Subject: Re: [sacm] Consensus Call: Choosing an IM Expression Syntax

From: "Wolfkiel, Joseph L CIV DISA ID (US)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 20:11:08 +0000

Coding the UML as SVG was what I assumed would be the final output.

Danny graciously shared the link to RFC 3444 with me and I found the following two paragraphs compelling.  In the 3 years I was doing data exchange standard design for the DoD, I found the UML diagrams to be very effective at communicating relationships and structures of data.  I actually prefer E-R diagrams, but I haven't found a tool that will convert XML and JSON into ER diagrams, while several exist for UML -- which makes converting DM schemas into UML for visualization really easy.:

( from http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3444.txt)

Alternatively, IMs can be defined using a formal language or a semi-
   formal structured language.  One of the possibilities to formally
   specify IMs is to use class diagrams of the Unified Modeling Language
   (UML).  Although such diagrams are still rarely used within the IETF,
   several other organizations routinely use them for defining IMs,
   including the DMTF, the ITU-T SG 4, 3GPP SA5, the TeleManagement
   Forum, and the ATM Forum.  An important advantage of UML class
   diagrams is that they represent objects and the relationships between
   them in a standard graphical way.  Because of this graphical
   representation, designers and operators may find it easier to
   understand the underlying management model.  Although there are other
   techniques to graphically represent objects and relationships (e.g.,
   Entity-Relationship (ER) diagrams), UML presents the advantage of
   being widely adopted in the industry and taught in universities.
   Also, many tools for editing UML diagrams are now available.  UML is
   standardized by the Object Management Group (OMG) [5].

   In general, it seems advisable to use object-oriented techniques to
   describe an IM.  In particular, the notions of abstraction and
   encapsulation, as well as the possibility that object definitions
   include methods, are considered to be important.

Having said all that, I'm not volunteering to do the work, so I don't want to make the job any harder than necessary on the ones who will be doing it.  If English is easier, then game on.

Joseph L. Wolfkiel
SCM Engineering Lead
DISA ID52
Fort Meade DISA Acquisiton Bldg Cube A4A58E
Work: (301) 225-8820
Gov Cell: (571) 814-8231
[email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
From: sacm [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Leif Johansson
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 2:46 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [sacm] Consensus Call: Choosing an IM Expression Syntax

On 2015-12-29 20:28, Wolfkiel, Joseph L CIV DISA ID (US) wrote:
> I'm not wedded to UML.  If throwing my vote to plain English would make this move along, I'm fine with it.
> 

How are you going to represent UML in an I-D? Publish under the new
format rules and do SVG?

Lets just make sure the mechanics of playing with the arrows take
more time and energy than the content.

	Cheers Leif

_______________________________________________
sacm mailing list
[email-masked]
Caution-https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sacm