have both extensions and generalizations. Andrius -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple GERARD Sebastien 166342 wrote: Yes I know thank you. But the general idea was generalizable to Generalization => Enterprise Architect is doing so. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : Andrius Strazdauskas [mailto:andriuss@nomagic.com] Envoyé : mercredi 1 avril 2009 10:19 À : GERARD Sebastien 166342 Cc : Bran Selic; uml2-rtf@omg.org Objet : Re: Stereotype notation issue Extension is not a Generalization, so this is a different case. Andrius -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple GERARD Sebastien 166342 wrote: And it you do it for extenssion, may good idea to do it also for Generalizations. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- D From: "DESFRAY Philippe" To: "'Andrius Strazdauskas'" Cc: "'Bran Selic'" , Subject: RE: Stereotype notation issue Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 10:48:25 +0200 Organization: Softeam X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AcmyoSLLIyn/t2zMTXmW5DwN2yz+RQAA36JA X-Softeam.fr-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Softeam.fr-MailScanner-SpamCheck: n'est pas un polluriel (inscrit sur la liste blanche), SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-0.971, requis 3.5, AWL 0.18, BAYES_00 -2.60, HTML_MESSAGE 0.00, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT 1.45) X-Softeam.fr-MailScanner-From: philippe.desfray@softeam.fr X-Spam-Status: No Right Andrius, this does not apply to generalization. But why should.nt we do the same for generalization? Anyone reusing an object oriented library would claim that his diagram is too much cluttered by generalization to library classes for example (which is a bit similar to the exposed issue). What I am just saying, is that opening the box of graphical shortcuts might open other debates. Making an inventory of the main cases in UML where shortcuts are fruitful would be a rational approach to this kind of issue. And as a Profilist (profile specialist) you might not necessarily provide the most important uc for the UML user.s community. ========================================= Philippe Desfray VP for R&D - SOFTEAM 21 Avenue Victor Hugo - 75016 PARIS (+33) 0153968400 phd@softeam.fr www.softeam.com - www.objecteering.com De : Andrius Strazdauskas [mailto:andriuss@nomagic.com] Envoyé : mercredi 1 avril 2009 10:09 À : DESFRAY Philippe Cc : 'Bran Selic'; uml2-rtf@omg.org Objet : Re: Stereotype notation issue Philippe, What is wrong with additional symbol? Why other elements should use this notation? This is for extensions only, so for Stereotypes only. Andrius -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple DESFRAY Philippe wrote: Hum, one more specific character, which in additions doubles an existing one. We already have, <<, {, <, :, :: and more. And this reuses the famous table notation. Useful as a shorthand through. I am sure that opening that door may introduce a lot of additional shortcuts. (what about namespacing for example) If this applies to stereotypes, it would need to apply to any usual class as well. In summary, I am not enthousiastic. ========================================= Philippe Desfray VP for R&D - SOFTEAM 21 Avenue Victor Hugo - 75016 PARIS (+33) 0153968400 phd@softeam.fr www.softeam.com - www.objecteering.com Subject: RE: Stereotype notation issue Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 11:28:19 +0200 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Stereotype notation issue Thread-Index: AcmyoSLLIyn/t2zMTXmW5DwN2yz+RQAA36JAAAHjl/A= From: "GERARD Sebastien 166342" To: "DESFRAY Philippe" , "Andrius Strazdauskas" Cc: "Bran Selic" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Apr 2009 09:28:19.0992 (UTC) FILETIME=[32029980:01C9B2AC] +1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : DESFRAY Philippe [mailto:philippe.desfray@softeam.fr] Envoyé : mercredi 1 avril 2009 10:48 À : 'Andrius Strazdauskas' Cc : 'Bran Selic'; uml2-rtf@omg.org Objet : RE: Stereotype notation issue Right Andrius, this does not apply to generalization. But why should.nt we do the same for generalization? Anyone reusing an object oriented library would claim that his diagram is too much cluttered by generalization to library classes for example (which is a bit similar to the exposed issue). What I am just saying, is that opening the box of graphical shortcuts might open other debates. Making an inventory of the main cases in UML where shortcuts are fruitful would be a rational approach to this kind of issue. And as a Profilist (profile specialist) you might not necessarily provide the most important uc for the UML user.s community. ========================================= Philippe Desfray VP for R&D - SOFTEAM 21 Avenue Victor Hugo - 75016 PARIS (+33) 0153968400 phd@softeam.fr www.softeam.com - www.objecteering.com De : Andrius Strazdauskas [mailto:andriuss@nomagic.com] Envoyé : mercredi 1 avril 2009 10:09 À : DESFRAY Philippe Cc : 'Bran Selic'; uml2-rtf@omg.org Objet : Re: Stereotype notation issue Philippe, What is wrong with additional symbol? Why other elements should use this notation? This is for extensions only, so for Stereotypes only. Andrius -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple DESFRAY Philippe wrote: Hum, one more specific character, which in additions doubles an existing one. We already have, <<, {, <, :, :: and more. And this reuses the famous table notation. Useful as a shorthand through. I am sure that opening that door may introduce a lot of additional shortcuts. (what about namespacing for example) If this applies to stereotypes, it would need to apply to any usual class as well. In summary, I am not enthousiastic. ========================================= Philippe Desfray VP for R&D - SOFTEAM 21 Avenue Victor Hugo - 75016 PARIS (+33) 0153968400 phd@softeam.fr www.softeam.com - www.objecteering.com To: "GERARD Sebastien 166342" Cc: "Andrius Strazdauskas" , "Bran Selic" , "DESFRAY Philippe" , uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Stereotype notation issue X-KeepSent: 1A14579C:4FD55593-8525758B:003B2E66; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5 December 05, 2008 From: Jim Amsden Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 06:49:48 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM118/03/M/IBM(Release 8.5|December 05, 2008) at 04/01/2009 04:49:49, Serialize complete at 04/01/2009 04:49:49 A simple solution is to provide more than one diagram for you models. Show the extensions in one diagram, and show the interesting relationships between stereotypes as a more logical domain model on another eliding away the metaclass being extended. From: "GERARD Sebastien 166342" To: "DESFRAY Philippe" , "Andrius Strazdauskas" Cc: "Bran Selic" , Date: 04/01/2009 05:31 AM Subject: RE: Stereotype notation issue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- +1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : DESFRAY Philippe [mailto:philippe.desfray@softeam.fr] Envoyé : mercredi 1 avril 2009 10:48 Ã. : 'Andrius Strazdauskas' Cc : 'Bran Selic'; uml2-rtf@omg.org Objet : RE: Stereotype notation issue Right Andrius, this does not apply to generalization. But why shouldâ..nt we do the same for generalization? Anyone reusing an object oriented library would claim that his diagram is too much cluttered by generalization to library classes for example (which is a bit similar to the exposed issue). What I am just saying, is that opening the box of graphical shortcuts might open other debates. Making an inventory of the main cases in UML where shortcuts are fruitful would be a rational approach to this kind of issue. And as a Profilist (profile specialist) you might not necessarily provide the most important uc for the UML userâ..s community. ========================================= Philippe Desfray VP for R&D - SOFTEAM 21 Avenue Victor Hugo - 75016 PARIS (+33) 0153968400 phd@softeam.fr www.softeam.com - www.objecteering.com De : Andrius Strazdauskas [mailto:andriuss@nomagic.com] Envoyé : mercredi 1 avril 2009 10:09 Ã. : DESFRAY Philippe Cc : 'Bran Selic'; uml2-rtf@omg.org Objet : Re: Stereotype notation issue Philippe, What is wrong with additional symbol? Why other elements should use this notation? This is for extensions only, so for Stereotypes only. Andrius -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple DESFRAY Philippe wrote: Hum, one more specific character, which in additions doubles an existing one. We already have, <<, {, <, :, :: and more. And this reuses the famous table notation. Useful as a shorthand through. I am sure that opening that door may introduce a lot of additional shortcuts. (what about namespacing for example) If this applies to stereotypes, it would need to apply to any usual class as well. In summary, I am not enthousiastic. ========================================= Philippe Desfray VP for R&D - SOFTEAM 21 Avenue Victor Hugo - 75016 PARIS (+33) 0153968400 phd@softeam.fr www.softeam.com - www.objecteering.com Subject: RE: Stereotype notation issue Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 12:52:43 +0200 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Stereotype