Issue 11068: Section: 14 Interactions: Lifeline representing an actor (uml2-rtf) Source: oose Innovative Informatik GmbH (Mr. Tim Weilkiens, tim.weilkiens(at)oose.de) Nature: Enhancement Severity: Significant Summary: It is common usage to model a lifeline in a interaction that represents an actor. I can't see how that could be done formally correct. A lifeline represents a connectable element, e.g. a property. It is not allowed to define a property that is typed by an actor. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: May 25, 2007: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 25 May 2007 05:25:23 -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: 14 Interactions: Lifeline representing an actor FormalNumber: formal/2007-02-03 Version: 2.1.1 RevisionDate: 02/03/07 Page: 457ff Nature: Enhancement Severity: Significant HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 1.1.4322) Description It is common usage to model a lifeline in a interaction that represents an actor. I can't see how that could be done formally correct. A lifeline represents a connectable element, e.g. a property. It is not allowed to define a property that is typed by an actor. Subject: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor From: Florian Schneider Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 12:39:10 +0200 To: uml2-rtf@omg.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, I have a comment regarding issue 11068, reported by Mr. Tim Weilkiens. Mr. Weilkiens claims the following: "A lifeline represents a connectable element, e.g. a property". I believe that this is not correct because a ConnectableElement is a subclass of TypedElement so it can have any type. I don't see why it is equivalent to a property. Concerning this issue, I am interested in a clarification whether there are constraints on what Type subclasses may be placed on a Sequence Diagram (Exemplary questions: May an Actor be placed on a sequence diagram? May a use case be placed on a sequence diagram? May a package be placed on a sequence diagram?). With best regards, Florian Schneider -------------------------------- Dipl.-Inf. Univ. Florian Schneider Research Assistant Chair for Applied Software Engineering Technische UniversitäMü Tel.: +49 (89) 289-18233 Fax.: +49 (89) 289-18207 Web http://www1.in.tum.de/FlorianSchneider Address: Lehrstuhl füewandte Softwaretechnik, I1 Technische UniversitäMü Institut füormatik Boltzmannstraß 3 D-85748 Garching smime.p7s Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 11:52:20 +0100 From: Dave Hawkins User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090302) To: Florian Schneider CC: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-Source-IP: acsinet15.oracle.com [141.146.126.227] X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090207.4BFFA0A5.003A:SCFMA922111,ss=1,fgs=0 The quoted sentence doesn't say it's equivalent, it's simply giving an example. Property is a subclass of ConnectableElement and therefore it is valid for Lifeline::represents to be a Property. Cheers, Dave Florian Schneider wrote: Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, I have a comment regarding issue 11068, reported by Mr. Tim Weilkiens. Mr. Weilkiens claims the following: "A lifeline represents a connectable element, e.g. a property". I believe that this is not correct because a ConnectableElement is a subclass of TypedElement so it can have any type. I don't see why it is equivalent to a property. Concerning this issue, I am interested in a clarification whether there are constraints on what Type subclasses may be placed on a Sequence Diagram (Exemplary questions: May an Actor be placed on a sequence diagram? May a use case be placed on a sequence diagram? May a package be placed on a sequence diagram?). With best regards, Florian Schneider -------------------------------- Dipl.-Inf. Univ. Florian Schneider Research Assistant Chair for Applied Software Engineering Technische UniversitäMü Tel.: +49 (89) 289-18233 Fax.: +49 (89) 289-18207 Web http://www1.in.tum.de/FlorianSchneider Address: Lehrstuhl füewandte Softwaretechnik, I1 Technische UniversitäMü Institut füormatik Boltzmannstraß 3 D-85748 Garching -- Dave Hawkins | Principal Software Engineer | +44 118 924 0022 Oracle JDeveloper Development Oracle Corporation UK Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. Company Reg. No. 1782505. Reg. office: Oracle Parkway, Thames Valley Park, Reading RG6 1RA. From: Østein Haugen To: Dave Hawkins , Florian Schneider CC: "uml2-rtf@omg.org" , Østein Haugen Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 13:59:49 +0200 Subject: RE: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor Thread-Topic: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor Thread-Index: Acr+VE/9coUr3oyLSYO10b/llwN/GAACCiaQ Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id o4SBm9Lc000892 I agree with Dave's point, but let me provide the motivation for why a Lifeline respresents a ConnectableElement and not merely a Property. The reason is that there was a need to let sequence diagrams describe communications with Parameters and Parameter is not a specialization of Property. About the Type subclasses that you are asking about, I get a little confused, since Actor is not Property, and neither are UseCase nor Package, so these things cannot be represented by Lifelines. /Oystein ---- Dr. Oystein Haugen Senior Researcher SINTEF -----Original Message----- From: Dave Hawkins [mailto:dave.hawkins@oracle.com] Sent: 28. mai 2010 12:52 To: Florian Schneider Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor The quoted sentence doesn't say it's equivalent, it's simply giving an example. Property is a subclass of ConnectableElement and therefore it is valid for Lifeline::represents to be a Property. Cheers, Dave Florian Schneider wrote: > Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, > > I have a comment regarding issue 11068, reported by Mr. Tim Weilkiens. > > Mr. Weilkiens claims the following: "A lifeline represents a connectable element, e.g. a property". I believe that this is not correct because a ConnectableElement is a subclass of TypedElement so it can have any type. I don't see why it is equivalent to a property. > > Concerning this issue, I am interested in a clarification whether there are constraints on what Type subclasses may be placed on a Sequence Diagram (Exemplary questions: May an Actor be placed on a sequence diagram? May a use case be placed on a sequence diagram? May a package be placed on a sequence diagram?). > > With best regards, > Florian Schneider > > > > -------------------------------- > Dipl.-Inf. Univ. Florian Schneider > > Research Assistant > Chair for Applied Software Engineering > Technische UniversitäMü > > Tel.: +49 (89) 289-18233 > Fax.: +49 (89) 289-18207 > Web http://www1.in.tum.de/FlorianSchneider > > Address: > Lehrstuhl füewandte Softwaretechnik, I1 > Technische UniversitäMü > Institut füormatik > Boltzmannstraß 3 > D-85748 Garching > > > > > -- Dave Hawkins | Principal Software Engineer | +44 118 924 0022 Oracle JDeveloper Development Oracle Corporation UK Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. Company Reg. No. 1782505. Reg. office: Oracle Parkway, Thames Valley Park, Reading RG6 1RA. Cc: Dave Hawkins , "uml2-rtf@omg.org" From: Florian Schneider Subject: Re: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 14:47:39 +0200 To: Østein Haugen X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP OK so maybe I got something wrong here. Here is how I understood the metamodel: A lifeline represents a ConnectableElement, which is a TypedElement. A TypedElement has a Type. Subclasses of Type are, among others, Classifier and BehavioredClassifier. Subclasses of Classifier are, among others, Class and Interface. Subclasses of BehavioredClassifier are, among others, Actor and UseCase. So as I understood it would be (syntactically) possible to place e.g. Classes, Interfaces, Actors and UseCases could be placed on a Sequence Diagram. Did I get that right up to here? Cheers, Florian On 28.05.2010, at 13:59, Østein Haugen wrote: > I agree with Dave's point, but let me provide the motivation for why a Lifeline respresents a ConnectableElement and not merely a Property. The reason is that there was a need to let sequence diagrams describe communications with Parameters and Parameter is not a specialization of Property. > > About the Type subclasses that you are asking about, I get a little confused, since Actor is not Property, and neither are UseCase nor Package, so these things cannot be represented by Lifelines. > > /Oystein > > > ---- > Dr. Oystein Haugen > Senior Researcher > SINTEF > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Hawkins [mailto:dave.hawkins@oracle.com] > Sent: 28. mai 2010 12:52 > To: Florian Schneider > Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org > Subject: Re: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor > > The quoted sentence doesn't say it's equivalent, it's simply giving an example. Property > is a subclass of ConnectableElement and therefore it is valid for Lifeline::represents to > be a Property. > > Cheers, > > Dave > > Florian Schneider wrote: >> Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, >> >> I have a comment regarding issue 11068, reported by Mr. Tim Weilkiens. >> >> Mr. Weilkiens claims the following: "A lifeline represents a connectable element, e.g. a property". I believe that this is not correct because a ConnectableElement is a subclass of TypedElement so it can have any type. I don't see why it is equivalent to a property. >> >> Concerning this issue, I am interested in a clarification whether there are constraints on what Type subclasses may be placed on a Sequence Diagram (Exemplary questions: May an Actor be placed on a sequence diagram? May a use case be placed on a sequence diagram? May a package be placed on a sequence diagram?). >> >> With best regards, >> Florian Schneider >> >> >> >> -------------------------------- >> Dipl.-Inf. Univ. Florian Schneider >> >> Research Assistant >> Chair for Applied Software Engineering >> Technische UniversitäMü >> >> Tel.: +49 (89) 289-18233 >> Fax.: +49 (89) 289-18207 >> Web http://www1.in.tum.de/FlorianSchneider >> >> Address: >> Lehrstuhl füewandte Softwaretechnik, I1 >> Technische UniversitäMü >> Institut füormatik >> Boltzmannstraß 3 >> D-85748 Garching >> >> >> >> >> > > -- > Dave Hawkins | Principal Software Engineer | +44 118 924 0022 > Oracle JDeveloper Development > Oracle Corporation UK Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. > Company Reg. No. 1782505. > Reg. office: Oracle Parkway, Thames Valley Park, Reading RG6 1RA. smime1.p7s From: Østein Haugen To: Florian Schneider CC: Dave Hawkins , "uml2-rtf@omg.org" , Østein Haugen Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 14:58:49 +0200 Subject: RE: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor Thread-Topic: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor Thread-Index: Acr+Y/eOpRW4wEgWRMKDUPWWToGI+gAAHYbw Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id o4SCl8BR005779 Florian Model Elements that themselves are Types (such as Actor) are not "placed" in a sequence diagram (there is no concrete syntax for that), but since Interaction is a Class, such Types can be included in Interaction through the model browser. But, I do not think this is what you are asking. I sense a slight ambiguity in what you are writing since you must distinguish clearly between the elements that _have_ a type, and those that _are_ a type. Actor _is_ a type, but you do not find diagrams where there are connectable elements having a specific Actor as type. If you found such a context, you could also describe its behavior through an Interaction and let that connectable element be represented by a Lifeline. (Actors are found in use case diagrams, but the elements there are Actors, not connectable elements.) /Oystein ---- Dr. Oystein Haugen Senior Researcher SINTEF -----Original Message----- From: Florian Schneider [mailto:schneidf@in.tum.de] Sent: 28. mai 2010 14:48 To: Østein Haugen Cc: Dave Hawkins; uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor OK so maybe I got something wrong here. Here is how I understood the metamodel: A lifeline represents a ConnectableElement, which is a TypedElement. A TypedElement has a Type. Subclasses of Type are, among others, Classifier and BehavioredClassifier. Subclasses of Classifier are, among others, Class and Interface. Subclasses of BehavioredClassifier are, among others, Actor and UseCase. So as I understood it would be (syntactically) possible to place e.g. Classes, Interfaces, Actors and UseCases could be placed on a Sequence Diagram. Did I get that right up to here? Cheers, Florian On 28.05.2010, at 13:59, Østein Haugen wrote: > I agree with Dave's point, but let me provide the motivation for why a Lifeline respresents a ConnectableElement and not merely a Property. The reason is that there was a need to let sequence diagrams describe communications with Parameters and Parameter is not a specialization of Property. > > About the Type subclasses that you are asking about, I get a little confused, since Actor is not Property, and neither are UseCase nor Package, so these things cannot be represented by Lifelines. > > /Oystein > > > ---- > Dr. Oystein Haugen > Senior Researcher > SINTEF > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Hawkins [mailto:dave.hawkins@oracle.com] > Sent: 28. mai 2010 12:52 > To: Florian Schneider > Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org > Subject: Re: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor > > The quoted sentence doesn't say it's equivalent, it's simply giving an example. Property > is a subclass of ConnectableElement and therefore it is valid for Lifeline::represents to > be a Property. > > Cheers, > > Dave > > Florian Schneider wrote: >> Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, >> >> I have a comment regarding issue 11068, reported by Mr. Tim Weilkiens. >> >> Mr. Weilkiens claims the following: "A lifeline represents a connectable element, e.g. a property". I believe that this is not correct because a ConnectableElement is a subclass of TypedElement so it can have any type. I don't see why it is equivalent to a property. >> >> Concerning this issue, I am interested in a clarification whether there are constraints on what Type subclasses may be placed on a Sequence Diagram (Exemplary questions: May an Actor be placed on a sequence diagram? May a use case be placed on a sequence diagram? May a package be placed on a sequence diagram?). >> >> With best regards, >> Florian Schneider >> >> >> >> -------------------------------- >> Dipl.-Inf. Univ. Florian Schneider >> >> Research Assistant >> Chair for Applied Software Engineering >> Technische UniversitäMü >> >> Tel.: +49 (89) 289-18233 >> Fax.: +49 (89) 289-18207 >> Web http://www1.in.tum.de/FlorianSchneider >> >> Address: >> Lehrstuhl füewandte Softwaretechnik, I1 >> Technische UniversitäMü >> Institut füormatik >> Boltzmannstraß 3 >> D-85748 Garching >> >> >> >> >> > > -- > Dave Hawkins | Principal Software Engineer | +44 118 924 0022 > Oracle JDeveloper Development > Oracle Corporation UK Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. > Company Reg. No. 1782505. > Reg. office: Oracle Parkway, Thames Valley Park, Reading RG6 1RA. Cc: Dave Hawkins , "uml2-rtf@omg.org" From: Florian Schneider Subject: Re: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 15:20:18 +0200 To: Østein Haugen X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP I am sorry for any ambiguity! I agree that an instance of the class Actor is not in a sequence diagram (I also agree that it can be part of a use case diagram). But ConnectableElement, through its superclass TypedElement has an association (which is named 'type') to the class Type. So when talking about a "ConnectableElement of type Actor", I mean that the association named type of the ConnectableElement instance points to an instance of the class Actor. I found no constraint that would make that impossible. Let's say we have a Lifeline that represents a ConnectableElement of type Actor. How is that notationally reflected on the according sequence diagram? Cheers, Florian On 28.05.2010, at 14:58, Østein Haugen wrote: > Florian > Model Elements that themselves are Types (such as Actor) are not "placed" in a sequence diagram (there is no concrete syntax for that), but since Interaction is a Class, such Types can be included in Interaction through the model browser. > > But, I do not think this is what you are asking. I sense a slight ambiguity in what you are writing since you must distinguish clearly between the elements that _have_ a type, and those that _are_ a type. Actor _is_ a type, but you do not find diagrams where there are connectable elements having a specific Actor as type. If you found such a context, you could also describe its behavior through an Interaction and let that connectable element be represented by a Lifeline. > > (Actors are found in use case diagrams, but the elements there are Actors, not connectable elements.) > > /Oystein > > > ---- > Dr. Oystein Haugen > Senior Researcher > SINTEF > > -----Original Message----- > From: Florian Schneider [mailto:schneidf@in.tum.de] > Sent: 28. mai 2010 14:48 > To: Østein Haugen > Cc: Dave Hawkins; uml2-rtf@omg.org > Subject: Re: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor > > OK so maybe I got something wrong here. > > Here is how I understood the metamodel: A lifeline represents a ConnectableElement, which is a TypedElement. A TypedElement has a Type. Subclasses of Type are, among others, Classifier and BehavioredClassifier. Subclasses of Classifier are, among others, Class and Interface. Subclasses of BehavioredClassifier are, among others, Actor and UseCase. > So as I understood it would be (syntactically) possible to place e.g. Classes, Interfaces, Actors and UseCases could be placed on a Sequence Diagram. Did I get that right up to here? > > Cheers, > Florian > > On 28.05.2010, at 13:59, Østein Haugen wrote: > >> I agree with Dave's point, but let me provide the motivation for why a Lifeline respresents a ConnectableElement and not merely a Property. The reason is that there was a need to let sequence diagrams describe communications with Parameters and Parameter is not a specialization of Property. >> >> About the Type subclasses that you are asking about, I get a little confused, since Actor is not Property, and neither are UseCase nor Package, so these things cannot be represented by Lifelines. >> >> /Oystein >> >> >> ---- >> Dr. Oystein Haugen >> Senior Researcher >> SINTEF >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dave Hawkins [mailto:dave.hawkins@oracle.com] >> Sent: 28. mai 2010 12:52 >> To: Florian Schneider >> Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org >> Subject: Re: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor >> >> The quoted sentence doesn't say it's equivalent, it's simply giving an example. Property >> is a subclass of ConnectableElement and therefore it is valid for Lifeline::represents to >> be a Property. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Dave >> >> Florian Schneider wrote: >>> Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, >>> >>> I have a comment regarding issue 11068, reported by Mr. Tim Weilkiens. >>> >>> Mr. Weilkiens claims the following: "A lifeline represents a connectable element, e.g. a property". I believe that this is not correct because a ConnectableElement is a subclass of TypedElement so it can have any type. I don't see why it is equivalent to a property. >>> >>> Concerning this issue, I am interested in a clarification whether there are constraints on what Type subclasses may be placed on a Sequence Diagram (Exemplary questions: May an Actor be placed on a sequence diagram? May a use case be placed on a sequence diagram? May a package be placed on a sequence diagram?). >>> >>> With best regards, >>> Florian Schneider >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------- >>> Dipl.