Hi Peter,
Points taken and thank you for the additional information.
From what I have learned from this this discussion, I find it somewhat disappointing that UML does not appear to be fully able to model (represent? document?) a UML profile…
I believe that Bran is rather busy these days, but I hope he’ll have some time to reply and comment.
Hi,
If I remember correctly it was mainly the figures, like Figure 2, that had issues when converted to Google Document format. It could have been some issues with track changes as well, i.e. when imported and the original Word Document had tracked changes on, then the Google Document had a lot of "changed" text which made the Google Document version hard to read.
Regarding the figures and drawing them in Papyrus instead, I would say most of them already are, e.g. all the diagrams showing the stereotypes and related constraints are from the profile model itself. I think that the main issue are with figures/pictures that are not really possible to draw in Papyrus as a formal "model", e.g. the visualization of state-machine refinements in figure 2. But Bran is probably the one the has the best insight into the issues we saw, and the reasoning around the decision of maintaining the profile document on Word format. And also why some figures have not already been made in Papyrus.
/Peter Cigéhn
_______________________________________________ papyrus-rt-dev mailing list papyrus-rt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxTo change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/papyrus-rt-dev
|