One issue I've got with UML for SOA modelling is that its fine when thinking about software, but a bit rubbish when thinking about the business.  Its also a little "rich" in terms of communication to the business.  Another challenge is that some services are best implemented using BPM, or Human Workflow, type tools which really don't fit into the UML language.

UML is fine for some SOA systems, and a bit rubbish for others, what we do need (IMO) is something that sits above all of these different approaches and models just the services and their interactions (not process) then we can pick the right implementation modelling technology for each of the services.

Steve

On 20/08/06, Stefan Tilkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Aug 19, 2006, at 2:31 PM, Lukas Barton wrote:
> Stefan Tilkov wrote:
>> +1. In fact, I don't think there has ever been a "good" UML tool -
>> in the sense of "good for automated software development".
> We could start DML vs DSL debate ;-)

Not much of a difference to me -- DML graphical, DSL textual,
otherwise similar enough so it doesn't matter.


> Do you agree that: "Proprietary tools which worked mostly were DSL."?
>

No. In my personal experience, most model-driven projects, SOA or
not, were driven from UML models, more or less heavily customized via
UML profiles.


>> A UML profile is a poor man's metamodel, so this could
>> conceptually be used with MOF or EMF, too. The problem is that one
>> has to define what the exact SOA metamodel is :-)
> But there is no standardised profile for SOA.
> OMG started SOA SIG (http://soa.omg.org/) only few month ago. Can
> you guess whether this group goals could be successful? (eg. create
> SOA metamodel, ...).
> May be I overestimate necessity of standards. But without standard
> you get a mess (eg. not cooperating tools...).
>

Even with a custom UML profile, the commonality is large enough for
people to understand your models because UML is so widespread. If
only the tools sucked less ...


Stefan
--
Stefan Tilkov, http://www.innoq.com/blog/st/


__._,_.___


YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS




__,_._,___

Reply via email to