Legacy Issue Number: 19518
Source: USoft ( Rob van Haarst)
SBVR 1.2, Annex B, references to diagramming conventions
Annex B has a number of references to diagramming conventions that are too colloquial. The implication is that the reader is already familiar with the UML or CDG diagramming conventions, but this is not appropriate, since the whole point of the Annex is to be explanatory at this level. For example:
B.3.5. “UML’s arrow style for ‘instantiation’” What is this arrow style? Where is it explained?
B.3.5. The notation has been adapted from standard UML notation to make it more ‘business friendly’. For example, in UML, in instance (‘object’) would be labeled as, Canada: country.
This information does not belong here, but in Annex C.
B.3.5. “the box in box style”. Where is this explained? Is it UML or CDG?
Suggested solution: when referencing UML or CDG diagramming conventions, do not attempt to be descriptive of symbols or drawing conventions, but use ‘base’ references instead: all the diagramming information should be in one place, ie., in Annex C or I respectively, but not in Annex B. Make sure the same format is used for all references to Annexes C and I, and that the difference between the two diagramming techniques is signposted adequately. An even better, more practical solution would be in each case to depict the symbol(s) involved and to refer to the appropriate paragraph in Annex C or I for any textual explanation. This would cause duplication of symbols between the Annexes but it would make Annex B much more helpful.
Reported: SBVR 1.2 — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 04:00 GMT
Updated: Tue, 28 May 2019 00:41 GMT
- SBVR-Issue-15-20 19518 - ANNEX B BAD REFERENCES TO DIAGRAMMING CONVENTIONS (190520).docx 47 kB (application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document)