Issue 10410: Section: 9.3.2.5 FlowPort (sysml-rtf) Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG (Mr. Tim Weilkiens, tim.weilkiens(at)oose.de) Nature: Clarification Severity: Significant Summary: The relationship between a behavioral flow port and parameters is marked as a semantic variation point. Isn't it possible to specify a concrete relationship here? The specification proposes a binding relationship. What is a binding relationship? It is not known in SysML or UML. Resolution: Defer Postponed to the next RTF Revised Text: Actions taken: October 13, 2006: received issue January 3, 2017: Deferred April 6, 2017: closed issue Discussion: We did not reach an agreement on this during our discussions for the initial submission - it is too complicated for the RTF. We recommend to bring this issue to the next version of SysML. Disposition: Deferred 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: We did not reach an agreement on this during our discussions for the initial submission – it is too complicated for the RTF. We recommend to bring this issue to the next version of SysML. Disposition: Deferred End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 13 Oct 2006 11:09:24 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Tim Weilkiens Company: oose Innovative Informatik GmbH mailFrom: tim.weilkiens@oose.de Notification: Yes Specification: UML Superstructure Section: 9.3.2.5 FlowPort FormalNumber: ptc/06-05-04 Version: 1.0 RevisionDate: 04/05/06 Page: 63 Nature: Clarification Severity: Significant HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) Description The relationship between a behavioral flow port and parameters is marked as a semantic variation point. Isn't it possible to specify a concrete relationship here? The specification proposes a binding relationship. What is a binding relationship? It is not known in SysML or UML. Subject: Concerning 10410: relationship between behavioral flow ports and parameters X-KeepSent: 294615D3:4FD48142-C2257B08:0031FE69; type=4; name=$KeepSent To: sysml-rtf@omg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.3 September 15, 2011 From: Eldad Palachi Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 11:14:02 +0200 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D06ML319/06/M/IBM(Release 8.5.3 ZX853HP5|January 12, 2012) at 04/02/2013 11:13:54 x-cbid: 13020409-0342-0000-0000-0000041AF49F X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org (See attached file: 10410_deferred.doc) I am trying to review the list of P&F issues and clean them up Concerning 10410: relationship between behavioral flow ports and parameters. I think we should close this issue with no change saying that flow ports were deprecated and have a new issue instead for mapping directed features to activity parameters. What do you think? Any objections? Eldad 10410_deferred.doc Disposition: Deferred OMG Issue No: 10410 Title: Section 9.3.2.5: relationship between behavioral flow port and parameters Source: oose Innovative Informatik GmbH (Mr. Tim Weilkiens, tim.weilkiens@oose.de) Summary: The relationship between a behavioral flow port and parameters is marked as a semantic variation point. Isn't it possible to specify a concrete relationship here? The specification proposes a binding relationship. What is a binding relationship? It is not known in SysML or UML. Discussion: Following is the discussion from a previous deferred resolution by the SysML 1.1 RTF: We did not reach an agreement on this during our discussions for the initial submission . it is too complicated for the RTF. We recommend to bring this issue to the next version of SysML. This issue is being deferred because no proposed resolution was voted on during the schedule of the SysML 1.3 RTF. Disposition: Deferred From: "BERNARD, Yves" To: Eldad Palachi , "sysml-rtf@omg.org" Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 10:43:03 +0100 Subject: RE: Concerning 10410: relationship between behavioral flow ports and parameters Thread-Topic: Concerning 10410: relationship between behavioral flow ports and parameters Thread-Index: Ac4CuDnK623YjqoaS/GYhvOcYmRsCgAA0r3Q Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: fr-FR, en-US X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id r149hCgn030486 Agree, but this does not preclude clarifying the relationship between ports and parameter in general... So if we have another issue to trace it, ok to close #10410. Otherwise we can reformulate this point in a new and more general issue. What do you think? Yves -----Original Message----- From: Eldad Palachi [mailto:eldad.palachi@il.ibm.com] Sent: lundi 4 fĂ©ier 2013 10:14 To: sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: Concerning 10410: relationship between behavioral flow ports and parameters (See attached file: 10410_deferred.doc) I am trying to review the list of P&F issues and clean them up Concerning 10410: relationship between behavioral flow ports and parameters. I think we should close this issue with no change saying that flow ports were deprecated and have a new issue instead for mapping directed features to activity parameters. What do you think? Any objections? Eldad This mail has originated outside your organization, either from an external partner or the Global Internet. Keep this in mind if you answer this message. The information in this e-mail is confidential. The contents may not be disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Airbus immediately and delete this e-mail. Airbus cannot accept any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this e-mail as it has been sent over public networks. If you have any concerns over the content of this