-Inf. Univ. Florian Schneider >>> >>> Research Assistant >>> Chair for Applied Software Engineering >>> Technische UniversitäMü >>> >>> Tel.: +49 (89) 289-18233 >>> Fax.: +49 (89) 289-18207 >>> Web http://www1.in.tum.de/FlorianSchneider >>> >>> Address: >>> Lehrstuhl füewandte Softwaretechnik, I1 >>> Technische UniversitäMü >>> Institut füormatik >>> Boltzmannstraß 3 >>> D-85748 Garching >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Dave Hawkins | Principal Software Engineer | +44 118 924 0022 >> Oracle JDeveloper Development >> Oracle Corporation UK Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. >> Company Reg. No. 1782505. >> Reg. office: Oracle Parkway, Thames Valley Park, Reading RG6 1RA. > smime2.p7s From: Østein Haugen To: Florian Schneider CC: Dave Hawkins , "uml2-rtf@omg.org" , Østein Haugen Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 15:26:39 +0200 Subject: RE: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor Thread-Topic: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor Thread-Index: Acr+aIY/+AE1lGMhTWmgftqNYK/RLQAAGrWw Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id o4SDEsTV009275 Florian If you find such a connectable element, then a corresponding Lifeline to represent it looks just like any other lifeline with the head containing "name of connectable element : name of Actor" You cannot legally use the Actor symbol on that lifeline even though I know several tools have implemented this option probably because they are still hung up on UML1 stuff. /Oystein ---- Dr. Oystein Haugen Senior Researcher SINTEF -----Original Message----- From: Florian Schneider [mailto:schneidf@in.tum.de] Sent: 28. mai 2010 15:20 To: Østein Haugen Cc: Dave Hawkins; uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor I am sorry for any ambiguity! I agree that an instance of the class Actor is not in a sequence diagram (I also agree that it can be part of a use case diagram). But ConnectableElement, through its superclass TypedElement has an association (which is named 'type') to the class Type. So when talking about a "ConnectableElement of type Actor", I mean that the association named type of the ConnectableElement instance points to an instance of the class Actor. I found no constraint that would make that impossible. Let's say we have a Lifeline that represents a ConnectableElement of type Actor. How is that notationally reflected on the according sequence diagram? Cheers, Florian On 28.05.2010, at 14:58, Østein Haugen wrote: > Florian > Model Elements that themselves are Types (such as Actor) are not "placed" in a sequence diagram (there is no concrete syntax for that), but since Interaction is a Class, such Types can be included in Interaction through the model browser. > > But, I do not think this is what you are asking. I sense a slight ambiguity in what you are writing since you must distinguish clearly between the elements that _have_ a type, and those that _are_ a type. Actor _is_ a type, but you do not find diagrams where there are connectable elements having a specific Actor as type. If you found such a context, you could also describe its behavior through an Interaction and let that connectable element be represented by a Lifeline. > > (Actors are found in use case diagrams, but the elements there are Actors, not connectable elements.) > > /Oystein > > > ---- > Dr. Oystein Haugen > Senior Researcher > SINTEF > > -----Original Message----- > From: Florian Schneider [mailto:schneidf@in.tum.de] > Sent: 28. mai 2010 14:48 > To: Østein Haugen > Cc: Dave Hawkins; uml2-rtf@omg.org > Subject: Re: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor > > OK so maybe I got something wrong here. > > Here is how I understood the metamodel: A lifeline represents a ConnectableElement, which is a TypedElement. A TypedElement has a Type. Subclasses of Type are, among others, Classifier and BehavioredClassifier. Subclasses of Classifier are, among others, Class and Interface. Subclasses of BehavioredClassifier are, among others, Actor and UseCase. > So as I understood it would be (syntactically) possible to place e.g. Classes, Interfaces, Actors and UseCases could be placed on a Sequence Diagram. Did I get that right up to here? > > Cheers, > Florian > > On 28.05.2010, at 13:59, Østein Haugen wrote: > >> I agree with Dave's point, but let me provide the motivation for why a Lifeline respresents a ConnectableElement and not merely a Property. The reason is that there was a need to let sequence diagrams describe communications with Parameters and Parameter is not a specialization of Property. >> >> About the Type subclasses that you are asking about, I get a little confused, since Actor is not Property, and neither are UseCase nor Package, so these things cannot be represented by Lifelines. >> >> /Oystein >> >> >> ---- >> Dr. Oystein Haugen >> Senior Researcher >> SINTEF >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dave Hawkins [mailto:dave.hawkins@oracle.com] >> Sent: 28. mai 2010 12:52 >> To: Florian Schneider >> Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org >> Subject: Re: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor >> >> The quoted sentence doesn't say it's equivalent, it's simply giving an example. Property >> is a subclass of ConnectableElement and therefore it is valid for Lifeline::represents to >> be a Property. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Dave >> >> Florian Schneider wrote: >>> Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, >>> >>> I have a comment regarding issue 11068, reported by Mr. Tim Weilkiens. >>> >>> Mr. Weilkiens claims the following: "A lifeline represents a connectable element, e.g. a property". I believe that this is not correct because a ConnectableElement is a subclass of TypedElement so it can have any type. I don't see why it is equivalent to a property. >>> >>> Concerning this issue, I am interested in a clarification whether there are constraints on what Type subclasses may be placed on a Sequence Diagram (Exemplary questions: May an Actor be placed on a sequence diagram? May a use case be placed on a sequence diagram? May a package be placed on a sequence diagram?). >>> >>> With best regards, >>> Florian Schneider >>> >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------- >>> Dipl.-Inf. Univ. Florian Schneider >>> >>> Research Assistant >>> Chair for Applied Software Engineering >>> Technische UniversitäMü >>> >>> Tel.: +49 (89) 289-18233 >>> Fax.: +49 (89) 289-18207 >>> Web http://www1.in.tum.de/FlorianSchneider >>> >>> Address: >>> Lehrstuhl füewandte Softwaretechnik, I1 >>> Technische UniversitäMü >>> Institut füormatik >>> Boltzmannstraß 3 >>> D-85748 Garching >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Dave Hawkins | Principal Software Engineer | +44 118 924 0022 >> Oracle JDeveloper Development >> Oracle Corporation UK Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. >> Company Reg. No. 1782505. >> Reg. office: Oracle Parkway, Thames Valley Park, Reading RG6 1RA. > Cc: Dave Hawkins , "uml2-rtf@omg.org" From: Florian Schneider Subject: Re: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 15:37:50 +0200 To: Østein Haugen X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Thanks Oystein for the clarification! To sum things up: The actor symbol is not allowed in sequence and communication diagrams, but in fact elements on these diagrams can represent actor instances. Same goes for instances of other Type subclasses. Is that correct? In the situation I described: Is it correct to say the lifeline represents an actor instance? Regards, Florian On 28.05.2010, at 15:26, Østein Haugen wrote: > Florian > If you find such a connectable element, then a corresponding Lifeline to represent it looks just like any other lifeline with the head containing "name of connectable element : name of Actor" > You cannot legally use the Actor symbol on that lifeline even though I know several tools have implemented this option probably because they are still hung up on UML1 stuff. > > /Oystein > > > ---- > Dr. Oystein Haugen > Senior Researcher > SINTEF > > -----Original Message----- > From: Florian Schneider [mailto:schneidf@in.tum.de] > Sent: 28. mai 2010 15:20 > To: Østein Haugen > Cc: Dave Hawkins; uml2-rtf@omg.org > Subject: Re: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor > > I am sorry for any ambiguity! > > I agree that an instance of the class Actor is not in a sequence diagram (I also agree that it can be part of a use case diagram). But ConnectableElement, through its superclass TypedElement has an association (which is named 'type') to the class Type. > So when talking about a "ConnectableElement of type Actor", I mean that the association named type of the ConnectableElement instance points to an instance of the class Actor. I found no constraint that would make that impossible. > > Let's say we have a Lifeline that represents a ConnectableElement of type Actor. How is that notationally reflected on the according sequence diagram? > > Cheers, > Florian > > On 28.05.2010, at 14:58, Østein Haugen wrote: > >> Florian >> Model Elements that themselves are Types (such as Actor) are not "placed" in a sequence diagram (there is no concrete syntax for that), but since Interaction is a Class, such Types can be included in Interaction through the model browser. >> >> But, I do not think this is what you are asking. I sense a slight ambiguity in what you are writing since you must distinguish clearly between the elements that _have_ a type, and those that _are_ a type. Actor _is_ a type, but you do not find diagrams where there are connectable elements having a specific Actor as type. If you found such a context, you could also describe its behavior through an Interaction and let that connectable element be represented by a Lifeline. >> >> (Actors are found in use case diagrams, but the elements there are Actors, not connectable elements.) >> >> /Oystein >> >> >> ---- >> Dr. Oystein Haugen >> Senior Researcher >> SINTEF >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Florian Schneider [mailto:schneidf@in.tum.de] >> Sent: 28. mai 2010 14:48 >> To: Østein Haugen >> Cc: Dave Hawkins; uml2-rtf@omg.org >> Subject: Re: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor >> >> OK so maybe I got something wrong here. >> >> Here is how I understood the metamodel: A lifeline represents a ConnectableElement, which is a TypedElement. A TypedElement has a Type. Subclasses of Type are, among others, Classifier and BehavioredClassifier. Subclasses of Classifier are, among others, Class and Interface. Subclasses of BehavioredClassifier are, among others, Actor and UseCase. >> So as I understood it would be (syntactically) possible to place e.g. Classes, Interfaces, Actors and UseCases could be placed on a Sequence Diagram. Did I get that right up to here? >> >> Cheers, >> Florian >> >> On 28.05.2010, at 13:59, Østein Haugen wrote: >> >>> I agree with Dave's point, but let me provide the motivation for why a Lifeline respresents a ConnectableElement and not merely a Property. The reason is that there was a need to let sequence diagrams describe communications with Parameters and Parameter is not a specialization of Property. >>> >>> About the Type subclasses that you are asking about, I get a little confused, since Actor is not Property, and neither are UseCase nor Package, so these things cannot be represented by Lifelines. >>> >>> /Oystein >>> >>> >>> ---- >>> Dr. Oystein Haugen >>> Senior Researcher >>> SINTEF >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Dave Hawkins [mailto:dave.hawkins@oracle.com] >>> Sent: 28. mai 2010 12:52 >>> To: Florian Schneider >>> Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org >>> Subject: Re: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor >>> >>> The quoted sentence doesn't say it's equivalent, it's simply giving an example. Property >>> is a subclass of ConnectableElement and therefore it is valid for Lifeline::represents to >>> be a Property. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Dave >>> >>> Florian Schneider wrote: >>>> Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, >>>> >>>> I have a comment regarding issue 11068, reported by Mr. Tim Weilkiens. >>>> >>>> Mr. Weilkiens claims the following: "A lifeline represents a connectable element, e.g. a property". I believe that this is not correct because a ConnectableElement is a subclass of TypedElement so it can have any type. I don't see why it is equivalent to a property. >>>> >>>> Concerning this issue, I am interested in a clarification whether there are constraints on what Type subclasses may be placed on a Sequence Diagram (Exemplary questions: May an Actor be placed on a sequence diagram? May a use case be placed on a sequence diagram? May a package be placed on a sequence diagram?). >>>> >>>> With best regards, >>>> Florian Schneider >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------------------- >>>> Dipl.-Inf. Univ. Florian Schneider >>>> >>>> Research Assistant >>>> Chair for Applied Software Engineering >>>> Technische UniversitäMü >>>> >>>> Tel.: +49 (89) 289-18233 >>>> Fax.: +49 (89) 289-18207 >>>> Web http://www1.in.tum.de/FlorianSchneider >>>> >>>> Address: >>>> Lehrstuhl füewandte Softwaretechnik, I1 >>>> Technische UniversitäMü >>>> Institut füormatik >>>> Boltzmannstraß 3 >>>> D-85748 Garching >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dave Hawkins | Principal Software Engineer | +44 118 924 0022 >>> Oracle JDeveloper Development >>> Oracle Corporation UK Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. >>> Company Reg. No. 1782505. >>> Reg. office: Oracle Parkway, Thames Valley Park, Reading RG6 1RA. >> > smime3.p7s From: Østein Haugen To: Florian Schneider CC: Dave Hawkins , "uml2-rtf@omg.org" , Østein Haugen Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 15:50:28 +0200 Subject: RE: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor Thread-Topic: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor Thread-Index: Acr+avkEvDsLXd/PTrOD4QC0rFjZewAAIZ/g Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id o4SDcrC8017757 Florian We are converging ( The only slight problem with how you summarize the situation is your use of the word "instance". We are talking here about connectable elements. Instance specifications are something else, and I will _not_ open that can of worms now. Still, I would also point out that it is not so simple to find meaningful contexts where these very special connectable elements appear, and there is a constraint demanding that all lifelines in an Interaction represent connectable elements of the same context/container/composite structure. "The classifier containing the referenced ConnectableElement must be the same classifier, or an ancestor, of the classifier that contains the interaction enclosing this lifeline." /Oystein ---- Dr. Oystein Haugen Senior Researcher SINTEF -----Original Message----- From: Florian Schneider [mailto:schneidf@in.tum.de] Sent: 28. mai 2010 15:38 To: Østein Haugen Cc: Dave Hawkins; uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor Thanks Oystein for the clarification! To sum things up: The actor symbol is not allowed in sequence and communication diagrams, but in fact elements on these diagrams can represent actor instances. Same goes for instances of other Type subclasses. Is that correct? In the situation I described: Is it correct to say the lifeline represents an actor instance? Regards, Florian On 28.05.2010, at 15:26, Østein Haugen wrote: > Florian > If you find such a connectable element, then a corresponding Lifeline to represent it looks just like any other lifeline with the head containing "name of connectable element : name of Actor" > You cannot legally use the Actor symbol on that lifeline even though I know several tools have implemented this option probably because they are still hung up on UML1 stuff. > > /Oystein > > > ---- > Dr. Oystein Haugen > Senior Researcher > SINTEF > > -----Original Message----- > From: Florian Schneider [mailto:schneidf@in.tum.de] > Sent: 28. mai 2010 15:20 > To: Østein Haugen > Cc: Dave Hawkins; uml2-rtf@omg.org > Subject: Re: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor > > I am sorry for any ambiguity! > > I agree that an instance of the class Actor is not in a sequence diagram (I also agree that it can be part of a use case diagram). But ConnectableElement, through its superclass TypedElement has an association (which is named 'type') to the class Type. > So when talking about a "ConnectableElement of type Actor", I mean that the association named type of the ConnectableElement instance points to an instance of the class Actor. I found no constraint that would make that impossible. > > Let's say we have a Lifeline that represents a ConnectableElement of type Actor. How is that notationally reflected on the according sequence diagram? > > Cheers, > Florian > > On 28.05.2010, at 14:58, Østein Haugen wrote: > >> Florian >> Model Elements that themselves are Types (such as Actor) are not "placed" in a sequence diagram (there is no concrete syntax for that), but since Interaction is a Class, such Types can be included in Interaction through the model browser. >> >> But, I do not think this is what you are asking. I sense a slight ambiguity in what you are writing since you must distinguish clearly between the elements that _have_ a type, and those that _are_ a type. Actor _is_ a type, but you do not find diagrams where there are connectable elements having a specific Actor as type. If you found such a context, you could also describe its behavior through an Interaction and let that connectable element be represented by a Lifeline. >> >> (Actors are found in use case diagrams, but the elements there are Actors, not connectable elements.) >> >> /Oystein >> >> >> ---- >> Dr. Oystein Haugen >> Senior Researcher >> SINTEF >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Florian Schneider [mailto:schneidf@in.tum.de] >> Sent: 28. mai 2010 14:48 >> To: Østein Haugen >> Cc: Dave Hawkins; uml2-rtf@omg.org >> Subject: Re: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor >> >> OK so maybe I got something wrong here. >> >> Here is how I understood the metamodel: A lifeline represents a ConnectableElement, which is a TypedElement. A TypedElement has a Type. Subclasses of Type are, among others, Classifier and BehavioredClassifier. Subclasses of Classifier are, among others, Class and Interface. Subclasses of BehavioredClassifier are, among others, Actor and UseCase. >> So as I understood it would be (syntactically) possible to place e.g. Classes, Interfaces, Actors and UseCases could be placed on a Sequence Diagram. Did I get that right up to here? >> >> Cheers, >> Florian >> >> On 28.05.2010, at 13:59, Østein Haugen wrote: >> >>> I agree with Dave's point, but let me provide the motivation for why a Lifeline respresents a ConnectableElement and not merely a Property. The reason is that there was a need to let sequence diagrams describe communications with Parameters and Parameter is not a specialization of Property. >>> >>> About the Type subclasses that you are asking about, I get a little confused, since Actor is not Property, and neither are UseCase nor Package, so these things cannot be represented by Lifelines. >>> >>> /Oystein >>> >>> >>> ---- >>> Dr. Oystein Haugen >>> Senior Researcher >>> SINTEF >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Dave Hawkins [mailto:dave.hawkins@oracle.com] >>> Sent: 28. mai 2010 12:52 >>> To: Florian Schneider >>> Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org >>> Subject: Re: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor >>> >>> The quoted sentence doesn't say it's equivalent, it's simply giving an example. Property >>> is a subclass of ConnectableElement and therefore it is valid for Lifeline::represents to >>> be a Property. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Dave >>> >>> Florian Schneider wrote: >>>> Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, >>>> >>>> I have a comment regarding issue 11068, reported by Mr. Tim Weilkiens. >>>> >>>> Mr. Weilkiens claims the following: "A lifeline represents a connectable element, e.g. a property". I believe that this is not correct because a ConnectableElement is a subclass of TypedElement so it can have any type. I don't see why it is equivalent to a property. >>>> >>>> Concerning this issue, I am interested in a clarification whether there are constraints on what Type subclasses may be placed on a Sequence Diagram (Exemplary questions: May an Actor be placed on a sequence diagram? May a use case be placed on a sequence diagram? May a package be placed on a sequence diagram?). >>>> >>>> With best regards, >>>> Florian Schneider >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------------------- >>>> Dipl.