Glossaries Unassessed ( inactive) | |||||||
|
Hm. At the moment I'm asking myself whether it would make sense to just concentrate on UML 2.x and just leave away the 1.x section. What do you think? -- Adrian Buehlmann 18:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I partly agree but I thought this way there would be less scope for confusion between the versions - it is clear were each term belongs and it will be clear even if there is a UML 3.x. I don't want to do 1.x terms myself but this way if someone wants to describe 1.x terms there is a place for them to do it without diluting the 2.x section. Mark.murphy 23:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm very concerned with the quality and validity of these definition. They don't seem precise enough or accurate enough to be useful and are not defined within the context of UML.
some examples
While this sounds good, UML supports inheritance of other than clasess (e.g., Use Cases)
Normally, Generalization and Specialization are the UML terms, inheritance is the programming term. but in any case, it's mostly irrelavant what Generalization means in Software Engineering, if this is a glossary of UML terms, it should be what does it mean within UML. BTW, Generaliation is a powerful organizing technique for reducing complexity, but need not involve reusing code.
Seems circular to define Type with Type
This is really a common error, while the association is usually drawn between two classes, it can be drawn from a class to itself. But more fundamentally, the association relationship is between 2 or more instances. Generalization is between classes, associations are between instances. To be precise, a link is between 2 or more instances, an association stands in the a relationship families of links in the same way that classes stand in the relationship to instances.
Optional is usually given as 0..1
I would go on, but the majority of the definitions need signficant rewrite to be correct. There is already an official definition in the UML spec (I wouldn't trust Fowler for formal definitions), and definitions should probably be placed in Wikidictionary? Mjchonoles 04:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
This page has been
transwikied to
Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here ( logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
-- CopyToWiktionaryBot 23:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
There are many terms listed under S/Stereotype that link to disambiguation pages or worse, incorrect contexts. Could someone knowledgeable in UML go through and disambiguate these, or remove wikilinks? Hoof Hearted 15:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Glossaries Unassessed ( inactive) | |||||||
|
Hm. At the moment I'm asking myself whether it would make sense to just concentrate on UML 2.x and just leave away the 1.x section. What do you think? -- Adrian Buehlmann 18:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I partly agree but I thought this way there would be less scope for confusion between the versions - it is clear were each term belongs and it will be clear even if there is a UML 3.x. I don't want to do 1.x terms myself but this way if someone wants to describe 1.x terms there is a place for them to do it without diluting the 2.x section. Mark.murphy 23:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm very concerned with the quality and validity of these definition. They don't seem precise enough or accurate enough to be useful and are not defined within the context of UML.
some examples
While this sounds good, UML supports inheritance of other than clasess (e.g., Use Cases)
Normally, Generalization and Specialization are the UML terms, inheritance is the programming term. but in any case, it's mostly irrelavant what Generalization means in Software Engineering, if this is a glossary of UML terms, it should be what does it mean within UML. BTW, Generaliation is a powerful organizing technique for reducing complexity, but need not involve reusing code.
Seems circular to define Type with Type
This is really a common error, while the association is usually drawn between two classes, it can be drawn from a class to itself. But more fundamentally, the association relationship is between 2 or more instances. Generalization is between classes, associations are between instances. To be precise, a link is between 2 or more instances, an association stands in the a relationship families of links in the same way that classes stand in the relationship to instances.
Optional is usually given as 0..1
I would go on, but the majority of the definitions need signficant rewrite to be correct. There is already an official definition in the UML spec (I wouldn't trust Fowler for formal definitions), and definitions should probably be placed in Wikidictionary? Mjchonoles 04:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
This page has been
transwikied to
Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here ( logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
-- CopyToWiktionaryBot 23:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
There are many terms listed under S/Stereotype that link to disambiguation pages or worse, incorrect contexts. Could someone knowledgeable in UML go through and disambiguate these, or remove wikilinks? Hoof Hearted 15:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)