Skip to main content
Software Engineering

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

7
  • Basically both are derived from Petri nets. That's why there are so many things that look alike. Commented Oct 30, 2019 at 12:33
  • @qwerty_so Indeed, Activity diagrams derive from petri nets, but only since UML 2. The first publication of Petri nets dates back to 1973 (even if Mr Petri claims to have invented them already in his childhood in 1939). The state diagrams were invented earlier, in 1949. So archaeologically speaking wouldn’t it rather be state -> petri -> activity ? Commented Oct 30, 2019 at 13:32
  • I did no know that. But Petri's approach is a very general/mathematical one while state/activity are already concrete application. So from an inheritance view, Petri's nets are the father and the other ones children. Commented Oct 30, 2019 at 15:08
  • @qwerty_so But isn’t the state diagram the representation if a finite state machine, which is itself a well defined mathematical abstraction: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite-state_machine#Mathematical_model ? And isn’t it also a very general approach on its own, since it is the fundament of language theory and communication theory long before petri nets were made public, petri being focalised on control flow and concurrency ? Commented Oct 30, 2019 at 15:47
  • Finite state machines are not UML state machines, though they share part of the name. The reference you have uses Petri nets for explanation. Commented Oct 30, 2019 at 17:52