[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Logical models, hierarchy, network model
Hi Peter, > Interesting, my inclination so far have been to restrict association > types to those defined in existing modeling tools. In particular, UML > and ER modeling. We've barely had requirements for semantics beyond > basic pointers (references) though it's clear some kind of inheritance > and composition is needed within the next year. If you're creating your > own association types how do you model them? > I am using UML notations and its included basic association types (aggregation, composition, inheritance). As you know these basic association types have their corresponding diagram representations. There is also a non typed one ended by an arrow. I use a label on the association as a type specification. So, the association gives information like: a) cardinality b) association direction c) association type That way, my domain model is not too platform specific and dependent on class based languages which do not, most of the time, allow association types to be defined (and often basic association too). For example, if I am modeling a domain with frame (objects without methods) and associations between frames I can do so if I can type the associations. Cheers Didier PH Martin
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|