Re: [Nml-wg] More UML....

Jeroen van der Ham wrote:

So I guess we could also require that an interface is connected to a node.

What does the rest think?

I'm slightly inclined not to enforce that relation. Thus, it is allowed to define ports without its node. The use case I have in mind is a topology (aka graph aka network aka domain) with ports, without explicit nodes. The obvious downside is that we allow too much, we still end up with incompatible software, because each software tool only support a subset of what can be described. Regards, Freek