Talk:Unified Modeling Language/Archive 1

message: This Sequence Diagram is terrible! If one of my students put it down on a test, he/she would fall through. If I haven't corrected it by the end of next week, please someone put a message on my talk page to remind me. Andre Engels 22:34, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Technical note: I've moved this comment to the new section "Sequence Diagram is terrible" — Adrian  | Talk 09:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sequence Diagram is terrible 

message: Also the class diagram example isn't really something that would be used in
real world [the labels in the links mislead, I think].
: Technical note: I've moved this comment to the new section "Class diagram example" — Adrian  | Talk 09:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This refers to a very old version of the article. That class diagram has been deleted due to suspected copyright violation and is no longer available (not even in older versions of the article). So this anonymous not dated comment is completely obsolete now. — Adrian | Talk 10:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class diagram example 

message: What does 'third generation' mean in this context ? --Taw
: Third generation means that there were previous generations of Object-modeling languages, first -- OMT, Booch, OOSE. Second: Fusion, OORAM, and Third: UML. Mjchonoles 11:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Object modeling language --Ligulem 22:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Third generation

message: The link "modelling language" links to this page on UML, suggesting that UML is the only modelling language in existence.  Can an Administrator please fix this redirect to point to a stub for modelling language so I can include other modelling languages like Petri nets along with UML?  Thanks. Vonkje 18:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Is UML the ''only'' modelling language?

message: Just some friendly criticism:
This article seems much "choppier" than most in Wikipedia. For instance, why so many major headings with one or two sentences in them? These should be consolidated and grouped logically. (See Use subheads sparingly.)
Also, please be careful to maintain a neutral point of view.
Finally, the writing gets very vague at times. Some of the worst sentences in terms of clarity are also the most negativaly biased, so cleaning up one will help fix the other.
I've made some fixes but I don't want to do it all, in order to maintain the community effort here.
--Glenford 19:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs some work 

message: Not that they were great, but an article on UML should have many diagrams? Now they are gone?
Mjchonoles 22:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They appear to have had no licensing information, and were therefore deleted in case they were a copyright violation. - IMSoP 22:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to the diagrams? 

message: I'm deleting the new section 'Open source and Free Software UML Modeler', added by 194.3.130.190.
The deleted section is:
==Open source and Free Software UML Modeler ==
* Dia, only diagrams, without XMI converter;
* Umbrello UML Modeler under Gnu Public Licence (GPL),  does'nt work correctly on Windows ;
* ArgoUml UML Modeler under BSD License ;
* fujaba
* Gaphor UML Modeler under Gnu Public Licence (GPL), actual version is 0.7.1 ;
* BOUML, UML Modeler under Gnu Public Licence (GPL) ;
* Eclipse GMT-XUML, beta version.
* Eclipse UML2, UML2 Meta model , without GUI.
All UML tools should go to the associated article List of UML tools (link to 'List of UML tools' is in the 'See also' section of the UML article). Please add them to List of UML tools (see also :Category:Lists of software to compare with the style of other lists. See also Talk:List of UML tools).
--Ligulem 08:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open source and Free Software UML Modeler 

message: I've just been so bold to move and merge the content of some of the diagrams sections into existing separate articles:
*UML Use Case diagram in article Use case
*UML State diagram in article State diagram
*Sequence diagram
My motivation for this was:
* I fear that the article Unified Modeling Language can get too big if every diagram is described here. I would propose to create a separate article for each diagram kind as soon as we have enough material or the diagram kind is noteworthy enough.
* The target articles already existed (but we can also create new ones for other diagram kinds)
I hope you agree. If not, drop an note here and revert. Thanks! – Ligulem | Talk 08:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving diagrams into own articles 

message: I've created a new Category :Category:Unified Modeling Language. Unified Modeling Language is the main article for this new category.
If you want to make a link to that category, please put :Category:Unified Modeling Language (note the initial ":" char). If you want to add an article to the category, please put Category:Unified Modeling Language (without the initial ":" char) somewhere at the bottom of the wiki source of the article.
Thanks to all contributors! – Ligulem | Talk 08:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Category Unified Modeling Language 

