Issue 10058: SysML: Generalizing Activites (sysml-rtf) Source: Lockheed Martin (Mr. Michael Jesse Chonoles, michael_chonoles2(at)omg.org) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Section 11 should show an example of generalization/specialization of Activiites when then are being shown in a bdd. Resolution: Discussion: This issue is deferred because no other proposed resolution was voted on during the schedule of the SysML 1.2 RTF. Following is the discussion from a previous deferred resolution by the SysML 1.1 RTF: Deferred so that a UML issue can be addressed (that activity regions should be redefinable). Disposition: Deferred Revised Text: Following is the discussion from a previous deferred resolution by the SysML 1.1 RTF: Deferred so that a UML issue can be addressed (that activity regions should be redefinable). This issue is being deferred because no proposed resolution was voted on during the schedule of the SysML 1.3 RTF. Disposition: Deferred Actions taken: July 31, 2006: received issue Discussion: Resolution: Generalization / specialization of activities is not mentioned in the rest of the document, has not come up in discussion of SysML application, requires more explanation. Defer until the need becomes clearer. Disposition: Deferred End of Annotations:===== te: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 16:35:24 -0400 From: "Chonoles, Michael J" Subject: SysML: Generalizing Activiites To: issues@omg.org Thread-Topic: SysML: Generalizing Activiites Thread-Index: Aca04M2N00czuZQ/RYSQrpRrnxK/WQ== X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jul 2006 20:35:24.0836 (UTC) FILETIME=[D9EADE40:01C6B4E0] Section 11 should show an example of generalization/specialization of Activiites when then are being shown in a bdd. Michael Jesse Chonoles Disposition: Deferred OMG Issue No: 10058 Title: Generalizing Activites Source: Michael Jesse Chonoles, michael.j.chonoles@lmco.com Summary: Section 11 should show an example of generalization/specialization of Activiites when then are being shown in a bdd. Resolution: Generalization / specialization of activities is not mentioned in the rest of the document, has not come up in discussion of SysML application, requires more explanation. Defer until the need becomes clearer. Revised Text: Disposition: Deferred From: Alan Moore To: Burkhart Roger M , "sysml-rtf@omg.org" Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 12:49:09 +0100 Subject: RE: draft Ballot 4 available for discussion through May 10, 2008 Thread-Topic: draft Ballot 4 available for discussion through May 10, 2008 Thread-Index: AciutRQ+ioNzdd07R+udoIz4h0p/YwDCICLg Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB I have comments on three of the resolutions which I.ve included in the attached word documents. Alan. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Burkhart Roger M [mailto:BurkhartRogerM@JohnDeere.com] Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 2:37 PM To: sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: draft Ballot 4 available for discussion through May 10, 2008 I thought I had sent the message below last night, but for some reason it was stuck in my outbox, so I'm resending. More updates shortly ... SysML RTF-- An initial draft Ballot 4 is now available for review and discussion on the SysML RTF wiki at http://www.omg.org/members/sysml-rtf-wiki/doku.php?id=rtf:ballot4. Ballot 4 will be open for discussion through May 10, 2008. Voting is scheduled to begin Sunday, May 11 so that voting can be completed by the RTF report deadline of Monday, May 26. This current draft ballot includes 54 proposed resolutions including issues which are being deferred because no resolution was reached by the RTF. Deferred resolutions are not included for issues received by OMG later than the January 1, 2008 RTF Issue, since OMG will automatically defer these issues to the next RTF. I expect to include some additional draft resolutions for the Blocks and Constraint Blocks chapters, and one in the General category, later on Monday, May 5. Otherwise, this draft ballot covers the entire set of current issues against the SysML 1.0 spec. Because of the large number of issues, please try to begin reviewing these draft proposals and raise any questions and concerns while there is still at least some time for discussion. Because of the shortened time for this last discussion period, if major questions arise about any proposed resolution we can consider changing the resolution to "Deferred" so that further discussion can continue to occur in the next RTF. Thanks to everyone who contributed draft resolutions to this ballot. --Roger 11654_resolved(am comments).doc 10058_resolved(am comments).doc X-MailScanner-Watermark: 1210948710.00886@7UBGQCw4np3VjC068iBBvw Reply-To: From: "Conrad Bock" To: "'Alan Moore'" , "'Burkhart Roger M'" , Subject: RE: draft Ballot 4 available for discussion through May 10, 2008 Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 10:38:30 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AciutRQ+ioNzdd07R+udoIz4h0p/YwDCICLgAAkkSxA= X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-MailScanner-ID: m49EcTTw031881 X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-MailScanner-From: conrad.bock@nist.gov X-Spam-Status: No Alan, Thanks for your comments, see replies below. Given your input, I'd recommend deferring all these, except the uncontroversial part of issue 11654 (an example of timing constraint on activity diagrams). We can't defer part of an issue and resolve another part, though. Conrad - Issue 11654: (Add a usage example for timelines) Yes, I've found the notation to metamodel mapping for the non-sequence interaction diagrams somewhat underspecified in UML. You're right about needing to specify the semantics for actions-as-properties for other actions besides call behavior action. - Issue 10058 (Generalizing Activities) Thanks for the point about interruptible regioins not being redefinable. I'll file a UML issue that activity regions in general should be redefinable. - Issue 10502 (Chapter 11: behaviors on block diagrams only) > I would like as part of this resolution to stress that > Activities appearing on Block definition Diagrams are not > serialized to XMI as Blocks. The model elements represented are > still activities, not blocks. They are if the block stereotype is applied to them (a stereotype can be applied to M1 instances of any M2 subtype of the base class). Perhaps the "activity" keyword should be a stereotype smime17.p7s