-Inf. Univ. Florian Schneider >>>> >>>> Research Assistant >>>> Chair for Applied Software Engineering >>>> Technische UniversitäMü >>>> >>>> Tel.: +49 (89) 289-18233 >>>> Fax.: +49 (89) 289-18207 >>>> Web http://www1.in.tum.de/FlorianSchneider >>>> >>>> Address: >>>> Lehrstuhl füewandte Softwaretechnik, I1 >>>> Technische UniversitäMü >>>> Institut füormatik >>>> Boltzmannstraß 3 >>>> D-85748 Garching >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dave Hawkins | Principal Software Engineer | +44 118 924 0022 >>> Oracle JDeveloper Development >>> Oracle Corporation UK Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. >>> Company Reg. No. 1782505. >>> Reg. office: Oracle Parkway, Thames Valley Park, Reading RG6 1RA. >> > Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 09:56:33 -0400 From: "Chonoles, Michael J" Subject: RE: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor To: Østein Haugen , Florian Schneider Cc: Dave Hawkins , "uml2-rtf@omg.org" Thread-Topic: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor Thread-Index: Acr+avkEvDsLXd/PTrOD4QC0rFjZewAAIZ/gAABgwJA= Accept-Language: en-US acceptlanguage: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id o4SDj8Xp021035 However, since an interaction is really more of a conceptual thing, it is easy to just declare all the connectable elements to be part of the classifier, for example by placing them on a class diagram where the class being described is the interaction. This is exactly an area of UML 2 that needs to be revisited as we move in UML 3. The limitations imposed here are interfering with practical use. -----Original Message----- From: Østein Haugen [mailto:Oystein.Haugen@sintef.no] Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 9:50 AM To: Florian Schneider Cc: Dave Hawkins; uml2-rtf@omg.org; Østein Haugen Subject: RE: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor Florian We are converging ( The only slight problem with how you summarize the situation is your use of the word "instance". We are talking here about connectable elements. Instance specifications are something else, and I will _not_ open that can of worms now. Still, I would also point out that it is not so simple to find meaningful contexts where these very special connectable elements appear, and there is a constraint demanding that all lifelines in an Interaction represent connectable elements of the same context/container/composite structure. "The classifier containing the referenced ConnectableElement must be the same classifier, or an ancestor, of the classifier that contains the interaction enclosing this lifeline." /Oystein ---- Dr. Oystein Haugen Senior Researcher SINTEF -----Original Message----- From: Florian Schneider [mailto:schneidf@in.tum.de] Sent: 28. mai 2010 15:38 To: Østein Haugen Cc: Dave Hawkins; uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor Thanks Oystein for the clarification! To sum things up: The actor symbol is not allowed in sequence and communication diagrams, but in fact elements on these diagrams can represent actor instances. Same goes for instances of other Type subclasses. Is that correct? In the situation I described: Is it correct to say the lifeline represents an actor instance? Regards, Florian On 28.05.2010, at 15:26, Østein Haugen wrote: > Florian > If you find such a connectable element, then a corresponding Lifeline to represent it looks just like any other lifeline with the head containing "name of connectable element : name of Actor" > You cannot legally use the Actor symbol on that lifeline even though I know several tools have implemented this option probably because they are still hung up on UML1 stuff. > > /Oystein > > > ---- > Dr. Oystein Haugen > Senior Researcher > SINTEF > > -----Original Message----- > From: Florian Schneider [mailto:schneidf@in.tum.de] > Sent: 28. mai 2010 15:20 > To: Østein Haugen > Cc: Dave Hawkins; uml2-rtf@omg.org > Subject: Re: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor > > I am sorry for any ambiguity! > > I agree that an instance of the class Actor is not in a sequence diagram (I also agree that it can be part of a use case diagram). But ConnectableElement, through its superclass TypedElement has an association (which is named 'type') to the class Type. > So when talking about a "ConnectableElement of type Actor", I mean that the association named type of the ConnectableElement instance points to an instance of the class Actor. I found no constraint that would make that impossible. > > Let's say we have a Lifeline that represents a ConnectableElement of type Actor. How is that notationally reflected on the according sequence diagram? > > Cheers, > Florian > > On 28.05.2010, at 14:58, Østein Haugen wrote: > >> Florian >> Model Elements that themselves are Types (such as Actor) are not "placed" in a sequence diagram (there is no concrete syntax for that), but since Interaction is a Class, such Types can be included in Interaction through the model browser. >> >> But, I do not think this is what you are asking. I sense a slight ambiguity in what you are writing since you must distinguish clearly between the elements that _have_ a type, and those that _are_ a type. Actor _is_ a type, but you do not find diagrams where there are connectable elements having a specific Actor as type. If you found such a context, you could also describe its behavior through an Interaction and let that connectable element be represented by a Lifeline. >> >> (Actors are found in use case diagrams, but the elements there are Actors, not connectable elements.) >> >> /Oystein >> >> >> ---- >> Dr. Oystein Haugen >> Senior Researcher >> SINTEF >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Florian Schneider [mailto:schneidf@in.tum.de] >> Sent: 28. mai 2010 14:48 >> To: Østein Haugen >> Cc: Dave Hawkins; uml2-rtf@omg.org >> Subject: Re: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor >> >> OK so maybe I got something wrong here. >> >> Here is how I understood the metamodel: A lifeline represents a ConnectableElement, which is a TypedElement. A TypedElement has a Type. Subclasses of Type are, among others, Classifier and BehavioredClassifier. Subclasses of Classifier are, among others, Class and Interface. Subclasses of BehavioredClassifier are, among others, Actor and UseCase. >> So as I understood it would be (syntactically) possible to place e.g. Classes, Interfaces, Actors and UseCases could be placed on a Sequence Diagram. Did I get that right up to here? >> >> Cheers, >> Florian >> >> On 28.05.2010, at 13:59, Østein Haugen wrote: >> >>> I agree with Dave's point, but let me provide the motivation for why a Lifeline respresents a ConnectableElement and not merely a Property. The reason is that there was a need to let sequence diagrams describe communications with Parameters and Parameter is not a specialization of Property. >>> >>> About the Type subclasses that you are asking about, I get a little confused, since Actor is not Property, and neither are UseCase nor Package, so these things cannot be represented by Lifelines. >>> >>> /Oystein >>> >>> >>> ---- >>> Dr. Oystein Haugen >>> Senior Researcher >>> SINTEF >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Dave Hawkins [mailto:dave.hawkins@oracle.com] >>> Sent: 28. mai 2010 12:52 >>> To: Florian Schneider >>> Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org >>> Subject: Re: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor >>> >>> The quoted sentence doesn't say it's equivalent, it's simply giving an example. Property >>> is a subclass of ConnectableElement and therefore it is valid for Lifeline::represents to >>> be a Property. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Dave >>> >>> Florian Schneider wrote: >>>> Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, >>>> >>>> I have a comment regarding issue 11068, reported by Mr. Tim Weilkiens. >>>> >>>> Mr. Weilkiens claims the following: "A lifeline represents a connectable element, e.g. a property". I believe that this is not correct because a ConnectableElement is a subclass of TypedElement so it can have any type. I don't see why it is equivalent to a property. >>>> >>>> Concerning this issue, I am interested in a clarification whether there are constraints on what Type subclasses may be placed on a Sequence Diagram (Exemplary questions: May an Actor be placed on a sequence diagram? May a use case be placed on a sequence diagram? May a package be placed on a sequence diagram?). >>>> >>>> With best regards, >>>> Florian Schneider >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------------------- >>>> Dipl.-Inf. Univ. Florian Schneider >>>> >>>> Research Assistant >>>> Chair for Applied Software Engineering >>>> Technische UniversitäMü >>>> >>>> Tel.: +49 (89) 289-18233 >>>> Fax.: +49 (89) 289-18207 >>>> Web http://www1.in.tum.de/FlorianSchneider >>>> >>>> Address: >>>> Lehrstuhl füewandte Softwaretechnik, I1 >>>> Technische UniversitäMü >>>> Institut füormatik >>>> Boltzmannstraß 3 >>>> D-85748 Garching >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dave Hawkins | Principal Software Engineer | +44 118 924 0022 >>> Oracle JDeveloper Development >>> Oracle Corporation UK Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. >>> Company Reg. No. 1782505. >>> Reg. office: Oracle Parkway, Thames Valley Park, Reading RG6 1RA. >> > From: "Bock, Conrad" To: Florian Schneider , "uml2-rtf@omg.org" Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 09:58:42 -0400 Subject: RE: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor Thread-Topic: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor Thread-Index: Acr+UkQojg2KoIQxQL2RGawKIWqqxwAG2gRg Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US X-NIST-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NIST-MailScanner-From: conrad.bock@nist.gov Florian, > Mr. Weilkiens claims the following: "A lifeline represents > a connectable element, e.g. a property". I believe that > this is not correct because a ConnectableElement is a > subclass of TypedElement so it can have any type. I don't > see why it is equivalent to a property. The abbreviation "e.g." means "for example", so Tim's sentence is correct. A property is an example of a connectable element. Conrad Cc: Dave Hawkins , "uml2-rtf@omg.org" From: Florian Schneider Subject: Re: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 16:25:05 +0200 To: Østein Haugen X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Oystein, I also agree that connectable elements are no instance specifications. (we are definitely converging..) I just do not know how to name it tersely when talking of linelines that represent connectable elements which have a type. I know of some textbooks (not only CASE tools) that use actor symbols on sequence diagrams to show how an actor interacts with the system under development. This has been used conventionally and before this conversation, I was not sure whether this is syntactically correct. Conrad and Dave, of course I was wrong. Properties are connectable elements. I did not see that 7.3.44 Property (from Kernel, AssociationClasses, Interfaces) is merged incremented by 9.3.12 Property (from InternalStructures) from which ConnectableElement is a generalization. My excuses go to Tim What I originally wanted to contradict is that it is not possible to put actor symbols on sequence diagrams. I thought the metamodel would allow for ConnectableElements of any type to be represented by Lifelines. Which is impossible as I just learned. I will have another look at Properties and the constraint that Oystein mentioned. Cheers and thanks for the feedback, Florian On 28.05.2010, at 15:50, Østein Haugen wrote: > Florian > We are converging ( > The only slight problem with how you summarize the situation is your use of the word "instance". We are talking here about connectable elements. Instance specifications are something else, and I will _not_ open that can of worms now. > > Still, I would also point out that it is not so simple to find meaningful contexts where these very special connectable elements appear, and there is a constraint demanding that all lifelines in an Interaction represent connectable elements of the same context/container/composite structure. > > "The classifier containing the referenced ConnectableElement must be the same classifier, or an ancestor, of the classifier > that contains the interaction enclosing this lifeline." > > /Oystein > > [...] >> Mr. Weilkiens claims the following: "A lifeline represents >> a connectable element, e.g. a property". I believe that >> this is not correct because a ConnectableElement is a >> subclass of TypedElement so it can have any type. I don't >> see why it is equivalent to a property. > > The abbreviation "e.g." means "for example", so Tim's sentence > is correct. A property is an example of a connectable element. > > Conrad > The quoted sentence doesn't say it's equivalent, it's simply giving an example. Property > is a subclass of ConnectableElement and therefore it is valid for Lifeline::represents to > be a Property. > > Cheers, > > Dave smime4.p7s DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:sender:received :in-reply-to:references:from:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=WynpGRFR6dP69uuLrRxR/N9f0nkLSiOYaE+J8D9ATAI=; b=UzAkbr8lscaaQCYLpYFRdnWfX2BnlAXPRqj14bjGUnCEo4axE2wx4D6BIDoIxWjAFp MEzRWnnmM+ZN+3WK4baWVw/ZBKmYLkUE6Os/jT71ZOXS46ssy4kptAL2C43L7nJHoAYH euDFM1Cbe5dLZmF4TPB5a8x7QxYzbqCrxBBGQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; b=ATSD6etIsE0a/RNefDiWAs4uBKPomK+EETWMDkzX8sjqlyCoBn36C4ZBZ0AudPhUvB I3L1djygED9zKYqg2IbJq0S4pk7YK6WlzKQ33vCk4xgVD9BQXPISx3iPe6mUs+8m629u /n9JZYKD2yUxe6Vydz6JUJNMJQyOaZbWZU8nw= Sender: bran.selic@gmail.com From: Bran Selic Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 15:56:46 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: ZeEnY-aOnjsmHaWal33V2ZWVms4 Subject: Re: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor To: Florian Schneider Cc: Østein Haugen , Dave Hawkins , "uml2-rtf@omg.org" Actually, there is nothing in the UML 2 spec preventing an actor SYMBOL from being used as a lifeline header (UML graphcial syntax only specifies what is allowed and is mostly silent on what is not allowed -- which gives you a lot of freedom). The only constraint is that the actor symbol has to represent a connectable element. What is not allowed is to use an Actor (which is a kind of Classifier) as a lifeline. This is not the same as saying that you cannot use the actor symbol. Cheers...Bran 2010/5/28 Florian Schneider Thanks Oystein for the clarification! To sum things up: The actor symbol is not allowed in sequence and communication diagrams, but in fact elements on these diagrams can represent actor instances. Same goes for instances of other Type subclasses. Is that correct? In the situation I described: Is it correct to say the lifeline represents an actor instance? Regards, Florian On 28.05.2010, at 15:26, Østein Haugen wrote: > Florian > If you find such a connectable element, then a corresponding Lifeline to represent it looks just like any other lifeline with the head containing "name of connectable element : name of Actor" > You cannot legally use the Actor symbol on that lifeline even though I know several tools have implemented this option probably because they are still hung up on UML1 stuff. > > /Oystein > > > ---- > Dr. Oystein Haugen > Senior Researcher > SINTEF > > -----Original Message----- > From: Florian Schneider [mailto:schneidf@in.tum.de] > Sent: 28. mai 2010 15:20 > To: Østein Haugen > Cc: Dave Hawkins; uml2-rtf@omg.org > Subject: Re: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor > > I am sorry for any ambiguity! > > I agree that an instance of the class Actor is not in a sequence diagram (I also agree that it can be part of a use case diagram). But ConnectableElement, through its superclass TypedElement has an association (which is named 'type') to the class Type. > So when talking about a "ConnectableElement of type Actor", I mean that the association named type of the ConnectableElement instance points to an instance of the class Actor. I found no constraint that would make that impossible. > > Let's say we have a Lifeline that represents a ConnectableElement of type Actor. How is that notationally reflected on the according sequence diagram? > > Cheers, > Florian > > On 28.05.2010, at 14:58, Østein Haugen wrote: > >> Florian >> Model Elements that themselves are Types (such as Actor) are not "placed" in a sequence diagram (there is no concrete syntax for that), but since Interaction is a Class, such Types can be included in Interaction through the model browser. >> >> But, I do not think this is what you are asking. I sense a slight ambiguity in what you are writing since you must distinguish clearly between the elements that _have_ a type, and those that _are_ a type. Actor _is_ a type, but you do not find diagrams where there are connectable elements having a specific Actor as type. If you found such a context, you could also describe its behavior through an Interaction and let that connectable element be represented by a Lifeline. >> >> (Actors are found in use case diagrams, but the elements there are Actors, not connectable elements.) >> >> /Oystein >> >> >> ---- >> Dr. Oystein Haugen >> Senior Researcher >> SINTEF >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Florian Schneider [mailto:schneidf@in.tum.de] >> Sent: 28. mai 2010 14:48 >> To: Østein Haugen >> Cc: Dave Hawkins; uml2-rtf@omg.org >> Subject: Re: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor >> >> OK so maybe I got something wrong here. >> >> Here is how I understood the metamodel: A lifeline represents a ConnectableElement, which is a TypedElement. A TypedElement has a Type. Subclasses of Type are, among others, Classifier and BehavioredClassifier. Subclasses of Classifier are, among others, Class and Interface. Subclasses of BehavioredClassifier are, among others, Actor and UseCase. >> So as I understood it would be (syntactically) possible to place e.g. Classes, Interfaces, Actors and UseCases could be placed on a Sequence Diagram. Did I get that right up to here? >> >> Cheers, >> Florian >> >> On 28.05.2010, at 13:59, Østein Haugen wrote: >> >>> I agree with Dave's point, but let me provide the motivation for why a Lifeline respresents a ConnectableElement and not merely a Property. The reason is that there was a need to let sequence diagrams describe communications with Parameters and Parameter is not a specialization of Property. >>> >>> About the Type subclasses that you are asking about, I get a little confused, since Actor is not Property, and neither are UseCase nor Package, so these things cannot be represented by Lifelines. >>> >>> /Oystein >>> >>> >>> ---- >>> Dr. Oystein Haugen >>> Senior Researcher >>> SINTEF >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Dave Hawkins [mailto:dave.hawkins@oracle.com] >>> Sent: 28. mai 2010 12:52 >>> To: Florian Schneider >>> Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org >>> Subject: Re: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor >>> >>> The quoted sentence doesn't say it's equivalent, it's simply giving an example. Property >>> is a subclass of ConnectableElement and therefore it is valid for Lifeline::represents to >>> be a Property. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Dave >>> >>> Florian Schneider wrote: >>>> Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, >>>> >>>> I have a comment regarding issue 11068, reported by Mr. Tim Weilkiens. >>>> >>>> Mr. Weilkiens claims the following: "A lifeline represents a connectable element, e.g. a property". I believe that this is not correct because a ConnectableElement is a subclass of TypedElement so it can have any type. I don't see why it is equivalent to a property. >>>> >>>> Concerning this issue, I am interested in a clarification whether there are constraints on what Type subclasses may be placed on a Sequence Diagram (Exemplary questions: May an Actor be placed on a sequence diagram? May a use case be placed on a sequence diagram? May a package be placed on a sequence diagram?). >>>> >>>> With best regards, >>>> Florian Schneider >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------------------- >>>> Dipl.-Inf. Univ. Florian Schneider >>>> >>>> Research Assistant >>>> Chair for Applied Software Engineering >>>> Technische UniversitäMü >>>> >>>> Tel.: +49 (89) 289-18233 >>>> Fax.: +49 (89) 289-18207 >>>> Web http://www1.in.tum.de/FlorianSchneider >>>> >>>> Address: >>>> Lehrstuhl füewandte Softwaretechnik, I1 >>>> Technische UniversitäMü >>>> Institut füormatik >>>> Boltzmannstraß 3 >>>> D-85748 Garching >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dave Hawkins | Principal Software Engineer | +44 118 924 0022 >>> Oracle JDeveloper Development >>> Oracle Corporation UK Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. >>> Company Reg. No. 1782505. >>> Reg. office: Oracle Parkway, Thames Valley Park, Reading RG6 1RA. >> > From: "Rouquette, Nicolas F (316A)" To: Bran Selic CC: Florian Schneider , Østein Haugen , Dave Hawkins , "uml2-rtf@omg.org" Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 14:31:56 -0700 Subject: Re: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor Thread-Topic: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor Thread-Index: Acr+rTMVVhKTv6egSGeAIdMylpp6Cg== Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US X-Source-IP: altvirehtstap01.