I received the
Formal Namers documentation on the tooling hl7 mailinglist and there was a section on HL7 UML Notation and what it failes to illustratie. For most of the issues I found a solution or workaround using Enterprise Architect:
- The associative function of the "arrow classes" > Cannot be fixed
- The cardinality constraints imposed on attributes > Attributes / Details / Multiplicity
- The appearance constraints (mandatory and required) imposed on attributes.. > Add '*' to attribute name
- Vocabulary domain constraints applied to classCode, typeCode and moodCode values which establish the essential semantic meaning of each class > Initial value
- The coding strength constraint applied to coded attributes > Include in attribute type
I received the Formal Namers documentation on the tooling hl7 mailinglist and there was a section on HL7 UML Notation and what it failes to illustratie. For most of the issues I found a solution or workaround using Enterprise Architect:
1 comment:
Yeah but.
Firstly, these are just visual tricks, they're not proper use of UML, and they don't help tools use the UML models.
And you only did the easy things - choices, CMET bindings, choices across CMET bindings where CMETs are used in multiple places, shadows, unrolling.
There's also some reason why clones aren't specialisations, but I can't recall it off the top of my head
Post a Comment