message or its Accuracy or Integrity, please contact Airbus immediately. All outgoing e-mails from Airbus are checked using regularly updated virus scanning software but you should take whatever measures you deem to be appropriate to ensure that this message and any attachments are virus free. Subject: RE: Concerning 10410: relationship between behavioral flow ports and parameters X-KeepSent: 3FDA773F:FDAF5CC1-C2257B08:0036CD44; type=4; name=$KeepSent To: "BERNARD, Yves" Cc: "sysml-rtf@omg.org" X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.3 September 15, 2011 From: Eldad Palachi Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 11:59:41 +0200 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D06ML319/06/M/IBM(Release 8.5.3 ZX853HP5|January 12, 2012) at 04/02/2013 11:59:34 x-cbid: 13020409-3548-0000-0000-00000473916B X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id r149xpfM031694 Yes - this is what I mean. A new issue on how to map directed features of port types with activity parameters of the owning block's behavior. From: "BERNARD, Yves" To: Eldad Palachi/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, "sysml-rtf@omg.org" , Date: 04/02/2013 11:43 AM Subject: RE: Concerning 10410: relationship between behavioral flow ports and parameters Agree, but this does not preclude clarifying the relationship between ports and parameter in general... So if we have another issue to trace it, ok to close #10410. Otherwise we can reformulate this point in a new and more general issue. What do you think? Yves -----Original Message----- From: Eldad Palachi [mailto:eldad.palachi@il.ibm.com] Sent: lundi 4 fĂ©ier 2013 10:14 To: sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: Concerning 10410: relationship between behavioral flow ports and parameters (See attached file: 10410_deferred.doc) I am trying to review the list of P&F issues and clean them up Concerning 10410: relationship between behavioral flow ports and parameters. I think we should close this issue with no change saying that flow ports were deprecated and have a new issue instead for mapping directed features to activity parameters. What do you think? Any objections? Eldad This mail has originated outside your organization, either from an external partner or the Global Internet. Keep this in mind if you answer this message. The information in this e-mail is confidential. The contents may not be disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Airbus immediately and delete this e-mail. Airbus cannot accept any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this e-mail as it has been sent over public networks. If you have any concerns over the content of this message or its Accuracy or Integrity, please contact Airbus immediately. All outgoing e-mails from Airbus are checked using regularly updated virus scanning software but you should take whatever measures you deem to be appropriate to ensure that this message and any attachments are virus free. DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-mailer:thread-index:content-language; bh=E/jZAe3qCY/sOCDjwjSP5R2CqeUlR84l/6EjGeyIQYY=; b=BRXZ8vvgsKTyc4SriLsyBF2tkN2WBBfQQ5w4hlsxIZpsGL81KqjVH+UXnm2lwdc58O SVCmG5xfVYZp5tNJXH/+hXO7IZ8bBMy3WTsqAjOb5PEt0D8nK3SBJVFgRx+7dWH4nAFX TITIY02Ppu4RxVaOv0ojtzHWt15I+kdrrg77na/a4RktOO/OKRFCdWOHmdlwrzkloDbG un5urunrsiIqSN0UM7aLKU0ogPsrFh1u7ER8Z7KnpOvsCFileYuefpjAyz5KEXQzWI7m FBJdv9gIaDDPYE3K02yTk1OonoxYe0Acvpmzyf3ItP7wVMmAZfPbwfPlgCheQB8grRrN H95Q== X-Received: by 10.50.152.198 with SMTP id va6mr5335545igb.42.1359972417926; Mon, 04 Feb 2013 02:06:57 -0800 (PST) From: "Sanford Friedenthal" To: "'Eldad Palachi'" , Cc: "'CUCCURU Arnaud'" Subject: RE: Concerning 10410: relationship between behavioral flow ports and parameters Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 05:06:50 -0500 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Ac4CuEl1teZ1ygiHRtGBR+OVM0Mw3gABtAVA X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org Eldad I agree we should close this issue and reopen. However, the solution should be worked in concert with the approach to Precise Semantics for UML Composite Structures. Can you work it through that submission and then bring back a resolution consistent with that? Sandy -----Original Message----- From: Eldad Palachi [mailto:eldad.palachi@il.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 4:14 AM To: sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: Concerning 10410: relationship between behavioral flow ports and parameters (See attached file: 10410_deferred.doc) I am trying to review the list of P&F issues and clean them up Concerning 10410: relationship between behavioral flow ports and parameters. I think we should close this issue with no change saying that flow ports were deprecated and have a new issue instead for mapping directed features to activity parameters. What do you think? Any objections? Eldad From: "Bock, Conrad" To: "sysml-rtf@omg.org" Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 13:05:50 -0500 Subject: RE: Concerning 10410: relationship between behavioral flow ports and parameters Thread-Topic: Concerning 10410: relationship between behavioral flow ports and parameters Thread-Index: Ac4CuGEtYHf32F+eTUKmGmvhb+4YbwASSv4Q Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org Eldad, > I think we should close this issue with no change saying that flow > ports were deprecated and have a new issue instead for mapping > directed features to activity parameters. I think 10410 is effectively a duplicate of 14058: http://www.omg.org/issues/issue14058.txt which clarifies that the relationship between flow properties and parameters is of concern, so they still apply.