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.137.72] X-Source-Sender: nicolas.f.rouquette@jpl.nasa.gov X-AUTH: Authorized Bran, I'm surprised that you'd go as far as suggesting to use symbolic boxology; what happened to UML dogfooding? Wouldn't it be better here to use an idiom associating a sequence diagram to a collaboration whose parameters (a kind of connectable element) can be typed by actor classifiers? With judicious idioms, one can be precise with the UML, much more than most people are giving UML credit for. Without this, the whole metamodeling architecture would have collapsed a long time ago. - Nicolas. On May 28, 2010, at 12:56 PM, Bran Selic wrote: Actually, there is nothing in the UML 2 spec preventing an actor SYMBOL from being used as a lifeline header (UML graphcial syntax only specifies what is allowed and is mostly silent on what is not allowed -- which gives you a lot of freedom). The only constraint is that the actor symbol has to represent a connectable element. What is not allowed is to use an Actor (which is a kind of Classifier) as a lifeline. This is not the same as saying that you cannot use the actor symbol. Cheers...Bran 2010/5/28 Florian Schneider Thanks Oystein for the clarification! To sum things up: The actor symbol is not allowed in sequence and communication diagrams, but in fact elements on these diagrams can represent actor instances. Same goes for instances of other Type subclasses. Is that correct? In the situation I described: Is it correct to say the lifeline represents an actor instance? Regards, Florian On 28.05.2010, at 15:26, Østein Haugen wrote: > Florian > If you find such a connectable element, then a corresponding Lifeline to represent it looks just like any other lifeline with the head containing "name of connectable element : name of Actor" > You cannot legally use the Actor symbol on that lifeline even though I know several tools have implemented this option probably because they are still hung up on UML1 stuff. > > /Oystein > > > ---- > Dr. Oystein Haugen > Senior Researcher > SINTEF > > -----Original Message----- > From: Florian Schneider [mailto:schneidf@in.tum.de] > Sent: 28. mai 2010 15:20 > To: Østein Haugen > Cc: Dave Hawkins; uml2-rtf@omg.org > Subject: Re: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor > > I am sorry for any ambiguity! > > I agree that an instance of the class Actor is not in a sequence diagram (I also agree that it can be part of a use case diagram). But ConnectableElement, through its superclass TypedElement has an association (which is named 'type') to the class Type. > So when talking about a "ConnectableElement of type Actor", I mean that the association named type of the ConnectableElement instance points to an instance of the class Actor. I found no constraint that would make that impossible. > > Let's say we have a Lifeline that represents a ConnectableElement of type Actor. How is that notationally reflected on the according sequence diagram? > > Cheers, > Florian > > On 28.05.2010, at 14:58, Østein Haugen wrote: > >> Florian >> Model Elements that themselves are Types (such as Actor) are not "placed" in a sequence diagram (there is no concrete syntax for that), but since Interaction is a Class, such Types can be included in Interaction through the model browser. >> >> But, I do not think this is what you are asking. I sense a slight ambiguity in what you are writing since you must distinguish clearly between the elements that _have_ a type, and those that _are_ a type. Actor _is_ a type, but you do not find diagrams where there are connectable elements having a specific Actor as type. If you found such a context, you could also describe its behavior through an Interaction and let that connectable element be represented by a Lifeline. >> >> (Actors are found in use case diagrams, but the elements there are Actors, not connectable elements.) >> >> /Oystein >> >> >> ---- >> Dr. Oystein Haugen >> Senior Researcher >> SINTEF >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Florian Schneider [mailto:schneidf@in.tum.de] >> Sent: 28. mai 2010 14:48 >> To: Østein Haugen >> Cc: Dave Hawkins; uml2-rtf@omg.org >> Subject: Re: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor >> >> OK so maybe I got something wrong here. >> >> Here is how I understood the metamodel: A lifeline represents a ConnectableElement, which is a TypedElement. A TypedElement has a Type. Subclasses of Type are, among others, Classifier and BehavioredClassifier. Subclasses of Classifier are, among others, Class and Interface. Subclasses of BehavioredClassifier are, among others, Actor and UseCase. >> So as I understood it would be (syntactically) possible to place e.g. Classes, Interfaces, Actors and UseCases could be placed on a Sequence Diagram. Did I get that right up to here? >> >> Cheers, >> Florian >> >> On 28.05.2010, at 13:59, Østein Haugen wrote: >> >>> I agree with Dave's point, but let me provide the motivation for why a Lifeline respresents a ConnectableElement and not merely a Property. The reason is that there was a need to let sequence diagrams describe communications with Parameters and Parameter is not a specialization of Property. >>> >>> About the Type subclasses that you are asking about, I get a little confused, since Actor is not Property, and neither are UseCase nor Package, so these things cannot be represented by Lifelines. >>> >>> /Oystein >>> >>> >>> ---- >>> Dr. Oystein Haugen >>> Senior Researcher >>> SINTEF >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Dave Hawkins [mailto:dave.hawkins@oracle.com] >>> Sent: 28. mai 2010 12:52 >>> To: Florian Schneider >>> Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org >>> Subject: Re: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor >>> >>> The quoted sentence doesn't say it's equivalent, it's simply giving an example. Property >>> is a subclass of ConnectableElement and therefore it is valid for Lifeline::represents to >>> be a Property. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Dave >>> >>> Florian Schneider wrote: >>>> Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, >>>> >>>> I have a comment regarding issue 11068, reported by Mr. Tim Weilkiens. >>>> >>>> Mr. Weilkiens claims the following: "A lifeline represents a connectable element, e.g. a property". I believe that this is not correct because a ConnectableElement is a subclass of TypedElement so it can have any type. I don't see why it is equivalent to a property. >>>> >>>> Concerning this issue, I am interested in a clarification whether there are constraints on what Type subclasses may be placed on a Sequence Diagram (Exemplary questions: May an Actor be placed on a sequence diagram? May a use case be placed on a sequence diagram? May a package be placed on a sequence diagram?). >>>> >>>> With best regards, >>>> Florian Schneider >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------------------- >>>> Dipl.-Inf. Univ. Florian Schneider >>>> >>>> Research Assistant >>>> Chair for Applied Software Engineering >>>> Technische UniversitäMü >>>> >>>> Tel.: +49 (89) 289-18233 >>>> Fax.: +49 (89) 289-18207 >>>> Web http://www1.in.tum.de/FlorianSchneider >>>> >>>> Address: >>>> Lehrstuhl füewandte Softwaretechnik, I1 >>>> Technische UniversitäMü >>>> Institut füormatik >>>> Boltzmannstraß 3 >>>> D-85748 Garching >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dave Hawkins | Principal Software Engineer | +44 118 924 0022 >>> Oracle JDeveloper Development >>> Oracle Corporation UK Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. >>> Company Reg. No. 1782505. >>> Reg. office: Oracle Parkway, Thames Valley Park, Reading RG6 1RA. >> > DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:sender:received :in-reply-to:references:from:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=+HX4CyWnY1aJwBoZ+7mGiGaUKHclgTyFnK7gWwnzjOs=; b=rBnwPTXjoizjhcGamXCC7RYvBshkXM9Jz9ZCfaJVMbSwjzO9soAnnqUjxSHABp5JYc cdHu78llxlNz/E6BFVYRl21TE9t1dcodXwfdmUkh26c9S6xisuN5xqel9B46qs2tdxuj IZPJxfs104S4j5QATKVGgSLeVVgWm2PxXUz7c= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; b=MERLiSqBQ5RApdkQAlOCecejcB+LfdhSWsrgmD/sSh8LoV1k2nj0UfmVa33HGN04vu ShmAh9QiI3KZeS0KjLcDiK44lu3ZuInzJY8rcIzN8z8+JVA6SWSU9h+3LEsigETJHwsU micahFSJlCvhrywr0szS8Yux0vXC0KyRQmcWw= Sender: bran.selic@gmail.com From: Bran Selic Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 08:27:40 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: I_3MoD-l7eJvk1dl4xgN6eH2OZc Subject: Re: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor To: "Rouquette, Nicolas F (316A)" Cc: Florian Schneider , Østein Haugen , Dave Hawkins , "uml2-rtf@omg.org" Hi Nicolas, I am not sure what you are saying, so I may be responding to the wrong view. On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Rouquette, Nicolas F (316A) wrote: Bran, I'm surprised that you'd go as far as suggesting to use symbolic boxology; what happened to UML dogfooding? [bvs] Not sure what you mean by "symbolic boxology". I was simply saying that it was quite within the current bounds of UML concrete syntax to choose your own iconic representation for something like a lifeline element, including, if so desired, the use of a human stick figure in a sequence diagram to represent the head of a lifeline. The fact that the same symbol is used to represent an actor in a use case diagram is not a formal barrier. I am not suggesting any changes to the metamodel or a relaxation of its rules. Wouldn't it be better here to use an idiom associating a sequence diagram to a collaboration whose parameters (a kind of connectable element) can be typed by actor classifiers? [bvs] Of course. But, I didn't think that was the question. And, BTW, you could use the stick figure to represent a role in such a collaboration diagram. With judicious idioms, one can be precise with the UML, much more than most people are giving UML credit for. Without this, the whole metamodeling architecture would have collapsed a long time ago. [bvs] I believe that you misunderstood my point. Cheers...Bran From: "Rouquette, Nicolas F (316A)" To: Bran Selic CC: Florian Schneider , Østein Haugen , Dave Hawkins , "uml2-rtf@omg.org" Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 15:34:38 -0700 Subject: Re: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor Thread-Topic: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor Thread-Index: AcsBEXRY6e1CQ0rYQm2S/5HRnuu2uw== Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US X-Source-IP: altvirehtstap02.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.137.73] X-Source-Sender: nicolas.f.rouquette@jpl.nasa.gov X-AUTH: Authorized Bran, On May 31, 2010, at 5:27 AM, Bran Selic wrote: Hi Nicolas, I am not sure what you are saying, so I may be responding to the wrong view. Now it's me who's confused. On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Rouquette, Nicolas F (316A) wrote: Bran, I'm surprised that you'd go as far as suggesting to use symbolic boxology; what happened to UML dogfooding? [bvs] Not sure what you mean by "symbolic boxology". It's a term that I heard from Ralph Hodgson who uses it to refer to diagrams involving boxes & lines. Sure these diagrams say a 1,000 words but the words may be different to different people. I was simply saying that it was quite within the current bounds of UML concrete syntax to choose your own iconic representation for something like a lifeline element, including, if so desired, the use of a human stick figure in a sequence diagram to represent the head of a lifeline. Ok. The fact that the same symbol is used to represent an actor in a use case diagram is not a formal barrier. This is the part that gets a bit slippery. What do you mean by "same symbol"? The original question came about the fact that a lifeline is a connectable element but an actor isn't. How could the symbol of an actor then show up as the symbol that's meant to represent a connectable element? - Nicolas. I am not suggesting any changes to the metamodel or a relaxation of its rules. Wouldn't it be better here to use an idiom associating a sequence diagram to a collaboration whose parameters (a kind of connectable element) can be typed by actor classifiers? [bvs] Of course. But, I didn't think that was the question. And, BTW, you could use the stick figure to represent a role in such a collaboration diagram. With judicious idioms, one can be precise with the UML, much more than most people are giving UML credit for. Without this, the whole metamodeling architecture would have collapsed a long time ago. [bvs] I believe that you misunderstood my point. Cheers...Bran Cc: Bran Selic , Østein Haugen , Dave Hawkins , "uml2-rtf@omg.org" From: Florian Schneider Subject: Re: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 10:42:57 +0200 To: "Rouquette, Nicolas F (316A)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id p3F8cp5o003145 A somewhat "late" reply, but that issue did not let go of me In essence I wanted to know if it was syntactically legal to place an actor on a sequence diagram. If I understood your answers correctly, it is not legal. Below are some points of discussion that I started formulating back in June 2010. I am not sure if this will lead us anywhere, but I thought maybe you would like to comment. What I would be very much interested in is the reason why in UML 2.x , actors are not allowed on sequence diagrams any more (opposed to UML with version <= 1.5 ). Best Regards, Florian Schneider On 01.06.2010, at 00:34, Rouquette, Nicolas F (316A) wrote: > [....] > >> The fact that the same symbol is used to represent an actor in a use case diagram is not a formal barrier. > > This is the part that gets a bit slippery. What do you mean by "same symbol"? > > The original question came about the fact that a lifeline is a connectable element but an actor isn't. > How could the symbol of an actor then show up as the symbol that's meant to represent a connectable element? [....] So a lifeline has an association to a connectable element (that is called "represents") but it isn't one. I'd like to comment on that because I think Nicolas last question touches something essential. A kind of naive view of mine was that elements on diagrams are a symbolic representation for instances of metaclasses of the UML. Like this: A rectangle on a class diagram means that I am talking about an instance of the metaclass Class or Interface. A circle on a use case diagram means that I am talking about an instance of the metaclass UseCase. These are well-known terms to me: UseCase, Class, Interface.... Now Lifeline feels like something more artificial (and I am not talking of connectable elements yet....). I will not go to a customer and deliver a Lifeline to him. I don't even wanna talk to him about lifelines but maybe about classes that are interacting. I see one problem there: The notation for lifeline (especially in communication diagrams) is very similar to that of an instance specification, and because of the rectangular head a little bit similar to that of classes and interfaces. This might lead us to the observation that the lifeline reuses the notation of the 'thing' it represents. I think the reasons for this might be the following 1) the vagueness of the specification (it does not say 'you have to use it that way in order to be UML 2.3 compliant') 2) I suppose that the standard user of UML doesn't want to delve into the details of the metamodel. So the naive conclusion might be that a lifeline representing actors would reuse the actor symbol. Now please don't jump in and say "well you have to read the spec thoroughly, a lifeline never represents an actor, but a connectable element". I know about that:-) Let's consider UML as a framework. Would you as a framework user be interested in the inner workings of the framework? No, you would just ask about the API and its documentation. If you call a function you expect that it returns the behavior that was specified Let's say I am a standard user of UML and want to draw a sequence diagram. I am not interested in connectable elements. I want to show how two objects (that are instances of a certain class) interact. Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 10:22:18 +0100 From: Dave Hawkins User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090302) To: Florian Schneider CC: "Rouquette, Nicolas F (316A)" , Bran Selic , Østein Haugen , "uml2-rtf@omg.org" Subject: Re: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor X-Source-IP: acsmt356.oracle.com [141.146.40.156] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090209.4DA80E8B.0029:SCFSTAT5015188,ss=1,fgs=0 Florian, I only vaguely remember the previous discussion. However from what you've quoted, "...a lifeline is a connectable element but an actor isn't." A lifeline isn't a connectable element either. The only things that are connectable elements are variables, parameters, properties, ports and extension ends. The lifeline represents a particular instance, the type of which is the type of the connectable element. One way to use interactions is to create a collaboration where the parts are properties typed by the interacting classifiers. I don't believe there's a restriction on what those classifiers can be, so actors are perfectly acceptable. In fact the use case description contains the following: "It may...be described indirectly through a Collaboration that uses the use case and its actors as the classifiers that type its parts." Which effectively means that lifelines can represent instances of actors, when you have an interaction owned by that collaboration. Cheers, Dave Florian Schneider wrote: A somewhat "late" reply, but that issue did not let go of me In essence I wanted to know if it was syntactically legal to place an actor on a sequence diagram. If I understood your answers correctly, it is not legal. Below are some points of discussion that I started formulating back in June 2010. I am not sure if this will lead us anywhere, but I thought maybe you would like to comment. What I would be very much interested in is the reason why in UML 2.x , actors are not allowed on sequence diagrams any more (opposed to UML with version <= 1.5 ). Best Regards, Florian Schneider On 01.06.2010, at 00:34, Rouquette, Nicolas F (316A) wrote: [....] The fact that the same symbol is used to represent an actor in a use case diagram is not a formal barrier. This is the part that gets a bit slippery. What do you mean by "same symbol"? The original question came about the fact that a lifeline is a connectable element but an actor isn't. How could the symbol of an actor then show up as the symbol that's meant to represent a connectable element? [....] So a lifeline has an association to a connectable element (that is called "represents") but it isn't one. I'd like to comment on that because I think Nicolas last question touches something essential. A kind of naive view of mine was that elements on diagrams are a symbolic representation for instances of metaclasses of the UML. Like this: A rectangle on a class diagram means that I am talking about an instance of the metaclass Class or Interface. A circle on a use case diagram means that I am talking about an instance of the metaclass UseCase. These are well-known terms to me: UseCase, Class, Interface.... Now Lifeline feels like something more artificial (and I am not talking of connectable elements yet....). I will not go to a customer and deliver a Lifeline to him. I don't even wanna talk to him about lifelines but maybe about classes that are interacting. I see one problem there: The notation for lifeline (especially in communication diagrams) is very similar to that of an instance specification, and because of the rectangular head a little bit similar to that of classes and interfaces. This might lead us to the observation that the lifeline reuses the notation of the 'thing' it represents. I think the reasons for this might be the following 1) the vagueness of the specification (it does not say 'you have to use it that way in order to be UML 2.3 compliant') 2) I suppose that the standard user of UML doesn't want to delve into the details of the metamodel. So the naive conclusion might be that a lifeline representing actors would reuse the actor symbol. Now please don't jump in and say "well you have to read the spec thoroughly, a lifeline never represents an actor, but a connectable element". I know about that:-) Let's consider UML as a framework. Would you as a framework user be interested in the inner workings of the framework? No, you would just ask about the API and its documentation. If you call a function you expect that it returns the behavior that was specified Let's say I am a standard user of UML and want to draw a sequence diagram. I am not interested in connectable elements. I want to show how two objects (that are instances of a certain class) interact. -- Dave Hawkins | Principal Software Engineer | +44 118 924 0022 Oracle JDeveloper Development Oracle Corporation UK Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. Company Reg. No. 1782505. Reg. office: Oracle Parkway, Thames Valley Park, Reading RG6 1RA. Cc: "Rouquette, Nicolas F (316A)" , Bran Selic , Østein Haugen , "uml2-rtf@omg.org" From: Florian Schneider Subject: Re: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:38:21 +0200 To: Dave Hawkins X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id p3F9Y6se007557 So when lifelines actually can represent instances of actors (given the circumstances that you just explained) and it is acceptable to use a different icon for the lifeline head - it also would be syntactically correct to use the actor symbol in sequence diagrams and this would in fact mean that the lifeline represents an instance of an actor. Correct ? In that case I do not understand why this issue is still open. I quote the original summary of the issue here: "It is common usage to model a lifeline in a interaction that represents an actor. I can't see how that could be done formally correct. A lifeline represents a connectable element, e.g. a property. It is not allowed to define a property that is typed by an actor." Cheers and thanks a lot, Florian On 15.04.2011, at 11:22, Dave Hawkins wrote: > [...] > > The lifeline represents a particular instance, the type of which is > the type of the connectable element. One way to use interactions is > to create a collaboration where the parts are properties typed by > the interacting classifiers. I don't believe there's a restriction > on what those classifiers can be, so actors are perfectly acceptable. > In fact the use case description contains the following: > > "It may...be described indirectly through a Collaboration that uses > the use case and its actors as the classifiers that type its parts." > > Which effectively means that lifelines can represent instances of > actors, when you have an interaction owned by that collaboration. > [...] Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 10:54:12 +0100 From: Dave Hawkins User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090302) To: Florian Schneider CC: "Rouquette, Nicolas F (316A)" , Bran Selic , Østein Haugen , "uml2-rtf@omg.org" Subject: Re: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor X-Source-IP: acsmt356.oracle.com [141.146.40.156] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090208.4DA81604.0060:SCFSTAT5015188,ss=1,fgs=0 Tim would have to comment on why he thinks a property cannot be typed by an actor. I'd suggest the reason the issue is open is simply because it hasn't been closed as not an issue. The lifeline description contains the text: "The Lifeline head has a shape that is based on the classifier for the part that this lifeline represents." So, yes, the specification not only explicitly allows the lifeline shape to be an actor shape, it's actually the correct notation. Florian Schneider wrote: So when lifelines actually can represent instances of actors (given the circumstances that you just explained) and it is acceptable to use a different icon for the lifeline head - it also would be syntactically correct to use the actor symbol in sequence diagrams and this would in fact mean that the lifeline represents an instance of an actor. Correct ? In that case I do not understand why this issue is still open. I quote the original summary of the issue here: "It is common usage to model a lifeline in a interaction that represents an actor. I can't see how that could be done formally correct. A lifeline represents a connectable element, e.g. a property. It is not allowed to define a property that is typed by an actor." Cheers and thanks a lot, Florian On 15.04.2011, at 11:22, Dave Hawkins wrote: [...] The lifeline represents a particular instance, the type of which is the type of the connectable element. One way to use interactions is to create a collaboration where the parts are properties typed by the interacting classifiers. I don't believe there's a restriction on what those classifiers can be, so actors are perfectly acceptable. In fact the use case description contains the following: "It may...be described indirectly through a Collaboration that uses the use case and its actors as the classifiers that type its parts." Which effectively means that lifelines can represent instances of actors, when you have an interaction owned by that collaboration. [...] -- Dave Hawkins | Principal Software Engineer | +44 118 924 0022 Oracle JDeveloper Development Oracle Corporation UK Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. Company Reg. No. 1782505. Reg. office: Oracle Parkway, Thames Valley Park, Reading RG6 1RA. From: Østein Haugen To: Dave Hawkins , Florian Schneider CC: "Rouquette, Nicolas F (316A)" , "Bran Selic" , "uml2-rtf@omg.org" , Østein Haugen Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:05:23 +0200 Subject: RE: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor Thread-Topic: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor Thread-Index: Acv7Uz/3K4wE3/Z/Qziu/4vQhrcgQAAB7ujA Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id p3FB1BVw007457 There seem to be several separate issues here all tangled together. 1) Actors as such cannot be represented by a lifeline. Lifelines represent ConnectableElements. This is important because there have been discussions over the years whether Lifelines should also be allowed (like they were misused to be in UML 1) to represent to Classifiers, not only Actor, but also Class or Collaborations. It is possible to enhance the semantics of lifelines and interactions to achieve this, but it has been decided until now that this should not be done. 2) There may be ConnectableElements (e.g. Properties in Collaborations) that are typed by Actors, and they may be represented by Lifelines. Yes, this is true, but I am not sure how frequent such Collaborations are used. The example in UML 2.4 Superstructure standard Figure 16.8 is as far as I can see hardly a Collaboration diagram. 3) May the Actor symbol be used on a lifeline? The original intention was that it was not allowed to change the shape of the lifeline head. The liberal interpretation quoted below allows it, but I am not so sure of the positive effect. As a summary I believe this issue originated long time ago as an issue in category 1 above. Please enlighten me if Use Case users have started using Collaborations with Actor properties. I still believe this is normally not the case, but I may be mistaken in this. Finally, we are not talking about "instances" here, we are talking about "properties" and "connectable elements". Lifelines cannot represent Instance Specifications. /Oystein -----Original Message----- From: Dave Hawkins [mailto:dave.hawkins@oracle.com] Sent: 15. april 2011 11:54 To: Florian Schneider Cc: Rouquette, Nicolas F (316A); Bran Selic; Østein Haugen; uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor Tim would have to comment on why he thinks a property cannot be typed by an actor. I'd suggest the reason the issue is open is simply because it hasn't been closed as not an issue. The lifeline description contains the text: "The Lifeline head has a shape that is based on the classifier for the part that this lifeline represents." So, yes, the specification not only explicitly allows the lifeline shape to be an actor shape, it's actually the correct notation. Florian Schneider wrote: > So when lifelines actually can represent instances of actors (given the circumstances that you just explained) and it is acceptable to use a different icon for the lifeline head - it also would be syntactically correct to use the actor symbol in sequence diagrams and this would in fact mean that the lifeline represents an instance of an actor. Correct ? > > In that case I do not understand why this issue is still open. > > I quote the original summary of the issue here: > "It is common usage to model a lifeline in a interaction that represents an actor. I can't see how that could be done formally correct. A lifeline represents a connectable element, e.g. a property. It is not allowed to define a property that is typed by an actor." > > Cheers and thanks a lot, > Florian > > On 15.04.2011, at 11:22, Dave Hawkins wrote: > >> [...] >> >> The lifeline represents a particular instance, the type of which is >> the type of the connectable element. One way to use interactions is >> to create a collaboration where the parts are properties typed by >> the interacting classifiers. I don't believe there's a restriction >> on what those classifiers can be, so actors are perfectly acceptable. >> In fact the use case description contains the following: >> >> "It may...be described indirectly through a Collaboration that uses >> the use case and its actors as the classifiers that type its parts." >> >> Which effectively means that lifelines can represent instances of >> actors, when you have an interaction owned by that collaboration. >> [...] > -- Dave Hawkins | Principal Software Engineer | +44 118 924 0022 Oracle JDeveloper Development Oracle Corporation UK Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. Company Reg. No. 1782505. Reg. office: Oracle Parkway, Thames Valley Park, Reading RG6 1RA. Subject: RE: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:14:32 +0200 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor thread-index: Acv7U4EOBHs35BCbSMiQbqgXiYgdUAACeAqg From: "Tim Weilkiens" To: "Dave Hawkins" , "Florian Schneider" Cc: "Rouquette, Nicolas F (316A)" , "Bran Selic" , Østein Haugen , X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id p3FBAIKO008232 Some time passed since I filed that issue. I can't remember if I found a constraint or some other thing in the specification that caused the issue. Today I know that a lifeline could represent a connectable element that is a property typed by an actor. Typically I model a class that has association relationships to actors and other elements to be able to - model them in an interaction diagram - model their structure in a composite structure diagram. I know that collaboration would be the better choice according to the UML formalism. However in (my) practice collaborations are not so common and often unknown. For communication purposes it is easier for me to use a class. The class isn't for code generation, but a pure model element. I name and stereotype it with context, e.g. a <>. Best regards, Tim -----Original Message----- From: Dave Hawkins [mailto:dave.hawkins@oracle.com] Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 11:54 AM To: Florian Schneider Cc: Rouquette, Nicolas F (316A); Bran Selic; Østein Haugen; uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: [Issue 11068] Lifeline representing an actor Tim would have to comment on why he thinks a property cannot be typed by an actor. I'd suggest the reason the issue is open is simply because it hasn't been closed as not an issue. The lifeline description contains the text: "The Lifeline head has a shape that is based on the classifier for the part that this lifeline represents." So, yes, the specification not only explicitly allows the lifeline shape to be an actor shape, it's actually the correct notation. Florian Schneider wrote: > So when lifelines actually can represent instances of actors (given the circumstances that you just explained) and it is acceptable to use a different icon for the lifeline head - it also would be syntactically correct to use the actor symbol in sequence diagrams and this would in fact mean that the lifeline represents an instance of an actor. Correct ? > > In that case I do not understand why this issue is still open. > > I quote the original summary of the issue here: > "It is common usage to model a lifeline in a interaction that represents an actor. I can't see how that could be done formally correct. A lifeline represents a connectable element, e.g. a property. It is not allowed to define a property that is typed by an actor." > > Cheers and thanks a lot, > Florian > > On 15.04.2011, at 11:22, Dave Hawkins wrote: > >> [...] >> >> The lifeline represents a particular instance, the type of which is >> the type of the connectable element. One way to use interactions is >> to create a collaboration where the parts are properties typed by >> the interacting classifiers. I don't believe there's a restriction >> on what those classifiers can be, so actors are perfectly acceptable. >> In fact the use case description contains the following: >> >> "It may...be described indirectly through a Collaboration that uses >> the use case and its actors as the classifiers that type its parts." >> >> Which effectively means that lifelines can represent instances of >> actors, when you have an interaction owned by that collaboration. >> [...] > -- Dave Hawkins | Principal Software Engineer | +44 118 924 0022 Oracle JDeveloper Development Oracle Corporation UK Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. Company Reg. No. 1782505. Reg. office: Oracle Parkway, Thames Valley Park, Reading RG6 1RA. From: Steve Cook To: Tom Rutt , "uml25-ftf@omg.org" Subject: RE: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 Thread-Topic: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 Thread-Index: AQHOUZkj9wM68mfvHUS3dDvzNklWKpkHomdQ Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 10:53:35 +0000 Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.166.18.103] X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.37;CTRY:US;IPV:CAL;IPV:NLI;EFV:NLI;SFV:NSPM;SFS:(252514006)(199002)(13464003)(189002)(74662001)(80022001)(56776001)(69226001)(63696002)(47776003)(50466002)(54356001)(33656001)(81542001)(47976001)(74366001)(6806003)(76482001)(46102001)(74876001)(74706001)(31966008)(20776003)(81342001)(51856001)(53806001)(79102001)(47446002)(56816002)(47736001)(44976003)(55846006)(50986001)(49866001)(4396001)(23726002)(65816001)(16406001)(54316002)(46406003)(77982001)(74502001)(59766001);DIR:OUT;SFP:;SCL:1;SRVR:BL2FFO11HUB026;H:TK5EX14HUBC107.redmond.corp.microsoft.com;RD:InfoDomainNonexistent;A:1;MX:1;LANG:en; X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com X-Forefront-PRVS: 0848C1A6AA X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id r4GAs5nf014840 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Tom I think the resolution for 11068 is wrong. A Lifeline can represent a Property that is typed by an Actor. The issue as raised is incorrect - an Actor is indeed a kind of Type. The issue should be closed, but not for the reason given. Using Lifelines to represent Actors is a very common user scenario and as far as I know is supported by many tools, even to the extent of having stick-man headers for the lifeline. This is allowed by the following wording in 17.3.4: "The Lifeline head has a shape that is based on the classifier for the part that this lifeline represents. Often the head is a white rectangle containing the name." Thanks -- Steve -----Original Message----- From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com] Sent: 15 May 2013 19:21 To: uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 I posted draft resolutions for some more Clause 17 issues for Ballot 6. Tom Rutt -- ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 From: Steve Cook To: Tom Rutt , "uml25-ftf@omg.org" Subject: RE: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 Thread-Topic: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 Thread-Index: AQHOUZkj9wM68mfvHUS3dDvzNklWKpkHomdQgAAGm3A= Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 11:21:44 +0000 Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.166.18.103] X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.37;CTRY:US;IPV:CAL;IPV:NLI;EFV:NLI;SFV:NSPM;SFS:(199002)(13464003)(252514006)(189002)(31966008)(76482001)(59766001)(56816002)(69226001)(49866001)(74662001)(54316002)(81542001)(4396001)(80022001)(44976003)(23726002)(81342001)(46406003)(6806003)(47446002)(50986001)(74706001)(56776001)(77982001)(53806001)(46102001)(47776003)(20776003)(74502001)(16406001)(33656001)(50466002)(79102001)(47736001)(65816001)(74366001)(47976001)(51856001)(74876001)(55846006)(63696002)(54356001);DIR:OUT;SFP:;SCL:1;SRVR:BY2FFO11HUB009;H:TK5EX14MLTC102.redmond.corp.microsoft.com;RD:InfoDomainNonexistent;A:1;MX:1;LANG:en; X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com X-Forefront-PRVS: 0848C1A6AA X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id r4GBLuYa016183 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== I just checked and RSA allows you to type a lifeline by an Actor, and to create messages to/from Actors. Our UML tool does too. I think a key point here is that clause 17 is ambivalent about whether a Message may have an empty signature. According to the multiplicity and the constraints, it may. And some of the text substantiates this: "If the Message has a signature ...." But other parts of the text do not: "The signature of a Message refers to either an Operation or a Signal." It is true that an Actor may not have Operations or Signals. But, according to existing practice, it is false that this means that their lifelines may not participate in Messages. -- Steve -----Original Message----- From: Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] Sent: 16 May 2013 11:54 To: Tom Rutt; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 Tom I think the resolution for 11068 is wrong. A Lifeline can represent a Property that is typed by an Actor. The issue as raised is incorrect - an Actor is indeed a kind of Type. The issue should be closed, but not for the reason given. Using Lifelines to represent Actors is a very common user scenario and as far as I know is supported by many tools, even to the extent of having stick-man headers for the lifeline. This is allowed by the following wording in 17.3.4: "The Lifeline head has a shape that is based on the classifier for the part that this lifeline represents. Often the head is a white rectangle containing the name." Thanks -- Steve -----Original Message----- From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com] Sent: 15 May 2013 19:21 To: uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 I posted draft resolutions for some more Clause 17 issues for Ballot 6. Tom Rutt -- ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 X-Trusted-NM: yes Subject: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 From: Nerijus Jankevicius Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 16:02:31 +0300 Cc: Tom Rutt , "uml25-ftf@omg.org" To: Steve Cook X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id r4GD2cYv025857 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== In addition, is it legal to show represented part's stereotype on lifeline symbol? For example, UML Testing Profile's "system under test" is a <> stereotype on part, often shown on lifeline symbols too. Is it clarified in spec? Thanks, Nerijus On May 16, 2013, at 1:53 PM, Steve Cook wrote: > Tom > > I think the resolution for 11068 is wrong. A Lifeline can represent a Property that is typed by an Actor. The issue as raised is incorrect - an Actor is indeed a kind of Type. The issue should be closed, but not for the reason given. > > Using Lifelines to represent Actors is a very common user scenario and as far as I know is supported by many tools, even to the extent of having stick-man headers for the lifeline. This is allowed by the following wording in 17.3.4: > > "The Lifeline head has a shape that is based on the classifier for the part that this lifeline represents. Often the head is a white rectangle containing the name." > > Thanks > -- Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com] > Sent: 15 May 2013 19:21 > To: uml25-ftf@omg.org > Subject: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 > > I posted draft resolutions for some more Clause 17 issues for Ballot 6. > > > > Tom Rutt > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------- > Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com > Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 > From: "Wendland, Marc-Florian" To: "nerijus@nomagic.com" , "Steve.Cook@microsoft.com" CC: "tom@coastin.com" , "uml25-ftf@omg.org" Subject: AW: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 Thread-Topic: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 Thread-Index: AQHOUjdszUhrmXBhFUan4NjLA+yPiw== Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 13:15:24 +0000 Reply-To: "Wendland, Marc-Florian" Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-kse-antivirus-interceptor-info: scan successful x-kse-antivirus-info: Clean X-cloud-security-sender: marc-florian.wendland@fokus.fraunhofer.de X-cloud-security-recipient: uml25-ftf@omg.org X-cloud-security-Virusscan: CLEAN X-cloud-security-disclaimer: This E-Mail was scanned by E-Mailservice on mx-gate02-dus with DAF843880029 X-cloud-security: scantime:.1715 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAR16Wag= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Hi Nerijus, This is an interesting question. I'd say it would make sense to allow showing the stereotypes of the ConnectableElement it represents. Because the represented ConnectableElement is the only relevant information for a Lifeline. Marc-Florian -------- Ursprühe Nachricht -------- Von: Nerijus Jankevicius Datum: An: Steve Cook Cc: Tom Rutt ,uml25-ftf@omg.org Betreff: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 In addition, is it legal to show represented part's stereotype on lifeline symbol? For example, UML Testing Profile's "system under test" is a <> stereotype on part, often shown on lifeline symbols too. Is it clarified in spec? Thanks, Nerijus On May 16, 2013, at 1:53 PM, Steve Cook wrote: > Tom > > I think the resolution for 11068 is wrong. A Lifeline can represent a Property that is typed by an Actor. The issue as raised is incorrect - an Actor is indeed a kind of Type. The issue should be closed, but not for the reason given. > > Using Lifelines to represent Actors is a very common user scenario and as far as I know is supported by many tools, even to the extent of having stick-man headers for the lifeline. This is allowed by the following wording in 17.3.4: > > "The Lifeline head has a shape that is based on the classifier for the part that this lifeline represents. Often the head is a white rectangle containing the name." > > Thanks > -- Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com] > Sent: 15 May 2013 19:21 > To: uml25-ftf@omg.org > Subject: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 > > I posted draft resolutions for some more Clause 17 issues for Ballot 6. > > > > Tom Rutt > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------- > Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com > Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 > From: "Wendland, Marc-Florian" To: Steve Cook , Tom Rutt , "uml25-ftf@omg.org" Subject: AW: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 Thread-Topic: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 Thread-Index: AQHOUZkdJZQZVo8KtkOJQtvygI92BpkHgoCAgAAH3QCAACvnoA== Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 14:11:02 +0000 Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [195.37.77.169] x-kse-antivirus-interceptor-info: scan successful x-kse-antivirus-info: Clean X-cloud-security-sender: marc-florian.wendland@fokus.fraunhofer.de X-cloud-security-recipient: uml25-ftf@omg.org X-cloud-security-Virusscan: CLEAN X-cloud-security-disclaimer: This E-Mail was scanned by E-Mailservice on mx-gate03-dus with 27CF83880002 X-cloud-security: scantime:.1056 