Home » Modeling » UML2 » Instructions to upload OMG UML Testing Profile ver.1.1(Step to use UTP in Eclipse)
| |
Re: Instructions to upload OMG UML Testing Profile ver.1.1 [message #1005966 is a reply to message #1005546] |
Tue, 29 January 2013 12:27 |
|
Hi Marc-Florian,
Thanks for your information.
"For what reason did you post the message and the profile?"
There are many posts complaining about using omg's xmi of the UTP in their projects, and many had debated the creation of the profile from scratch from the specification which I did two yrs ago.
recently, I worked on importing the profile from OMG website to stick with the standard on my reseach, and I shared my results with the others.
By the way, since U R from the UTP RTF:
I can not apply UTP stereotypes on UML lifelines, while the given examples in the UTP (1.0/1.1) specification illustrates that.
When I try to apply UTP stereotype to lifeline, I get none listed on the popup window!
I had modified the UTP to extend the desired stereotypes to UML!NamedElement.
Yours,
Mohamed
|
|
|
Re: Instructions to upload OMG UML Testing Profile ver.1.1 [message #1006178 is a reply to message #1005966] |
Wed, 30 January 2013 11:13 |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Hi Mohamed,
> There are many posts complaining about using omg's xmi of the UTP in their
> projects, and many had debated the creation >of the profile from scratch
> from the specification which I did two yrs ago.
Interesting... where have these posts been posted? I'm getting more and more
curious :-)
> I can not apply UTP stereotypes on UML lifelines, while the given examples
> in the UTP (1.0/1.1) specification illustrates >that. When I try to apply
> UTP stereotype to lifeline, I get none listed on the popup window!
> I had modified the UTP to extend the desired stereotypes to
> UML!NamedElement.
Well, this is the worst solution ever, I'd say. I know that these
illustrations you mentioned might confuse people. Actually, the stereotypes
on lifelines represent stereotypes on the ConnectableElement the lifeline
represents (in case of SUT) or the type of the ConnectableElement (in case
of TestComponent). I would not recommend widening the stereotype to
NamedElement just for illustration purposes; this is not helpful at all.
Visual representation is up to the modeling environment you use; I would not
compromise the idea of profiles (having DSLs) for the sake of adequate
illustration. Finally, it's the abstract syntax of a profile that determines
on what metaclass you can apply a stereotype to, not the figures in the
specification.
In general, I recommend UML2 users, who wants to use profiles in the future,
waiting for the UML Profiles Repository being established. As a first shot,
we will host
- UTP
- SysML
- MARTE
- SoaML
(- BPMN)
We hope to further foster interoperability of models within the Eclipse UML2
ecosystem.
Regards,
Marc-Florian
"Mohamed Mussa" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:ke8f7q$8c4$1@xxxxxxxxe.org...
Hi Marc-Florian,
Thanks for your information.
"For what reason did you post the message and the profile?"
There are many posts complaining about using omg's xmi of the UTP in their
projects, and many had debated the creation of the profile from scratch from
the specification which I did two yrs ago.
recently, I worked on importing the profile from OMG website to stick with
the standard on my reseach, and I shared my results with the others.
By the way, since U R from the UTP RTF:
I can not apply UTP stereotypes on UML lifelines, while the given examples
in the UTP (1.0/1.1) specification illustrates that.
When I try to apply UTP stereotype to lifeline, I get none listed on the
popup window!
I had modified the UTP to extend the desired stereotypes to
UML!NamedElement.
Yours,
Mohamed
|
|
| | | | | |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Apr 20 03:22:07 GMT 2024
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03855 seconds
|