179 |
they relate to. They function like navigation bars on the WWW, except that |
they relate to. They function like navigation bars on the WWW, except that |
180 |
the same page may have several of them. |
the same page may have several of them. |
181 |
|
|
182 |
|
Analysis from a hypertext theory point of view |
183 |
|
============================================== |
184 |
|
|
185 |
|
- Borges's "taxonomy" for animals; |
186 |
|
http://www.multicians.org/thvv/borges-animals.html |
187 |
|
- !! A Taxonomy of Link Types; |
188 |
|
http://www.workpractice.com/trigg/thesis-chap4.html |
189 |
|
|
190 |
|
Thinking about linking... at first we do have UML->reST and |
191 |
|
UML->javadoc links. Because of embedding diagrams implicitly |
192 |
|
into target documents we can see linking also as |
193 |
|
bi-directional reST<->javadoc, reST<->reST, and javadoc<->javadoc. |
194 |
|
|
195 |
|
Mapping our links to types defined by Trigg: |
196 |
|
|
197 |
|
reST<->reST Alternate View (this occurs, when the same diagram is |
198 |
|
explicitly referred in two or more architectural documents) |
199 |
|
|
200 |
|
javadoc -> javadoc AlternativeView? (We can browse through all classes, which |
201 |
|
are part of the diagram.) |
202 |
|
|
203 |
|
UML in javadoc -> reST Detail->Summary |
204 |
|
|
205 |
|
UML in reST -> Javadoc General->Spesific or Summary->Detail |
206 |
|
|
207 |
|
Trigg classifies the following type-pairs for bi-directional links, which can are |
208 |
|
interpreted oppositionally depending on the direction |
209 |
|
|
210 |
|
Generalization/Specification |
211 |
|
Abstraction/Example |
212 |
|
Formalization/Application |
213 |
|
Summarization/Detail |
214 |
|
Simplification/Complication |
215 |
|
|
216 |
|
Could Generalization/Specification be best for reST<->Javadoc. |
217 |
|
|
218 |
|
|
219 |
Implementation |
Implementation |
220 |
============== |
============== |
221 |
|
|