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id r4GEBADx031919 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAR16Wag= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Hi Steven, I totally agree with you. Just a comment to your statement: > It is true that an Actor may not have Operations or Signals. But, according to > existing practice, it is false that this means that their lifelines may not > participate in Messages. Nevertheless, Actors may for sure define Operations or Receptions via InterfaceRealization. They are, in fact, ordinary BehavioredClassifiers. I agree that the issue can be closed - actually I argued for this several months ago. Regards, Marc-Florian > -----Ursprühe Nachricht----- > Von: Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 16. Mai 2013 13:22 > An: Tom Rutt; uml25-ftf@omg.org > Betreff: RE: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 > > I just checked and RSA allows you to type a lifeline by an Actor, and to create > messages to/from Actors. Our UML tool does too. > > I think a key point here is that clause 17 is ambivalent about whether a > Message may have an empty signature. According to the multiplicity and the > constraints, it may. And some of the text substantiates this: "If the Message > has a signature ...." > > But other parts of the text do not: "The signature of a Message refers to > either an Operation or a Signal." > > It is true that an Actor may not have Operations or Signals. But, according to > existing practice, it is false that this means that their lifelines may not > participate in Messages. > > -- Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] > Sent: 16 May 2013 11:54 > To: Tom Rutt; uml25-ftf@omg.org > Subject: RE: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 > > Tom > > I think the resolution for 11068 is wrong. A Lifeline can represent a Property > that is typed by an Actor. The issue as raised is incorrect - an Actor is indeed a > kind of Type. The issue should be closed, but not for the reason given. > > Using Lifelines to represent Actors is a very common user scenario and as far > as I know is supported by many tools, even to the extent of having stick-man > headers for the lifeline. This is allowed by the following wording in 17.3.4: > > "The Lifeline head has a shape that is based on the classifier for the part that > this lifeline represents. Often the head is a white rectangle containing the > name." > > Thanks > -- Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com] > Sent: 15 May 2013 19:21 > To: uml25-ftf@omg.org > Subject: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 > > I posted draft resolutions for some more Clause 17 issues for Ballot 6. > > > > Tom Rutt > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------- > Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com > Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 From: Steve Cook To: "Wendland, Marc-Florian" , "Tom Rutt" , "uml25-ftf@omg.org" Subject: RE: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 Thread-Topic: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 Thread-Index: AQHOUZkj9wM68mfvHUS3dDvzNklWKpkHomdQgAAGm3CAADIwAIAAA1IA Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 14:40:38 +0000 Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.166.18.103] X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.37;CTRY:US;IPV:CAL;IPV:NLI;EFV:NLI;SFV:NSPM;SFS:(199002)(13464003)(252514006)(189002)(51704005)(55846006)(59766001)(54316002)(63696002)(47446002)(20776003)(56776001)(23756003)(4396001)(74662001)(80022001)(47776003)(74502001)(33656001)(53806001)(31966008)(6806003)(77982001)(46102001)(49866001)(50986001)(16406001)(47976001)(47736001)(74876001)(76482001)(79102001)(74706001)(69226001)(44976003)(56816002)(81542001)(54356001)(81342001)(74366001)(50466002)(51856001)(65816001);DIR:OUT;SFP:;SCL:1;SRVR:BY2FFO11HUB012;H:TK5EX14MLTC102.redmond.corp.microsoft.com;RD:InfoDomainNonexistent;A:1;MX:1;LANG:en; X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com X-Forefront-PRVS: 0848C1A6AA X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id r4GEerhU003772 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAR15Gpo= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Marc-Florian Rather than just closing this set of related issues, I'd like to see a clarification of the inconsistencies in the semantics of Message, where some text says a Message must have a signature, and other text says it may not have one. Here are a couple of possible different clarifications of the current spec. Several more possible combinations exist. 1. A Message must have a signature If the signature is an Operation, it must be an Operation of the receiving lifeline If the signature is a Signal, it does not have to have a corresponding Reception on the receiving lifeline Hence Actors may participate in Messages whose signatures are Signals 2. A Message may have a signature If the signature is an Operation, it must be an Operation of the receiving lifeline If the signature is a Signal, it must have a corresponding Reception on the receiving lifeline Hence Actors may participate in Messages which have no signatures -- Steve -----Original Message----- From: Wendland, Marc-Florian [mailto:marc-florian.wendland@fokus.fraunhofer.de] Sent: 16 May 2013 15:11 To: Steve Cook; Tom Rutt; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: AW: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 Hi Steven, I totally agree with you. Just a comment to your statement: > It is true that an Actor may not have Operations or Signals. But, > according to existing practice, it is false that this means that their > lifelines may not participate in Messages. Nevertheless, Actors may for sure define Operations or Receptions via InterfaceRealization. They are, in fact, ordinary BehavioredClassifiers. I agree that the issue can be closed - actually I argued for this several months ago. Regards, Marc-Florian > -----Ursprühe Nachricht----- > Von: Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 16. Mai 2013 13:22 > An: Tom Rutt; uml25-ftf@omg.org > Betreff: RE: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for > Ballot 6 > > I just checked and RSA allows you to type a lifeline by an Actor, and > to create messages to/from Actors. Our UML tool does too. > > I think a key point here is that clause 17 is ambivalent about whether > a Message may have an empty signature. According to the multiplicity and the > constraints, it may. And some of the text substantiates this: "If the Message > has a signature ...." > > But other parts of the text do not: "The signature of a Message > refers to either an Operation or a Signal." > > It is true that an Actor may not have Operations or Signals. But, > according to existing practice, it is false that this means that their > lifelines may not participate in Messages. > > -- Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] > Sent: 16 May 2013 11:54 > To: Tom Rutt; uml25-ftf@omg.org > Subject: RE: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for > Ballot 6 > > Tom > > I think the resolution for 11068 is wrong. A Lifeline can represent a > Property that is typed by an Actor. The issue as raised is incorrect > - an Actor is indeed a kind of Type. The issue should be closed, but not for the reason given. > > Using Lifelines to represent Actors is a very common user scenario and > as far as I know is supported by many tools, even to the extent of > having stick-man headers for the lifeline. This is allowed by the following wording in 17.3.4: > > "The Lifeline head has a shape that is based on the classifier for the > part that this lifeline represents. Often the head is a white > rectangle containing the name." > > Thanks > -- Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com] > Sent: 15 May 2013 19:21 > To: uml25-ftf@omg.org > Subject: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 > > I posted draft resolutions for some more Clause 17 issues for Ballot 6. > > > > Tom Rutt > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------- > Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com > Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 X-Virus-Scanned: OK From: Ed Seidewitz To: Steve Cook CC: "uml25-ftf@omg.org" Subject: RE: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 Thread-Topic: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 Thread-Index: AQHOUZkj9wM68mfvHUS3dDvzNklWKpkHomdQgAAGm3CAAIYBAIAACEYA//+uMgA= Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 14:49:55 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [71.178.82.93] X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id r4GEo0M5005398 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAR15Gpo= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Steve -- The intent is definitely that the signature of a Message is optional. I believe that the text that seems to indicate otherwise is just stating the semantics and constraints IF a signature is provided. That is, a sentence such as : "The signature of a Message refers to either an Operation or a Signal." should be clarified to something like " The signature of a Message, if one is provided, refers to either an Operation or a Signal." -- Ed -----Original Message----- From: Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 10:41 AM To: Wendland, Marc-Florian; Tom Rutt; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 Marc-Florian Rather than just closing this set of related issues, I'd like to see a clarification of the inconsistencies in the semantics of Message, where some text says a Message must have a signature, and other text says it may not have one. Here are a couple of possible different clarifications of the current spec. Several more possible combinations exist. 1. A Message must have a signature If the signature is an Operation, it must be an Operation of the receiving lifeline If the signature is a Signal, it does not have to have a corresponding Reception on the receiving lifeline Hence Actors may participate in Messages whose signatures are Signals 2. A Message may have a signature If the signature is an Operation, it must be an Operation of the receiving lifeline If the signature is a Signal, it must have a corresponding Reception on the receiving lifeline Hence Actors may participate in Messages which have no signatures -- Steve -----Original Message----- From: Wendland, Marc-Florian [mailto:marc-florian.wendland@fokus.fraunhofer.de] Sent: 16 May 2013 15:11 To: Steve Cook; Tom Rutt; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: AW: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 Hi Steven, I totally agree with you. Just a comment to your statement: > It is true that an Actor may not have Operations or Signals. But, > according to existing practice, it is false that this means that their > lifelines may not participate in Messages. Nevertheless, Actors may for sure define Operations or Receptions via InterfaceRealization. They are, in fact, ordinary BehavioredClassifiers. I agree that the issue can be closed - actually I argued for this several months ago. Regards, Marc-Florian > -----Ursprühe Nachricht----- > Von: Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 16. Mai 2013 13:22 > An: Tom Rutt; uml25-ftf@omg.org > Betreff: RE: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for > Ballot 6 > > I just checked and RSA allows you to type a lifeline by an Actor, and > to create messages to/from Actors. Our UML tool does too. > > I think a key point here is that clause 17 is ambivalent about whether > a Message may have an empty signature. According to the multiplicity and the > constraints, it may. And some of the text substantiates this: "If the Message > has a signature ...." > > But other parts of the text do not: "The signature of a Message > refers to either an Operation or a Signal." > > It is true that an Actor may not have Operations or Signals. But, > according to existing practice, it is false that this means that their > lifelines may not participate in Messages. > > -- Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] > Sent: 16 May 2013 11:54 > To: Tom Rutt; uml25-ftf@omg.org > Subject: RE: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for > Ballot 6 > > Tom > > I think the resolution for 11068 is wrong. A Lifeline can represent a > Property that is typed by an Actor. The issue as raised is incorrect > - an Actor is indeed a kind of Type. The issue should be closed, but not for the reason given. > > Using Lifelines to represent Actors is a very common user scenario and > as far as I know is supported by many tools, even to the extent of > having stick-man headers for the lifeline. This is allowed by the following wording in 17.3.4: > > "The Lifeline head has a shape that is based on the classifier for the > part that this lifeline represents. Often the head is a white > rectangle containing the name." > > Thanks > -- Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com] > Sent: 15 May 2013 19:21 > To: uml25-ftf@omg.org > Subject: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 > > I posted draft resolutions for some more Clause 17 issues for Ballot 6. > > > > Tom Rutt > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------- > Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com > Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 X-Virus-Scanned: OK From: Ed Seidewitz To: "Wendland, Marc-Florian" CC: "uml25-ftf@omg.org" Subject: RE: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 Thread-Topic: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 Thread-Index: AQHOUZkj9wM68mfvHUS3dDvzNklWKpkHomdQgAAGm3CAAIYBAP//uhLA Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 15:16:46 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [71.178.82.93] X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id r4GFGqoP011064 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAR16Wag= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Marc-Florian -- Actually, InterfaceRealization does not allow Actors to "define" Operations and Receptions. InterfaceRealization requires that the realizing BehavioredClassifier own features that "conform to the contract specified by the Interface". Features are not "inherited" from an Interface. The problem is that Actor has no ownership associations for attributes or operations. As a BehavioredClassifier, it can own Behaviors, but the Classifier::feature and attribute properties are derived unions which remain empty unless subsetted. Thus, there is really no way for an Actor to legally realize and Interface, unless that Interface simply has no features. There are a number of open issues related to this, including: 8893, 10780, 12942, 13134, 13948, 14875, 15162, 17366. -- Ed -----Original Message----- From: Wendland, Marc-Florian [mailto:marc-florian.wendland@fokus.fraunhofer.de] Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 10:11 AM To: Steve Cook; Tom Rutt; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: AW: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 Hi Steven, I totally agree with you. Just a comment to your statement: > It is true that an Actor may not have Operations or Signals. But, > according to existing practice, it is false that this means that their > lifelines may not participate in Messages. Nevertheless, Actors may for sure define Operations or Receptions via InterfaceRealization. They are, in fact, ordinary BehavioredClassifiers. I agree that the issue can be closed - actually I argued for this several months ago. Regards, Marc-Florian > -----Ursprühe Nachricht----- > Von: Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 16. Mai 2013 13:22 > An: Tom Rutt; uml25-ftf@omg.org > Betreff: RE: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for > Ballot 6 > > I just checked and RSA allows you to type a lifeline by an Actor, and > to create messages to/from Actors. Our UML tool does too. > > I think a key point here is that clause 17 is ambivalent about whether > a Message may have an empty signature. According to the multiplicity and the > constraints, it may. And some of the text substantiates this: "If the Message > has a signature ...." > > But other parts of the text do not: "The signature of a Message > refers to either an Operation or a Signal." > > It is true that an Actor may not have Operations or Signals. But, > according to existing practice, it is false that this means that their > lifelines may not participate in Messages. > > -- Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] > Sent: 16 May 2013 11:54 > To: Tom Rutt; uml25-ftf@omg.org > Subject: RE: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for > Ballot 6 > > Tom > > I think the resolution for 11068 is wrong. A Lifeline can represent a > Property that is typed by an Actor. The issue as raised is incorrect > - an Actor is indeed a kind of Type. The issue should be closed, but not for the reason given. > > Using Lifelines to represent Actors is a very common user scenario and > as far as I know is supported by many tools, even to the extent of > having stick-man headers for the lifeline. This is allowed by the following wording in 17.3.4: > > "The Lifeline head has a shape that is based on the classifier for the > part that this lifeline represents. Often the head is a white > rectangle containing the name." > > Thanks > -- Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com] > Sent: 15 May 2013 19:21 > To: uml25-ftf@omg.org > Subject: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 > > I posted draft resolutions for some more Clause 17 issues for Ballot 6. > > > > Tom Rutt > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------- > Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com > Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 From: "Wendland, Marc-Florian" To: Ed Seidewitz , Steve Cook CC: "uml25-ftf@omg.org" Subject: AW: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 Thread-Topic: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 Thread-Index: AQHOUZkdJZQZVo8KtkOJQtvygI92BpkHgoCAgAAH3QCAACvnoIAAC6wAgAACmICAACPQMA== Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 15:05:17 +0000 Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [195.37.77.169] x-kse-antivirus-interceptor-info: scan successful x-kse-antivirus-info: Clean X-cloud-security-sender: marc-florian.wendland@fokus.fraunhofer.de X-cloud-security-recipient: uml25-ftf@omg.org X-cloud-security-Virusscan: CLEAN X-cloud-security-disclaimer: This E-Mail was scanned by E-Mailservice on mx-gate01-dus with 684C5200067 X-cloud-security: scantime:.1554 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id r4GF5S0N009286 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAR15Gpo= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Hi all, >I vote for option 2. I think it is better to enable a message to have no signature, even if it is only a transient situation. Yes indeed, I thought we all agreed on this few months ago, at the latest at Reston (put/get discussion). However, Steve, I'd be cautious with your statement: >If the signature is a Signal, it must have a corresponding Reception on > the receiving lifeline Bran argued several times that he wants to model Signal signatures without corresponding Receptions on the other side (high-level modeling). So enforcing a Reception might not be a good solution (which I'm finally fine with). @Ed: What about the idea of saying ' The signature of a Message, if one provided, refers to either a BehavioralFeature or a Signal' Again, we talked about this few months ago. This would definitely simplify the processing of a Message's signature (since this could be done on BehavioralFeature level), and keeps the possibility to simply refer to a Signal (without enforcing the existence of a Reception on the other side). Regards, Marc-Florian > -----Ursprühe Nachricht----- > Von: Ed Seidewitz [mailto:eseidewitz@ivarjacobson.com] > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 16. Mai 2013 16:50 > An: Steve Cook > Cc: uml25-ftf@omg.org > Betreff: RE: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 > > Steve -- > > The intent is definitely that the signature of a Message is optional. I believe > that the text that seems to indicate otherwise is just stating the semantics > and constraints IF a signature is provided. That is, a sentence such as : "The > signature of a Message refers to either an Operation or a Signal." should be > clarified to something like " The signature of a Message, if one is provided, > refers to either an Operation or a Signal." > > -- Ed > > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 10:41 AM > To: Wendland, Marc-Florian; Tom Rutt; uml25-ftf@omg.org > Subject: RE: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 > > Marc-Florian > > Rather than just closing this set of related issues, I'd like to see a clarification > of the inconsistencies in the semantics of Message, where some text says a > Message must have a signature, and other text says it may not have one. > > Here are a couple of possible different clarifications of the current spec. > Several more possible combinations exist. > > 1. > A Message must have a signature > If the signature is an Operation, it must be an Operation of the receiving > lifeline If the signature is a Signal, it does not have to have a corresponding > Reception on the receiving lifeline Hence Actors may