notation issue Thread-Index: Acmyt5sVvUAn8XaIRm+hTEophdj4TAAAD+vA From: "GERARD Sebastien 166342" To: "Jim Amsden" Cc: "Andrius Strazdauskas" , "Bran Selic" , "DESFRAY Philippe" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Apr 2009 10:52:44.0509 (UTC) FILETIME=[FCB290D0:01C9B2B7] I do agree with you JiM. BTW, I had already answered some similar idea in one previous email -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : Jim Amsden [mailto:jamsden@us.ibm.com] Envoyé : mercredi 1 avril 2009 12:50 À : GERARD Sebastien 166342 Cc : Andrius Strazdauskas; Bran Selic; DESFRAY Philippe; uml2-rtf@omg.org Objet : RE: Stereotype notation issue A simple solution is to provide more than one diagram for you models. Show the extensions in one diagram, and show the interesting relationships between stereotypes as a more logical domain model on another eliding away the metaclass being extended. From: "GERARD Sebastien 166342" To: "DESFRAY Philippe" , "Andrius Strazdauskas" Cc: "Bran Selic" , Date: 04/01/2009 05:31 AM Subject: RE: Stereotype notation issue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- +1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : DESFRAY Philippe [mailto:philippe.desfray@softeam.fr] Envoyé : mercredi 1 avril 2009 10:48 À : 'Andrius Strazdauskas' Cc : 'Bran Selic'; uml2-rtf@omg.org Objet : RE: Stereotype notation issue Right Andrius, this does not apply to generalization. But why should.nt we do the same for generalization? Anyone reusing an object oriented library would claim that his diagram is too much cluttered by generalization to library classes for example (which is a bit similar to the exposed issue). What I am just saying, is that opening the box of graphical shortcuts might open other debates. Making an inventory of the main cases in UML where shortcuts are fruitful would be a rational approach to this kind of issue. And as a Profilist (profile specialist) you might not necessarily provide the most important uc for the UML user.s community. ========================================= Philippe Desfray VP for R&D - SOFTEAM 21 Avenue Victor Hugo - 75016 PARIS (+33) 0153968400 phd@softeam.fr www.softeam.com - www.objecteering.com De : Andrius Strazdauskas [mailto:andriuss@nomagic.com] Envoyé : mercredi 1 avril 2009 10:09 À : DESFRAY Philippe Cc : 'Bran Selic'; uml2-rtf@omg.org Objet : Re: Stereotype notation issue Philippe, What is wrong with additional symbol? Why other elements should use this notation? This is for extensions only, so for Stereotypes only. Andrius -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple DESFRAY Philippe wrote: Hum, one more specific character, which in additions doubles an existing one. We already have, <<, {, <, :, :: and more. And this reuses the famous table notation. Useful as a shorthand through. I am sure that opening that door may introduce a lot of additional shortcuts. (what about namespacing for example) If this applies to stereotypes, it would need to apply to any usual class as well. In summary, I am not enthousiastic. ========================================= Philippe Desfray VP for R&D - SOFTEAM 21 Avenue Victor Hugo - 75016 PARIS (+33) 0153968400 phd@softeam.fr www.softeam.com - www.objecteering.com X-Trusted-NM: yes Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 13:55:06 +0300 From: Andrius Strazdauskas User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) To: GERARD Sebastien 166342 CC: Jim Amsden , Bran Selic , DESFRAY Philippe , uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Stereotype notation issue Thanks, we will certainly will survive in UPDM :) However, I still think this is a useful add-on. Andrius -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple GERARD Sebastien 166342 wrote: I do agree with you JiM. BTW, I had already answered some similar idea in one previous email -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : Jim Amsden [mailto:jamsden@us.ibm.com] Envoyé : mercredi 1 avril 2009 12:50 À : GERARD Sebastien 166342 Cc : Andrius Strazdauskas; Bran Selic; DESFRAY Philippe; uml2-rtf@omg.org Objet : RE: Stereotype notation issue A simple solution is to provide more than one diagram for you models. Show the extensions in one diagram, and show the interesting relationships between stereotypes as a more logical domain model on another eliding away the metaclass being extended. From: "GERARD Sebastien 166342" To: "DESFRAY Philippe" , "Andrius Strazdauskas" Cc: "Bran Selic" , Date: 04/01/2009 05:31 AM Subject: RE: Stereotype notation