What is a Sparx interaction point? It seems not to be in the UML spec

[Richard Freggi]

After googling and consulting the UML reference manual I cannot find this definition.  Seems to overlap UML  parts concept.  If it's not in the UML spec would it be better to remove from EA?

[Geert Bellekens]

Can you be a bit more specific? Where do I find this interaction point in EA?

Geert

[Mauricio Moya (Arquesoft)]

I think he's talking about https://sparxsystems.com/enterprise_architect_user_guide/16.1/guide_books/modeling_interaction_points.html

[qwerty]

Oviously it's not UML but SysML.

q.

[Richard Freggi]

Can you be a bit more specific? Where do I find this interaction point in EA?

Geert

On EA, using Basic UML MDG, go to 'Features' window, you will see 'Interaction points' next to Parts/Properties.  It seems that Parts/Properties ad Interaction points do the same thing.

[qwerty]

This is probably a Sparx-invented naming. It lists Ports and Pins. I'd guess they are free in naming/grouping these that way

q.

[Richard Freggi]

I will raise a bug report to Sparx as this seems to be a design error if there interaction points are not in UML 2.5 spec

[Richard Freggi]

Bug report "Features" window includes an 'Interaction Points' tab that is not UML standard submitted.

In my opinion this is important because if we start adding non-metamodel features to the tool, eventually it will become unusable like many other CASE tools before it.

Such features should be in additional MDGs.

[Eve]

Interaction points are just a grouping. They were called embedded elements in earlier versions.

In my opinion this is important because if we start adding non-metamodel features to the tool, eventually it will become unusable like many other CASE tools before it.

So you're suggesting that Alias, Keywords, Status, Version, Author, Phase, Complexity, Created, Modified, Language, and Filename should all be removed? And that's just in the properties window for every element and they have been there for at least 20 years.

[Richard Freggi]

Hi Eve, I'm suggesting that EA will prosper if it follows the UML standards exactly, with proprietary extensions and whatnot in separate MDGs so people can use them if they wish.  Specifically for Interaction Points, seems to be a duplicate to Part/Properties so it's even more puzzling of what is the value of having it.

[BiSb]

Interaction points are just a grouping. They were called embedded elements in earlier versions.

In my opinion this is important because if we start adding non-metamodel features to the tool, eventually it will become unusable like many other CASE tools before it.

So you're suggesting that Alias, Keywords, Status, Version, Author, Phase, Complexity, Created, Modified, Language, and Filename should all be removed? And that's just in the properties window for every element and they have been there for at least 20 years.

Even though I not nearly experienced as the other people replying to this thread, I don't see a problem here. The UML/SysML spec does not define how to group UML/SysML objects in the editor and to call the tab 'Interaction Points' for grouping such elements is understandable for me, as Eve also stated out.

[Richard Freggi]

Tere's yer problem right tha'r...

UML is not the same as SysML.  Related but different things - each in its place please....

If it's not in the UML spec, it's not in the UML spec.