participate in Messages > whose signatures are Signals > > 2. > A Message may have a signature > If the signature is an Operation, it must be an Operation of the receiving > lifeline If the signature is a Signal, it must have a corresponding Reception on > the receiving lifeline Hence Actors may participate in Messages which have > no signatures > > -- Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wendland, Marc-Florian [mailto:marc- > florian.wendland@fokus.fraunhofer.de] > Sent: 16 May 2013 15:11 > To: Steve Cook; Tom Rutt; uml25-ftf@omg.org > Subject: AW: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 > > Hi Steven, > > I totally agree with you. Just a comment to your statement: > > > It is true that an Actor may not have Operations or Signals. But, > > according to existing practice, it is false that this means that their > > lifelines may not participate in Messages. > > Nevertheless, Actors may for sure define Operations or Receptions via > InterfaceRealization. They are, in fact, ordinary BehavioredClassifiers. > > I agree that the issue can be closed - actually I argued for this several months > ago. > > Regards, > Marc-Florian > > > -----Ursprühe Nachricht----- > > Von: Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] > > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 16. Mai 2013 13:22 > > An: Tom Rutt; uml25-ftf@omg.org > > Betreff: RE: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for > > Ballot 6 > > > > I just checked and RSA allows you to type a lifeline by an Actor, and > > to create messages to/from Actors. Our UML tool does too. > > > > I think a key point here is that clause 17 is ambivalent about whether > > a Message may have an empty signature. According to the multiplicity and > the > > constraints, it may. And some of the text substantiates this: "If the > Message > > has a signature ...." > > > > But other parts of the text do not: "The signature of a Message > > refers to either an Operation or a Signal." > > > > It is true that an Actor may not have Operations or Signals. But, > > according to existing practice, it is false that this means that their > > lifelines may not participate in Messages. > > > > -- Steve > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] > > Sent: 16 May 2013 11:54 > > To: Tom Rutt; uml25-ftf@omg.org > > Subject: RE: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for > > Ballot 6 > > > > Tom > > > > I think the resolution for 11068 is wrong. A Lifeline can represent a > > Property that is typed by an Actor. The issue as raised is incorrect > > - an Actor is indeed a kind of Type. The issue should be closed, but not for > the reason given. > > > > Using Lifelines to represent Actors is a very common user scenario and > > as far as I know is supported by many tools, even to the extent of > > having stick-man headers for the lifeline. This is allowed by the following > wording in 17.3.4: > > > > "The Lifeline head has a shape that is based on the classifier for the > > part that this lifeline represents. Often the head is a white > > rectangle containing the name." > > > > Thanks > > -- Steve > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com] > > Sent: 15 May 2013 19:21 > > To: uml25-ftf@omg.org > > Subject: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 > > > > I posted draft resolutions for some more Clause 17 issues for Ballot 6. > > > > > > > > Tom Rutt > > > > -- > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com > > Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 From: Steve Cook To: "Wendland, Marc-Florian" , "nerijus@nomagic.com" CC: "tom@coastin.com" , "uml25-ftf@omg.org" Subject: RE: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 Thread-Topic: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 Thread-Index: AQHOUZkj9wM68mfvHUS3dDvzNklWKpkHomdQgAAlpoCAAAOaAIAAJEdw Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 15:26:59 +0000 Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.166.18.103] X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.37;CTRY:US;IPV:CAL;IPV:NLI;EFV:NLI;SFV:NSPM;SFS:(199002)(51704005)(189002)(24454002)(252514006)(13464003)(377454002)(164054003)(81342001)(63696002)(80022001)(47736001)(49866001)(74876001)(55846006)(33656001)(51856001)(16406001)(76482001)(59766001)(65816001)(54356001)(54316002)(512934002)(77982001)(20776003)(53806001)(56776001)(79102001)(6806003)(47976001)(69226001)(47446002)(56816002)(46102001)(71186001)(74662001)(16236675002)(44976003)(81542001)(74502001)(4396001)(31966008)(74706001)(50986001)(74366001);DIR:OUT;SFP:;SCL:1;SRVR:BL2FFO11HUB040;H:TK5EX14MLTC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com;RD:InfoDomainNonexistent;A:1;MX:1;LANG:en; X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com X-Forefront-PRVS: 0848C1A6AA X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== I think the answer is no. Showing a stereotype on a Lifeline would simply signify that the stereotype is applied to the Lifeline. A profile can always define a stereotype for Lifelines as well as Properties and require that they correspond. -- Steve From: Wendland, Marc-Florian [mailto:marc-florian.wendland@fokus.fraunhofer.de] Sent: 16 May 2013 14:15 To: nerijus@nomagic.com; Steve Cook Cc: tom@coastin.com; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: AW: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 Hi Nerijus, This is an interesting question. I'd say it would make sense to allow showing the stereotypes of the ConnectableElement it represents. Because the represented ConnectableElement is the only relevant information for a Lifeline. Marc-Florian -------- Ursprühe Nachricht -------- Von: Nerijus Jankevicius Datum: An: Steve Cook Cc: Tom Rutt ,uml25-ftf@omg.org Betreff: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 In addition, is it legal to show represented part's stereotype on lifeline symbol? For example, UML Testing Profile's "system under test" is a <> stereotype on part, often shown on lifeline symbols too. Is it clarified in spec? Thanks, Nerijus On May 16, 2013, at 1:53 PM, Steve Cook wrote: > Tom > > I think the resolution for 11068 is wrong. A Lifeline can represent a Property that is typed by an Actor. The issue as raised is incorrect - an Actor is indeed a kind of Type. The issue should be closed, but not for the reason given. > > Using Lifelines to represent Actors is a very common user scenario and as far as I know is supported by many tools, even to the extent of having stick-man headers for the lifeline. This is allowed by the following wording in 17.3.4: > > "The Lifeline head has a shape that is based on the classifier for the part that this lifeline represents. Often the head is a white rectangle containing the name." > > Thanks > -- Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com] > Sent: 15 May 2013 19:21 > To: uml25-ftf@omg.org > Subject: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 > > I posted draft resolutions for some more Clause 17 issues for Ballot 6. > > > > Tom Rutt > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------- > Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com > Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 > From: "Wendland, Marc-Florian" To: Steve Cook , "nerijus@nomagic.com" CC: "tom@coastin.com" , "uml25-ftf@omg.org" Subject: AW: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 Thread-Topic: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 Thread-Index: AQHOUjdszUhrmXBhFUan4NjLA+yPi5kHzaaAgAAh6BA= Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 15:31:52 +0000 Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [195.37.77.169] x-kse-antivirus-interceptor-info: scan successful x-kse-antivirus-info: Clean X-cloud-security-sender: marc-florian.wendland@fokus.fraunhofer.de X-cloud-security-recipient: uml25-ftf@omg.org X-cloud-security-Virusscan: CLEAN X-cloud-security-disclaimer: This E-Mail was scanned by E-Mailservice on mx-gate03-dus with 8A2D9388002A X-cloud-security: scantime:.2370 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAR16Wag= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Steve, although I don.t really care much whether this is allowed or not, from a language specification point of view it would simply make no sense to say a Lifeline that represents a Property stereotyped by > requires a different stereotype <> (extending Lifeline) just for visualization. To be honest, Lifeline has no other meaning then representing a ConnectableElement in an Interaction. Allowing them to reflect potential stereotypes of that ConnecatbleElement would just make sense. but as I said, I do not really care. Regards, Marc-Florian Von: Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 16. Mai 2013 17:27 An: Wendland, Marc-Florian; nerijus@nomagic.com Cc: tom@coastin.com; uml25-ftf@omg.org Betreff: RE: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 I think the answer is no. Showing a stereotype on a Lifeline would simply signify that the stereotype is applied to the Lifeline. A profile can always define a stereotype for Lifelines as well as Properties and require that they correspond. -- Steve From: Wendland, Marc-Florian [mailto:marc-florian.wendland@fokus.fraunhofer.de] Sent: 16 May 2013 14:15 To: nerijus@nomagic.com; Steve Cook Cc: tom@coastin.com; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: AW: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 Hi Nerijus, This is an interesting question. I'd say it would make sense to allow showing the stereotypes of the ConnectableElement it represents. Because the represented ConnectableElement is the only relevant information for a Lifeline. Marc-Florian -------- Ursprühe Nachricht -------- Von: Nerijus Jankevicius Datum: An: Steve Cook Cc: Tom Rutt ,uml25-ftf@omg.org Betreff: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 In addition, is it legal to show represented part's stereotype on lifeline symbol? For example, UML Testing Profile's "system under test" is a <> stereotype on part, often shown on lifeline symbols too. Is it clarified in spec? Thanks, Nerijus On May 16, 2013, at 1:53 PM, Steve Cook wrote: > Tom > > I think the resolution for 11068 is wrong. A Lifeline can represent a Property that is typed by an Actor. The issue as raised is incorrect - an Actor is indeed a kind of Type. The issue should be closed, but not for the reason given. > > Using Lifelines to represent Actors is a very common user scenario and as far as I know is supported by many tools, even to the extent of having stick-man headers for the lifeline. This is allowed by the following wording in 17.3.4: > > "The Lifeline head has a shape that is based on the classifier for the part that this lifeline represents. Often the head is a white rectangle containing the name." > > Thanks > -- Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com] > Sent: 15 May 2013 19:21 > To: uml25-ftf@omg.org > Subject: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 > > I posted draft resolutions for some more Clause 17 issues for Ballot 6. > > > > Tom Rutt > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------- > Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com > Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 > From: "Wendland, Marc-Florian" To: Ed Seidewitz CC: "uml25-ftf@omg.org" Subject: AW: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 Thread-Topic: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 Thread-Index: AQHOUZkdJZQZVo8KtkOJQtvygI92BpkHgoCAgAAH3QCAACvnoIAAFcQAgAAl+nA= Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 15:39:29 +0000 Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [195.37.77.169] x-kse-antivirus-interceptor-info: scan successful x-kse-antivirus-info: Clean X-cloud-security-sender: marc-florian.wendland@fokus.fraunhofer.de X-cloud-security-recipient: uml25-ftf@omg.org X-cloud-security-Virusscan: CLEAN X-cloud-security-disclaimer: This E-Mail was scanned by E-Mailservice on mx-gate02-dus with CCFB9388000D X-cloud-security: scantime:.1821 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id r4GFdgtG015023 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Hi Ed, I see. I did not know this is required for BehavioredClassifiers and I really do not understand why this is mandatory. It disallows high-level modeling and leads to redundant information in the model. All information are available without these features being present in the BehavioredClassifier. Even for code generation, the implemented features in the BehavioredClassifier could be derived. Maybe I overlook some aspects, though... Regards, Marc-Florian > -----Ursprühe Nachricht----- > Von: Ed Seidewitz [mailto:eseidewitz@ivarjacobson.com] > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 16. Mai 2013 17:17 > An: Wendland, Marc-Florian > Cc: uml25-ftf@omg.org > Betreff: RE: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 > > Marc-Florian -- > > Actually, InterfaceRealization does not allow Actors to "define" Operations > and Receptions. InterfaceRealization requires that the realizing > BehavioredClassifier own features that "conform to the contract specified by > the Interface". Features are not "inherited" from an Interface. > > The problem is that Actor has no ownership associations for attributes or > operations. As a BehavioredClassifier, it can own Behaviors, but the > Classifier::feature and attribute properties are derived unions which remain > empty unless subsetted. Thus, there is really no way for an Actor to legally > realize and Interface, unless that Interface simply has no features. > > There are a number of open issues related to this, including: 8893, 10780, > 12942, 13134, 13948, 14875, 15162, 17366. > > -- Ed > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wendland, Marc-Florian [mailto:marc- > florian.wendland@fokus.fraunhofer.de] > Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 10:11 AM > To: Steve Cook; Tom Rutt; uml25-ftf@omg.org > Subject: AW: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 > > Hi Steven, > > I totally agree with you. Just a comment to your statement: > > > It is true that an Actor may not have Operations or Signals. But, > > according to existing practice, it is false that this means that their > > lifelines may not participate in Messages. > > Nevertheless, Actors may for sure define Operations or Receptions via > InterfaceRealization. They are, in fact, ordinary BehavioredClassifiers. > > I agree that the issue can be closed - actually I argued for this several months > ago. > > Regards, > Marc-Florian > > > -----Ursprühe Nachricht----- > > Von: Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] > > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 16. Mai 2013 13:22 > > An: Tom Rutt; uml25-ftf@omg.org > > Betreff: RE: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for > > Ballot 6 > > > > I just checked and RSA allows you to type a lifeline by an Actor, and > > to create messages to/from Actors. Our UML tool does too. > > > > I think a key point here is that clause 17 is ambivalent about whether > > a Message may have an empty signature. According to the multiplicity and > the > > constraints, it may. And some of the text substantiates this: "If the > Message > > has a signature ...." > > > > But other parts of the text do not: "The signature of a Message > > refers to either an Operation or a Signal." > > > > It is true that an Actor may not have Operations or Signals. But, > > according to existing practice, it is false that this means that their > > lifelines may not participate in Messages. > > > > -- Steve > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] > > Sent: 16 May 2013 11:54 > > To: Tom Rutt; uml25-ftf@omg.org > > Subject: RE: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for > > Ballot 6 > > > > Tom > > > > I think the resolution for 11068 is wrong. A Lifeline can represent a > > Property that is typed by an Actor. The issue as raised is incorrect > > - an Actor is indeed a kind of Type. The issue should be closed, but not for > the reason given. > > > > Using Lifelines to represent Actors is a very common user scenario and > > as far as I know is supported by many tools, even to the extent of > > having stick-man headers for the lifeline. This is allowed by the following > wording in 17.3.4: > > > > "The Lifeline head has a shape that is based on the classifier for the > > part that this lifeline represents. Often the head is a white > > rectangle containing the name." > > > > Thanks > > -- Steve > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com] > > Sent: 15 May 2013 19:21 > > To: uml25-ftf@omg.org > > Subject: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 > > > > I posted draft resolutions for some more Clause 17 issues for Ballot 6. > > > > > > > > Tom Rutt > > > > -- > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com > > Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 From: GERARD Sebastien 166342 To: Steve Cook , "Wendland, Marc-Florian" , "nerijus@nomagic.com" CC: "tom@coastin.com" , "uml25-ftf@omg.org" Subject: RE: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 Thread-Topic: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 Thread-Index: AQHOUZkj9wM68mfvHUS3dDvzNklWKpkHomdQgAAEH4CAAAOZAIAAJMSAgAAj1nA= Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 15:36:19 +0000 Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [132.166.88.105] x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19820.002 x-tm-as-result: No--58.509000-0.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: Yes x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAR16Wag= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== We have a similar use case around typed element for which it is sometimes desirable to be able to show the stereotype of the type, as for example for attributes of a class. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Séstien Gérd +33 (0)1 69 08 58 24 / +33(0)6 88 20 00 47 CEA Saclay Nano-INNOV Institut CARNOT CEA LIST DILS/Laboratoire d.Ingéerie dirigépar les modès pour les Systès Embarqué(LISE), Point Courrier n°174 91 191 Gif sur Yvette CEDEX Description : PapyrusLogo_SmallFormatwww.eclipse.org/papyrus De : Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] Envoyé jeudi 16 mai 2013 17:27 À: Wendland, Marc-Florian; nerijus@nomagic.com Cc : tom@coastin.com; uml25-ftf@omg.org Objet : RE: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 I think the answer is no. Showing a stereotype on a Lifeline would simply signify that the stereotype is applied to the Lifeline. A profile can always define a stereotype for Lifelines as well as Properties and require that they correspond. -- Steve From: Wendland, Marc-Florian [mailto:marc-florian.wendland@fokus.fraunhofer.de] Sent: 16 May 2013 14:15 To: nerijus@nomagic.com; Steve Cook Cc: tom@coastin.com; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: AW: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 Hi Nerijus, This is an interesting question. I'd say it would make sense to allow showing the stereotypes of the ConnectableElement it represents. Because the represented ConnectableElement is the only relevant information for a Lifeline. Marc-Florian -------- Ursprühe Nachricht -------- Von: Nerijus Jankevicius Datum: An: Steve Cook Cc: Tom Rutt ,uml25-ftf@omg.org Betreff: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 In addition, is it legal to show represented part's stereotype on lifeline symbol? For example, UML Testing Profile's "system under test" is a <> stereotype on part, often shown on lifeline symbols too. Is it clarified in spec? Thanks, Nerijus On May 16, 2013, at 1:53 PM, Steve Cook wrote: > Tom > > I think the resolution for 11068 is wrong. A Lifeline can represent a Property that is typed by an Actor. The issue as raised is incorrect - an Actor is indeed a kind of Type. The issue should be closed, but not for the reason given. > > Using Lifelines to represent Actors is a very common user scenario and as far as I know is supported by many tools, even to the extent of having stick-man headers for the lifeline. This is allowed by the following wording in 17.3.4: > > "The Lifeline head has a shape that is based on the classifier for the part that this lifeline represents. Often the head is a white rectangle containing the name." > > Thanks > -- Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com] > Sent: 15 May 2013 19:21 > To: uml25-ftf@omg.org > Subject: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 > > I posted draft resolutions for some more Clause 17 issues for Ballot 6. > > > > Tom Rutt > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------- > Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com > Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 > te: Thu, 16 May 2013 12:31:00 -0400 From: Tom Rutt User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 To: Steve Cook CC: "Wendland, Marc-Florian" , "nerijus@nomagic.com" , "uml25-ftf@omg.org" Subject: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - neptune.host4u.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - omg.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - coastin.