Home » Modeling » UML2 » InstanceSpecification whose classifier is an activity, why not?
| InstanceSpecification whose classifier is an activity, why not? [message #477728] |
Tue, 16 September 2008 14:10  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: reichwein.isd.uni-stuttgart.de
Hello,
I am analysing different possibilities to map a Simulink model to a UML
activity model with appropriate lightweight extensions. I am using the
Eclipse UML2 Project to program the implementation of this Simulink-UML
interface.
I am confronted with the problem of wanting to link actions with
instances of activities and not directly with activities. So instead of
a callBehaviorAction, a callBehaviorInstanceAction would be great :-)
The activities which are called from the actions share the same
properties, so it would be practical to have on one hand a library of
activities and on the other instanceSpecifications of activities,
similar to classes and instanceSpecifications of classes. Surprisingly,
I have not yet seen examples of activity instances. Although, following
the specification, Activity (from BasicActivities) extends Class (from
Kernel), so in theory, instances could also have as classifier an
activity. The Simulink concept of a library of blocks (in UML:
activities) and instances of blocks in a model (in UML: actions
referring to activity instances) could then be described in UML. As a
current solution, I intend to add a stereotype to the
callBehaviorAction, which will refer to the instanceSpecification of the
activity.
Any comments or other propositions are very welcome.
Best regards,
Axel
|
|
|
| Re: InstanceSpecification whose classifier is an activity, why not? [message #477733 is a reply to message #477728] |
Wed, 17 September 2008 13:44  |
 james bruck
Messages: 1724
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Axel,
I don't see a problem in creating an instance of an activity the way you
describe below. As you mention, it is legal from a UML perspective.
You may want to have a look at section 6.4 of the superstructure spec. for
a higher lever overview.
Cheers,
- James.
"Axel Reichwein" <reichwein@isd.uni-stuttgart.de> wrote in message
news:gaoenq$d6a$1@build.eclipse.org...
> Hello,
>
> I am analysing different possibilities to map a Simulink model to a UML
> activity model with appropriate lightweight extensions. I am using the
> Eclipse UML2 Project to program the implementation of this Simulink-UML
> interface.
>
> I am confronted with the problem of wanting to link actions with instances
> of activities and not directly with activities. So instead of a
> callBehaviorAction, a callBehaviorInstanceAction would be great :-) The
> activities which are called from the actions share the same properties, so
> it would be practical to have on one hand a library of activities and on
> the other instanceSpecifications of activities, similar to classes and
> instanceSpecifications of classes. Surprisingly, I have not yet seen
> examples of activity instances. Although, following the specification,
> Activity (from BasicActivities) extends Class (from Kernel), so in theory,
> instances could also have as classifier an activity. The Simulink concept
> of a library of blocks (in UML: activities) and instances of blocks in a
> model (in UML: actions referring to activity instances) could then be
> described in UML. As a current solution, I intend to add a stereotype to
> the callBehaviorAction, which will refer to the instanceSpecification of
> the activity.
>
> Any comments or other propositions are very welcome.
>
> Best regards,
> Axel
|
|
|
| Re: InstanceSpecification whose classifier is an activity, why not? [message #626929 is a reply to message #477728] |
Wed, 17 September 2008 13:44 |
james bruck
Messages: 1724
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Axel,
I don't see a problem in creating an instance of an activity the way you
describe below. As you mention, it is legal from a UML perspective.
You may want to have a look at section 6.4 of the superstructure spec. for
a higher lever overview.
Cheers,
- James.
"Axel Reichwein" <reichwein@isd.uni-stuttgart.de> wrote in message
news:gaoenq$d6a$1@build.eclipse.org...
> Hello,
>
> I am analysing different possibilities to map a Simulink model to a UML
> activity model with appropriate lightweight extensions. I am using the
> Eclipse UML2 Project to program the implementation of this Simulink-UML
> interface.
>
> I am confronted with the problem of wanting to link actions with instances
> of activities and not directly with activities. So instead of a
> callBehaviorAction, a callBehaviorInstanceAction would be great :-) The
> activities which are called from the actions share the same properties, so
> it would be practical to have on one hand a library of activities and on
> the other instanceSpecifications of activities, similar to classes and
> instanceSpecifications of classes. Surprisingly, I have not yet seen
> examples of activity instances. Although, following the specification,
> Activity (from BasicActivities) extends Class (from Kernel), so in theory,
> instances could also have as classifier an activity. The Simulink concept
> of a library of blocks (in UML: activities) and instances of blocks in a
> model (in UML: actions referring to activity instances) could then be
> described in UML. As a current solution, I intend to add a stereotype to
> the callBehaviorAction, which will refer to the instanceSpecification of
> the activity.
>
> Any comments or other propositions are very welcome.
>
> Best regards,
> Axel
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Apr 25 14:30:21 GMT 2024
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03541 seconds |
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
