Stereotypes based on Abstract UML types

[Jayson]

Ya, I mean the PDF.
I have precisely ZERO problem trawling through documentation WHEN I CAN UNDERSTAND IT.
But it is just hideous.

All I want is a list of abstract metaclasses and the concrete classes they can realize, but I am buggered if I can find that information in the PDF.

[Geert Bellekens]

I don't know, I don't feel like it's that horrible.

You have to use Ctrl-Shif-F search to find the info you need, but in the end I always find what I need to know.

Compared to the ArchiMate specs I think it's even much better. Based on the UML specs you can say, without a doubt, that something is allowed, or not. (almost mathematical)
When you try to do the same based on the ArchiMate specs you only get to "yeah, probably, maybe, looks like it."

Geert

[KP]

UML didn't change between versions 2.4 and 2.5 but the document was completely re-structured. Have a look at the 2.4 spec and see if the structure of the document suits you better; from your needs, it sounds likely.

[qwerty]

Uh, for me the 2.5 was much better than its predecessor :-/ But honestly, you need a strong will or urge to bite into any of those docs. Written by eggheads for eggheads.

q.

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Uh, for me the 2.5 was much better than its predecessor :-/ But honestly, you need a strong will or urge to bite into any of those docs. Written by eggheads for eggheads.

q.

I am forwarding the following (anonymous) email...
We warn q to show more respect to eggheads!  He may regret his outburst!  We will not stand by and watch our comrades disparaged without any action!!!

ELF   (Egghead Liberation Front)

Happy Friday everybody!      (and q, take care!) 

Paolo

[qwerty]

Since the ELF is always opposing the Liberated Egghead Foundation (LEF) I'm certain my comrades already took measures! Romanes ite domum (or so)!

q,