issue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- +1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : DESFRAY Philippe [mailto:philippe.desfray@softeam.fr] Envoyé : mercredi 1 avril 2009 10:48 À : 'Andrius Strazdauskas' Cc : 'Bran Selic'; uml2-rtf@omg.org Objet : RE: Stereotype notation issue Right Andrius, this does not apply to generalization. But why should.nt we do the same for generalization? Anyone reusing an object oriented library would claim that his diagram is too much cluttered by generalization to library classes for example (which is a bit similar to the exposed issue). What I am just saying, is that opening the box of graphical shortcuts might open other debates. Making an inventory of the main cases in UML where shortcuts are fruitful would be a rational approach to this kind of issue. And as a Profilist (profile specialist) you might not necessarily provide the most important uc for the UML user.s community. ========================================= Philippe Desfray VP for R&D - SOFTEAM 21 Avenue Victor Hugo - 75016 PARIS (+33) 0153968400 phd@softeam.fr www.softeam.com - www.objecteering.com De : Andrius Strazdauskas [mailto:andriuss@nomagic.com] Envoyé : mercredi 1 avril 2009 10:09 À : DESFRAY Philippe Cc : 'Bran Selic'; uml2-rtf@omg.org Objet : Re: Stereotype notation issue Philippe, What is wrong with additional symbol? Why other elements should use this notation? This is for extensions only, so for Stereotypes only. Andrius -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple DESFRAY Philippe wrote: Hum, one more specific character, which in additions doubles an existing one. We already have, <<, {, <, :, :: and more. And this reuses the famous table notation. Useful as a shorthand through. I am sure that opening that door may introduce a lot of additional shortcuts. (what about namespacing for example) If this applies to stereotypes, it would need to apply to any usual class as well. In summary, I am not enthousiastic. ========================================= Philippe Desfray VP for R&D - SOFTEAM 21 Avenue Victor Hugo - 75016 PARIS (+33) 0153968400 phd@softeam.fr www.softeam.com - www.objecteering.com Reply-To: From: "Conrad Bock" To: "'GERARD Sebastien 166342'" , "'Bran Selic'" , "'Andrius Strazdauskas'" Cc: Subject: RE: Stereotype notation issue Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 09:21:42 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcmyUlIXwvMf14XNQK6VANcr0xss/wATtQkwAArgtoA= X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-ID: n31DLlKn030786 X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-MailScanner-From: conrad.bock@nist.gov X-MailScanner-Watermark: 1239196909.48822@9aStspnCGgK2UtAo+6wX/Q X-Spam-Status: No Sebastien, > And it you do it for extenssion, may good idea to do it > also for Generalizations. This is why I don't like the proposal. If we want a more compact (non-textual) UML notation, it should be taken as a wider agenda item that looks at the langauge as a whole. Conrad Reply-To: From: "Conrad Bock" To: "'Andrius Strazdauskas'" , "'GERARD Sebastien 166342'" Cc: "'Bran Selic'" , Subject: RE: Stereotype notation issue Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 09:22:39 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: Acmyo0jxI+9Kh+FJTSibZyGct92FqgAKYxcA X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-ID: n31DMiMP030927 X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-MailScanner-From: conrad.bock@nist.gov X-MailScanner-Watermark: 1239196965.57148@UHskVwazDHcrNyN8+lAlWQ X-Spam-Status: No Andrius, > Extension is not a Generalization, so this is a different case. Yes, but the notational issue is the same. I don't think we should make ad hoc notational optimizations. Conrad Subject: RE: Stereotype notation issue Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 15:22:40 +0200 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Stereotype notation issue Thread-Index: AcmyUlIXwvMf14XNQK6VANcr0xss/wATtQkwAArgtoAAAA/usA== From: "GERARD Sebastien 166342" To: , "Bran Selic" , "Andrius Strazdauskas" Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Apr 2009 13:22:42.0250 (UTC) FILETIME=[EFC4E2A0:01C9B2CC] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id n31DNJpZ010945 I agree. -----Message d'origine----- De : Conrad Bock [mailto:conrad.bock@nist.gov] Envoyé : mercredi 1 avril 2009 15:22 À : GERARD Sebastien 166342; 'Bran Selic'; 'Andrius Strazdauskas' Cc : uml2-rtf@omg.org Objet : RE: Stereotype notation issue Sebastien, > And it you do it for extenssion, may good idea to do it > also for Generalizations. This is why I don't like the proposal. If we want a more