Talk:Actor (UML)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).

Untitled[edit]

what is the reason we call uml a language there is nothing in uml to call a language.

UML is a means of communication of system requirements. 168.230.240.244 (talk) 11:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A language is a collection of symbols, rules for stringing the symbols together (syntax) and their associated meanings (semantics). UML has all of these. And like any other language, the purpose of UML too is to communicate meaning.Kishorekumar 62 (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UML does not formally define anything called primary actor, secondary actor, active actors, passive actors. These tearms need to be removed.Kishorekumar 62 (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link dosn't work[edit]

^ "Problems and Deficiencies of UML as a Requirements Specification, s.3.2.". Retrieved November 7, 2010.

Link is not working :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiklef (talk • contribs) 13:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actor generalization[edit]

UML 2 does not permit associations between Actors. Yet, this constraint is often violated in practice since the generalization/specialization relationship between actors is useful in modeling overlapping behaviours between actors.

This paragraph does not make sense. Generalization is NOT an association. Associations between actors are not permitted (we don't want to model the world outside our subject anyway). Generalizations between actors are permitted and useful. 195.205.169.99 (talk) 11:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the UML specification, this talk comment is in fact correct, (i.e. Generalization is a directed relationship, which is a relationship. While an association is also a relationship. Thus a generalization relation between actors is allowed since it's not an association). Hence, I made the update to correct the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickbphila (talk • contribs) 17:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The arrow style in the diagram is incorrect[edit]

The arrows on the associations in the first example diagram are incorrectly styled. An association arrow has a stick arrow head in the UML standard. In fact, the arrows would better be removed completely: the UML standard does not contain any use case diagram with arrows on associations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.vanderwulp (talk • contribs) 08:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]