posted 23 years ago
Here is what I think:
true a) Specification perspective stresses interface of the software not implementation so there should be no language specific solutions or rather they should be "meaningless". What I mean is mechanism like multiple inheritance, interfaces, (or of minor weight) properties are not present in all of the OOL and we have to remember that the model doesn't have to be implemented in OOL it can be for example C. I am not sure if that is rite, I could not find anything in the literature to prove my point.
true b) "..., a conceptual model should be drown with little or no regard for the software ..."* the purpose for the conceptual perspective is to understand the domain, so introducing too many details is rather confusing, and will make communicating with the domain expert difficult (I believe that after use cases this perspective is most useful tool to communicate with the domain experts).
true c) as specification perspective focuses on the interface and the relations between classes represented in the conceptual view take shape as a responsibilities for updating the relationship.
false d) conceptual model is not indented to present clause's interface.
*"UML Distilled ...:M. Flowler"
[This message has been edited by Michal Harezlak (edited September 11, 2000).]