compact (non-textual) UML notation, it should be taken as a wider agenda item that looks at the langauge as a whole. Conrad Subject: RE: Stereotype notation issue Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 17:48:34 +0200 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Stereotype notation issue Thread-Index: AcmyUkqGZXRFXgONRn2GbRnkFORJTwABAS6QAAJDTDAACq7qwA== From: "Tim Weilkiens" To: "Sam Mancarella" , "Pete Rivett" , "Bran Selic" , "Andrius Strazdauskas" Cc: I remember a similar discussion for such a notation to show base classes. We should consider that point, too. What is more important: a shortcut notation for generalization or for extension? Tim -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sam Mancarella [mailto:sam.mancarella@sparxsystems.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 2:18 AM To: Pete Rivett; Bran Selic; Andrius Strazdauskas Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Stereotype notation issue agreed. on both points. Best Regards, Salvatore (Sam) Mancarella Chief Technology Officer Sparx Systems Pty Ltd. sam.mancarella@sparxsystems.com http://www.sparxsystems.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pete Rivett [mailto:pete.rivett@adaptive.com] Sent: Wednesday, 1 April 2009 10:16 AM To: Bran Selic; Andrius Strazdauskas Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Stereotype notation issue I agree it.s a good idea (at least it does not reuse { }) and it may lessen the tendency for people to think of Stereotypes as subclasses of the metaclass. However I think such enhancements are probably outside the scope of an RTF. Pete From: Bran Selic [mailto:bran.selic@gmail.com] Sent: 31 March 2009 15:44 To: Andrius Strazdauskas Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Stereotype notation issue FWIW, I think that this is a good idea. Cheers...Bran On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 7:24 AM, Andrius Strazdauskas wrote: All, there is an issue within UPDM with profile diagrams. As there are multiple stereotypes in the diagrams, showing metaclass and extension clutters the diagrams. They become literally unreadable in the spec as they need to fit in the page, since every element takes addition space for extension: In MagicDraw, we have such notation: It saves time, is intuitive, but this is non standard thing, so we cannot use it in UPDM. I would like to raise an issue on the notation of extended metaclass, but I'm open for discussion :) Andrius -- -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple Subject: RE: Stereotype notation issue Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 14:20:08 +1100 X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Stereotype notation issue Thread-Index: AcmyUkqGZXRFXgONRn2GbRnkFORJTwABAS6QAAJDTDAACq7qwAAt9Ta/ From: "Sam Mancarella" To: "Tim Weilkiens" , "Pete Rivett" , "Bran Selic" , "Andrius Strazdauskas" Cc: Tim, From a user's perspective I'd say both would be good candidates for a shortcut notation. More broadly, however, I'm sure that other users could argue the case for similar shortcut notations for other constructs/relationships too. That said I would think the consideration of 'shortcut notations' would be better served within the UML roadmap activites. Best Regards, Salvatore (Sam) Mancarella CTO, Sparx Systems PL. sam.mancarella@sparxsystems.com http://www.sparxsystems.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tim Weilkiens [mailto:Tim.Weilkiens@oose.de] Sent: Thu 2/04/2009 2:48 AM To: Sam Mancarella; Pete Rivett; Bran Selic; Andrius Strazdauskas Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Stereotype notation issue I remember a similar discussion for such a notation to show base classes. We should consider that point, too. What is more important: a shortcut notation for generalization or for extension? Tim -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sam Mancarella [mailto:sam.mancarella@sparxsystems.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 2:18 AM To: Pete Rivett; Bran Selic; Andrius Strazdauskas Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Stereotype notation issue agreed. on both points. Best Regards, Salvatore (Sam) Mancarella Chief Technology Officer Sparx Systems Pty Ltd. sam.mancarella@sparxsystems.com http://www.sparxsystems.