UML View syntax

[ronaldtse]

What syntax should we use for Views? I assume that the View syntax also has to be different per data model type (UML vs SysML vs EXPRESS) because they have different diagram requirements.

// or diagram MyView?
view MyView {
  import Relationship, Element
  render_option typed_as_associations
  file "my_view.png"
}

Originally posted by @ronaldtse in https://github.com/lutaml/lutaml-uml/issues/15#issuecomment-669829486

[ronaldtse]

From @w00lf https://github.com/lutaml/lutaml-uml/issues/8#issuecomment-669933568

In UML model definition, these are equivalent:

class A
class B
A#foo -> B[1]

class A {
  foo: B[1]
}
class B

It is only the diagram that differs. When we create the "view", perhaps we have the option of whether these associations are shown. (e.g. show generalization, aggregation but not simple association)?

What if we don't want to show specific generalization or aggregation?

For sure we should have a global turn "on" or "off" of types of relationships in the view.

Should we allow selectively showing of particular relationships?

[w00lf]

What syntax should we use for Views? I assume that the View syntax also has to be different per data model type (UML vs SysML vs EXPRESS) because they have different diagram requirements.

// or diagram MyView?
view MyView {
  import Relationship, Element
  render_option typed_as_associations
  file "my_view.png"
}

Originally posted by @ronaldtse in #15 (comment)

I vote for diagram name, I think its more convenient, view we can use to set up specific display options(font, density, dpi)

[ronaldtse]

I vote for diagram name, I think its more convenient, view we can use to set up specific display options(font, density, dpi)

Makes sense. Let's do it!

[ronaldtse]

Then we have to come up with the View Syntax. Perhaps we can extend feature by feature. Any thoughts?

[w00lf]

Then we have to come up with the View Syntax. Perhaps we can extend feature by feature. Any thoughts?

Lets start with diagram attributes first, view attributes will strongly depend on ogdf implementation.

[ronaldtse]

Agree.

[ronaldtse]

@w00lf can we close this? Thanks.

[w00lf]

@w00lf can we close this? Thanks.

Have not implemented it yet