Sequence diagrams: methods calls vs. plain english

[Lars Behnke]

Hi all,

I have just finished my sequence diagrams and feel that thinks got too complicated.

In the course of simplifying the diagrams I decided to use plain old english phrases (instead of method calls) in order to document messages.

However, I have some doubts, whether this is still compliant with UML 2.0. All documentation I found uses method calls.

What's your decision/opinion on this topic? Comments are highly welcome.

[Sreenivasa Majji]

I think you need to use methods, however you can use 'note' to describe the methods.

[Lars Behnke]

Hi Sreenivasa,

After looking up the UML 2.0 spec I tend to agree with you.
The spec states:

A Message is a NamedElement that defines one specific kind of communication in an Interaction. A communication can
be, for example, raising a signal, invoking an Operation, creating or destroying an Instance.
[...]
A Message reflects either an Operation call and start of execution - or a sending and reception of a Signal.

[Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure, version 2.0, formal/05-07-04]

Furthermore the notation of signals and operation calls are specified in great detail. IMO there is no room for a plain english approach.