message: The Modelling section talks about functional, object and dynamic models, which isn't a prominent feature of anything I was taught about UML. Is there a source for this? I would consider replacing this with the "4+1" views of Philippe Kruchten's seminal paper of 1995, which as I understand it was important in the development of the RUP and UML. I'm surprised to see no mention of Kruchten in the article. Here's the reference:
*Kruchten, Philippe. "Architectural Blueprints—The “4+1” View Model of Software Architecture." IEEE Software 12 (6), November 1995, pp. 42-50.
Or maybe my idea of this paper's importance is overstated (I notice it's not mentioned in the Kruchten article either). Am I off-base?   ·  rodii  ·  23:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  4+1 views 

message: To whom it may concern,
ICON Computing could be a reference to one of several companies; the link in the article currently points to a disambiguation page. If you have additional information on the company referred to in the article, please feel free to contact me via my talk page.
Cheers, Folajimi 19:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ICON Computing 

message: Can someone check that page and decide if it needs to be merged or deleted if it's not important. I'm not sure. Thanks. GfloresTalk 05:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there's no need for an entirely new page for superstep. I added a merge tag for now. The Rod (☎ Smith) 02:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. I'm not so convinced to merge Superstep into here. I would prefer to keep this article here more on a bit higher, more overview kind of level and describe UML details (if needed at all) in separate articles (as has been done for the various kind of diagrams). Although I must say Superstep is a bit special here. I don't see how it fits well and where. Can we not simply leave it as it is for now? Does it really hurt that much if we keep Superstep separate for now? Or has someone a better idea? AfD'ing of Superstep seems a bit harsh to me. --Ligulem 09:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I didn't think "superstep" was a separate type of diagram, but rather a UML element to use within another diagram, e.g. in an activity diagram. I'll refrain from AfDing it until somebody who knows more about it expands the article or otherwise chimes in. The Rod (☎ Smith) 06:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  So can we delete the merge tag on the UML article, it's very confusing.Mjchonoles 07:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. So I've removed the tag for now. --Ligulem 10:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Superstep]]

message: The recently added fourth paragraph in the introduction is just... what? I don't know. I'm sure it's well-written and technically accurate, but my eyes glaze over before I even begin to understand it.
I suggest someone with a longer attention span ensures that the intro is pithy and free of TLAs, with the more detailed stuff moved to a new section further down. 130.88.185.115 04:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: User:212.219.27.109 keeps adding a link to non-existant page MoLIC , . Could you please explain what this abbreviation is meant for? What should that missing article contain? --Ligulem 11:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MoLIC 

message: There is currently (once again) a discussion on what UML tools to list on pages like list of UML tools (see history). There is also a discussion whether articles like WinA&D should be deleted (AfD discussion is going on here → Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WinA&D). Please consider commenting on that AfD. Thanks. --Ligulem 07:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing UML tools or not 

message: Hi all,
I am not promoting this article to good article status because I found parts of the article (mainly the History and lead) to be very convoluted. The lead especially reads like  buzzword heaven. That said the Modelling, Diagrams and Concepts sections really helped build a good picture of what UML is (though you might what to expand the Concepts section). Please consider rewriting the lead to better help newcommers understand UML. Once this has been done feel free to renominate this article for promotion.
Cedars 07:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for not promoting 

message: Does UML not know inner classes? --Alien4 18:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, at least not explicitly.  An inner class is an implementation detail that is abstracted out at the UML modeling "layer".  When a UML tool converts a UML model into an implementation target (C++, Java, etc.), then an inner class is realized if the correct model constructs are in place.  Usually, you get an inner class when you use a composition relationship, but it depends upon the target language and the model transformation used.  HTH // Brick Thrower 12:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually there is notation that would support inner classes, though most tools do not implement it. On a class diagram, when you use a line from a namespace element (e.g., a class or package) with a "(+)" on the namespace end, you are stating that the elements on the other end are defined within that namespace. The symbol looks like a circle divided into quadrants. Of course, there are no multiplicity on the inner class end, however an additional composition relationship may be used to indicate that the inner classes have instances within the namespace. Multiplicity could also be indicated on a composite structure / inner block diagram. 
Mjchonoles 23:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inner Classes