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pete Rivett [mailto:pete.rivett@adaptive.com] Sent: Wednesday, 1 April 2009 10:16 AM To: Bran Selic; Andrius Strazdauskas Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Stereotype notation issue I agree it.s a good idea (at least it does not reuse { }) and it may lessen the tendency for people to think of Stereotypes as subclasses of the metaclass. However I think such enhancements are probably outside the scope of an RTF. Pete From: Bran Selic [mailto:bran.selic@gmail.com] Sent: 31 March 2009 15:44 To: Andrius Strazdauskas Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Stereotype notation issue FWIW, I think that this is a good idea. Cheers...Bran On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 7:24 AM, Andrius Strazdauskas wrote: All, there is an issue within UPDM with profile diagrams. As there are multiple stereotypes in the diagrams, showing metaclass and extension clutters the diagrams. They become literally unreadable in the spec as they need to fit in the page, since every element takes addition space for extension: In MagicDraw, we have such notation: It saves time, is intuitive, but this is non standard thing, so we cannot use it in UPDM. I would like to raise an issue on the notation of extended metaclass, but I'm open for discussion :) Andrius -- -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple Subject: RE: Stereotype notation issue Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 07:29:43 +0200 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Stereotype notation issue Thread-Index: AcmyUkqGZXRFXgONRn2GbRnkFORJTwABAS6QAAJDTDAACq7qwAAt9Ta/AARM1bA= From: "Tim Weilkiens" To: "Sam Mancarella" , "Pete Rivett" , "Bran Selic" , "Andrius Strazdauskas" Cc: Agreed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sam Mancarella [mailto:sam.mancarella@sparxsystems.com.au] Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 5:20 AM To: Tim Weilkiens; Pete Rivett; Bran Selic; Andrius Strazdauskas Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Stereotype notation issue Tim, From a user's perspective I'd say both would be good candidates for a shortcut notation. More broadly, however, I'm sure that other users could argue the case for similar shortcut notations for other constructs/relationships too. That said I would think the consideration of 'shortcut notations' would be better served within the UML roadmap activites. Best Regards, Salvatore (Sam) Mancarella CTO, Sparx Systems PL. sam.mancarella@sparxsystems.com http://www.sparxsystems.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tim Weilkiens [mailto:Tim.Weilkiens@oose.de] Sent: Thu 2/04/2009 2:48 AM To: Sam Mancarella; Pete Rivett; Bran Selic; Andrius Strazdauskas Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Stereotype notation issue I remember a similar discussion for such a notation to show base classes. We should consider that point, too. What is more important: a shortcut notation for generalization or for extension? Tim -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sam Mancarella [mailto:sam.mancarella@sparxsystems.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 2:18 AM To: Pete Rivett; Bran Selic; Andrius Strazdauskas Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Stereotype notation issue agreed. on both points. Best Regards, Salvatore (Sam) Mancarella Chief Technology Officer Sparx Systems Pty Ltd. sam.mancarella@sparxsystems.com http://www.sparxsystems.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pete Rivett [mailto:pete.rivett@adaptive.com] Sent: Wednesday, 1 April 2009 10:16 AM To: Bran Selic; Andrius Strazdauskas Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Stereotype notation issue I agree it.s a good idea (at least it does not reuse { }) and it may lessen the tendency for people to think of Stereotypes as subclasses of the metaclass. However I think such enhancements are probably outside the scope of an RTF. Pete From: Bran Selic [mailto:bran.selic@gmail.com] Sent: 31 March 2009 15:44 To: Andrius Strazdauskas Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Stereotype notation issue FWIW, I think that this is a good idea. Cheers...Bran On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 7:24 AM, Andrius Strazdauskas wrote: All, there is an issue within UPDM with profile diagrams. As there are multiple stereotypes in the diagrams, showing metaclass and extension clutters the diagrams. They become literally unreadable in the spec as they need to fit in the page, since every element takes addition space for extension: In MagicDraw, we have such notation: It saves time, is intuitive, but this is non standard thing, so we cannot use it in UPDM. I would like to raise an issue on the notation of extended metaclass, but I'm open for discussion :) Andrius -- -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple