My thoughts on UML and Concepts Maps are that it is best to start with
the simplest presentation (Concept map) and see if we have a firm need
for UML. A concept map often groups many things that may not appear in
the same UML diagram which often make them easier to grok than UML.
The position paper Matt and I submitted uses the concept maps that we
used in the W3C Web Services Architecture document. Concept maps are
easy to compose, however they can also be the death of a standard since
they are often very open ended. It is very easy to keep adding concepts
until you get something that looks like the large concept map in the W3C
WSAG Technical Note. UML, by comparison, is far more strict however
leads to multiple views of the same things in attempts to relay
information about them.
I encourage everyone to read the 3 different submissions so far into the
group to see how the concept/mind maps work and analyze how they can
also be open ended.
Some basic modelling conventions for keeping things simple are to use no
more than 5-6 concepts per model, then layer the more technical aspects
in UML. You can use concept maps and UML to show architectural patterns
too.
Let's start with concept/mind maps to model "what" we are going to be
dealing with, then delve into whether or not we need UML based on that.
Duane
--
***********
Senior Standards Strategist - Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://www.adobe.com
Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT Bureau Plenary - http://www.unece.org/cefact/
Adobe Enterprise Developer Resources - http://www.adobe.com/enterprise/developer/main.html
***********