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: neptune.host4u.net: authenticated_id: tom@coastin.com X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAR3E57M= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== On 5/16/2013 11:26 AM, Steve Cook wrote: The rationale to close 11068 was provided by Oystein. I would as Steve if his view is that a ConnectableElement can be typed as an Actor? If so we might want to add a clarification of what types the ConnectableElement can refer to? Tom I think the answer is no. Showing a stereotype on a Lifeline would simply signify that the stereotype is applied to the Lifeline. A profile can always define a stereotype for Lifelines as well as Properties and require that they correspond. -- Steve From: Wendland, Marc-Florian [mailto:marc-florian.wendland@fokus.fraunhofer.de] Sent: 16 May 2013 14:15 To: nerijus@nomagic.com; Steve Cook Cc: tom@coastin.com; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: AW: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 Hi Nerijus, This is an interesting question. I'd say it would make sense to allow showing the stereotypes of the ConnectableElement it represents. Because the represented ConnectableElement is the only relevant information for a Lifeline. Marc-Florian -------- Ursprühe Nachricht -------- Von: Nerijus Jankevicius Datum: An: Steve Cook Cc: Tom Rutt ,uml25-ftf@omg.org Betreff: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 In addition, is it legal to show represented part's stereotype on lifeline symbol? For example, UML Testing Profile's "system under test" is a <> stereotype on part, often shown on lifeline symbols too. Is it clarified in spec? Thanks, Nerijus On May 16, 2013, at 1:53 PM, Steve Cook wrote: > Tom > > I think the resolution for 11068 is wrong. A Lifeline can represent a Property that is typed by an Actor. The issue as raised is incorrect - an Actor is indeed a kind of Type. The issue should be closed, but not for the reason given. > > Using Lifelines to represent Actors is a very common user scenario and as far as I know is supported by many tools, even to the extent of having stick-man headers for the lifeline. This is allowed by the following wording in 17.3.4: > > "The Lifeline head has a shape that is based on the classifier for the part that this lifeline represents. Often the head is a white rectangle containing the name." > > Thanks > -- Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com] > Sent: 15 May 2013 19:21 > To: uml25-ftf@omg.org > Subject: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 > > I posted draft resolutions for some more Clause 17 issues for Ballot 6. > > > > Tom Rutt > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------- > Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com > Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 > -- ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 12:43:57 -0400 From: Tom Rutt User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 To: Ed Seidewitz CC: "Wendland, Marc-Florian" , "uml25-ftf@omg.org" Subject: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - neptune.host4u.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - omg.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - coastin.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: neptune.host4u.net: authenticated_id: tom@coastin.com X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== On 5/16/2013 11:16 AM, Ed Seidewitz wrote: With regard to a message with no signature, my proposed resolution to the static operation issue 7621 adds the following paragraph: If a ConectableElement represented by a Lifeline is associated with a Type, any Operation referred to by the signature of a Message received by that Lifeline MUST be defined for that Type. Operations with property isStatic = true can be received by any ConnectableElement having the Type defining that static Operation. IF there is no signature for the Message, this statement does not apply. If the Lifeline represents a ConnectableElement typed by an Actor, what would the message entail, if it was not an operation or signal? Tom Marc-Florian -- Actually, InterfaceRealization does not allow Actors to "define" Operations and Receptions. InterfaceRealization requires that the realizing BehavioredClassifier own features that "conform to the contract specified by the Interface". Features are not "inherited" from an Interface. The problem is that Actor has no ownership associations for attributes or operations. As a BehavioredClassifier, it can own Behaviors, but the Classifier::feature and attribute properties are derived unions which remain empty unless subsetted. Thus, there is really no way for an Actor to legally realize and Interface, unless that Interface simply has no features. There are a number of open issues related to this, including: 8893, 10780, 12942, 13134, 13948, 14875, 15162, 17366. -- Ed -----Original Message----- From: Wendland, Marc-Florian [mailto:marc-florian.wendland@fokus.fraunhofer.de] Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 10:11 AM To: Steve Cook; Tom Rutt; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: AW: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 Hi Steven, I totally agree with you. Just a comment to your statement: It is true that an Actor may not have Operations or Signals. But, according to existing practice, it is false that this means that their lifelines may not participate in Messages. Nevertheless, Actors may for sure define Operations or Receptions via InterfaceRealization. They are, in fact, ordinary BehavioredClassifiers. I agree that the issue can be closed - actually I argued for this several months ago. Regards, Marc-Florian -----Ursprühe Nachricht----- Von: Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 16. Mai 2013 13:22 An: Tom Rutt; uml25-ftf@omg.org Betreff: RE: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 I just checked and RSA allows you to type a lifeline by an Actor, and to create messages to/from Actors. Our UML tool does too. I think a key point here is that clause 17 is ambivalent about whether a Message may have an empty signature. According to the multiplicity and the constraints, it may. And some of the text substantiates this: "If the Message has a signature ...." But other parts of the text do not: "The signature of a Message refers to either an Operation or a Signal." It is true that an Actor may not have Operations or Signals. But, according to existing practice, it is false that this means that their lifelines may not participate in Messages. -- Steve -----Original Message----- From: Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] Sent: 16 May 2013 11:54 To: Tom Rutt; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 Tom I think the resolution for 11068 is wrong. A Lifeline can represent a Property that is typed by an Actor. The issue as raised is incorrect - an Actor is indeed a kind of Type. The issue should be closed, but not for the reason given. Using Lifelines to represent Actors is a very common user scenario and as far as I know is supported by many tools, even to the extent of having stick-man headers for the lifeline. This is allowed by the following wording in 17.3.4: "The Lifeline head has a shape that is based on the classifier for the part that this lifeline represents. Often the head is a white rectangle containing the name." Thanks -- Steve -----Original Message----- From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com] Sent: 15 May 2013 19:21 To: uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 I posted draft resolutions for some more Clause 17 issues for Ballot 6. Tom Rutt -- ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 -- ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 From: Steve Cook To: Tom Rutt CC: "Wendland, Marc-Florian" , "nerijus@nomagic.com" , "uml25-ftf@omg.org" Subject: RE: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 Thread-Topic: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 Thread-Index: AQHOUlLyURDPeeyNiEeiQFHFeeOcRpkIAlyA Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 16:47:29 +0000 Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.166.18.103] X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.37;CTRY:US;IPV:CAL;IPV:NLI;EFV:NLI;SFV:NSPM;SFS:(24454002)(13464003)(189002)(164054003)(479174002)(199002)(377454002)(252514006)(51704005)(512934002)(44976003)(31966008)(80022001)(47976001)(47736001)(51856001)(4396001)(49866001)(77982001)(74876001)(74502001)(74706001)(50986001)(16406001)(69226001)(74366001)(47446002)(63696002)(46102001)(74662001)(59766001)(33656001)(76482001)(54356001)(79102001)(81542001)(6806003)(55846006)(81342001)(56776001)(53806001)(56816002)(16236675002)(65816001)(15202345002)(71186001)(20776003)(54316002);DIR:OUT;SFP:;SCL:1;SRVR:BY2FFO11HUB003;H:TK5EX14MLTC102.redmond.corp.microsoft.com;RD:InfoDomainNonexistent;MX:1;A:1;LANG:en; X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com X-Forefront-PRVS: 0848C1A6AA X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAR3E57M= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== >The rationale to close 11068 was provided by Oystein. Well, he is wrong. >I would as Steve if his view is that a ConnectableElement can be typed as an Actor? I thought I had made that clear in this thread, so I am puzzled by the question. To quote myself: A Lifeline can represent a Property that is typed by an Actor. The issue as raised is incorrect - an Actor is indeed a kind of Type. >If so we might want to add a clarification of what types the ConnectableElement can refer to? The metamodel tells us this by the meaning of inheritance. If it were to be clarified that would have to be in Clause 11. In fact Clause 11 currently allows the type of a ConnectableElement to be an Association . we might consider that to be an issue, but it is a different one. -- Steve From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com] Sent: 16 May 2013 17:31 To: Steve Cook Cc: Wendland, Marc-Florian; nerijus@nomagic.com; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 On 5/16/2013 11:26 AM, Steve Cook wrote: The rationale to close 11068 was provided by Oystein. I would as Steve if his view is that a ConnectableElement can be typed as an Actor? If so we might want to add a clarification of what types the ConnectableElement can refer to? Tom I think the answer is no. Showing a stereotype on a Lifeline would simply signify that the stereotype is applied to the Lifeline. A profile can always define a stereotype for Lifelines as well as Properties and require that they correspond. -- Steve From: Wendland, Marc-Florian [mailto:marc-florian.wendland@fokus.fraunhofer.de] Sent: 16 May 2013 14:15 To: nerijus@nomagic.com; Steve Cook Cc: tom@coastin.com; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: AW: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 Hi Nerijus, This is an interesting question. I'd say it would make sense to allow showing the stereotypes of the ConnectableElement it represents. Because the represented ConnectableElement is the only relevant information for a Lifeline. Marc-Florian -------- Ursprühe Nachricht -------- Von: Nerijus Jankevicius Datum: An: Steve Cook Cc: Tom Rutt ,uml25-ftf@omg.org Betreff: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 In addition, is it legal to show represented part's stereotype on lifeline symbol? For example, UML Testing Profile's "system under test" is a <> stereotype on part, often shown on lifeline symbols too. Is it clarified in spec? Thanks, Nerijus On May 16, 2013, at 1:53 PM, Steve Cook wrote: > Tom > > I think the resolution for 11068 is wrong. A Lifeline can represent a Property that is typed by an Actor. The issue as raised is incorrect - an Actor is indeed a kind of Type. The issue should be closed, but not for the reason given. > > Using Lifelines to represent Actors is a very common user scenario and as far as I know is supported by many tools, even to the extent of having stick-man headers for the lifeline. This is allowed by the following wording in 17.3.4: > > "The Lifeline head has a shape that is based on the classifier for the part that this lifeline represents. Often the head is a white rectangle containing the name." > > Thanks > -- Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com] > Sent: 15 May 2013 19:21 > To: uml25-ftf@omg.org > Subject: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 > > I posted draft resolutions for some more Clause 17 issues for Ballot 6. > > > > Tom Rutt > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------- > Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com > Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 > -- ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 12:51:39 -0400 From: Tom Rutt User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 To: Steve Cook CC: "Wendland, Marc-Florian" , "nerijus@nomagic.com" , "uml25-ftf@omg.org" Subject: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - neptune.host4u.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - omg.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - coastin.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: neptune.host4u.net: authenticated_id: tom@coastin.com X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org On 5/16/2013 12:47 PM, Steve Cook wrote: >The rationale to close 11068 was provided by Oystein. Well, he is wrong. >I would as Steve if his view is that a ConnectableElement can be typed as an Actor? I thought I had made that clear in this thread, so I am puzzled by the question. To quote myself: A Lifeline can represent a Property that is typed by an Actor. The issue as raised is incorrect - an Actor is indeed a kind of Type. I now understand you point, however, the Actor type cannot have operations associated with it, as has been clarified on other emails. so if a lifeline ConnectableElement is typed to actor, the message MUST not have a signature. This might need to be clarified. Also what would the semantics of a messageName on a Message to such a Lifeline convey with respect to that Actor Type? Tom >If so we might want to add a clarification of what types the ConnectableElement can refer to? The metamodel tells us this by the meaning of inheritance. If it were to be clarified that would have to be in Clause 11. In fact Clause 11 currently allows the type of a ConnectableElement to be an Association . we might consider that to be an issue, but it is a different one. -- Steve From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com] Sent: 16 May 2013 17:31 To: Steve Cook Cc: Wendland, Marc-Florian; nerijus@nomagic.com; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 On 5/16/2013 11:26 AM, Steve Cook wrote: The rationale to close 11068 was provided by Oystein. I would as Steve if his view is that a ConnectableElement can be typed as an Actor? If so we might want to add a clarification of what types the ConnectableElement can refer to? Tom I think the answer is no. Showing a stereotype on a Lifeline would simply signify that the stereotype is applied to the Lifeline. A profile can always define a stereotype for Lifelines as well as Properties and require that they correspond. -- Steve From: Wendland, Marc-Florian [mailto:marc-florian.wendland@fokus.fraunhofer.de] Sent: 16 May 2013 14:15 To: nerijus@nomagic.com; Steve Cook Cc: tom@coastin.com; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: AW: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 Hi Nerijus, This is an interesting question. I'd say it would make sense to allow showing the stereotypes of the ConnectableElement it represents. Because the represented ConnectableElement is the only relevant information for a Lifeline. Marc-Florian -------- Ursprühe Nachricht -------- Von: Nerijus Jankevicius Datum: An: Steve Cook Cc: Tom Rutt ,uml25-ftf@omg.org Betreff: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 In addition, is it legal to show represented part's stereotype on lifeline symbol? For example, UML Testing Profile's "system under test" is a <> stereotype on part, often shown on lifeline symbols too. Is it clarified in spec? Thanks, Nerijus On May 16, 2013, at 1:53 PM, Steve Cook wrote: > Tom > > I think the resolution for 11068 is wrong. A Lifeline can represent a Property that is typed by an Actor. The issue as raised is incorrect - an Actor is indeed a kind of Type. The issue should be closed, but not for the reason given. > > Using Lifelines to represent Actors is a very common user scenario and as far as I know is supported by many tools, even to the extent of having stick-man headers for the lifeline. This is allowed by the following wording in 17.3.4: > > "The Lifeline head has a shape that is based on the classifier for the part that this lifeline represents. Often the head is a white rectangle containing the name." > > Thanks > -- Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com] > Sent: 15 May 2013 19:21 > To: uml25-ftf@omg.org > Subject: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 > > I posted draft resolutions for some more Clause 17 issues for Ballot 6. > > > > Tom Rutt > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------- > Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com > Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 > -- ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 -- ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 From: Steve Cook To: Tom Rutt CC: "Wendland, Marc-Florian" , "nerijus@nomagic.com" , "uml25-ftf@omg.org" Subject: RE: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 Thread-Topic: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 Thread-Index: AQHOUlLyURDPeeyNiEeiQFHFeeOcRpkIAlyAgAAEQoCAAACVsA== Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 16:56:10 +0000 Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.166.18.103] X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.37;CTRY:US;IPV:CAL;IPV:NLI;EFV:NLI;SFV:NSPM;SFS:(199002)(479174002)(377454002)(164054003)(189002)(252514006)(24454002)(51704005)(13464003)(77982001)(53806001)(71186001)(74706001)(56776001)(74366001)(47976001)(20776003)(47736001)(65816001)(63696002)(54356001)(51856001)(74876001)(55846006)(16406001)(46102001)(33656001)(54316002)(4396001)(74662001)(512934002)(81542001)(59766001)(76482001)(74502001)(31966008)(79102001)(69226001)(49866001)(56816002)(50986001)(16236675002)(6806003)(47446002)(81342001)(44976003)(80022001);DIR:OUT;SFP:;SCL:1;SRVR:BY2FFO11HUB009;H:TK5EX14HUBC106.redmond.corp.microsoft.com;RD:InfoDomainNonexistent;A:1;MX:1;LANG:en; X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com X-Forefront-PRVS: 0848C1A6AA X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org >the message MUST not have a signature Can.t it have a Signal? The Signal does not need to have any Receptions. >Also what would the semantics of a messageName on a Message to such a Lifeline convey with respect to that Actor Type? Any old name the modeller wants to give it. -- Steve From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com] Sent: 16 May 2013 17:52 To: Steve Cook Cc: Wendland, Marc-Florian; nerijus@nomagic.com; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 On 5/16/2013 12:47 PM, Steve Cook wrote: >The rationale to close 11068 was provided by Oystein. Well, he is wrong. >I would as Steve if his view is that a ConnectableElement can be typed as an Actor? I thought I had made that clear in this thread, so I am puzzled by the question. To quote myself: A Lifeline can represent a Property that is typed by an Actor. The issue as raised is incorrect - an Actor is indeed a kind of Type. I now understand you point, however, the Actor type cannot have operations associated with it, as has been clarified on other emails. so if a lifeline ConnectableElement is typed to actor, the message MUST not have a signature. This might need to be clarified. Also what would the semantics of a messageName on a Message to such a Lifeline convey with respect to that Actor Type? Tom >If so we might want to add a clarification of what types the ConnectableElement can refer to? The metamodel tells us this by the meaning of inheritance. If it were to be clarified that would have to be in Clause 11. In fact Clause 11 currently allows the type of a ConnectableElement to be an Association . we might consider that to be an issue, but it is a different one. -- Steve From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com] Sent: 16 May 2013 17:31 To: Steve Cook Cc: Wendland, Marc-Florian; nerijus@nomagic.com; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 On 5/16/2013 11:26 AM, Steve Cook wrote: The rationale to close 11068 was provided by Oystein. I would as Steve if his view is that a ConnectableElement can be typed as an Actor? If so we might want to add a clarification of what types the ConnectableElement can refer to? Tom I think the answer is no. Showing a stereotype on a Lifeline would simply signify that the stereotype is applied to the Lifeline. A profile can always define a stereotype for Lifelines as well as Properties and require that they correspond. -- Steve From: Wendland, Marc-Florian [mailto:marc-florian.wendland@fokus.fraunhofer.de] Sent: 16 May 2013 14:15 To: nerijus@nomagic.com; Steve Cook Cc: tom@coastin.com; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: AW: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 Hi Nerijus, This is an interesting question. I'd say it would make sense to allow showing the stereotypes of the ConnectableElement it represents. Because the represented ConnectableElement is the only relevant information for a Lifeline. Marc-Florian -------- Ursprühe Nachricht -------- Von: Nerijus Jankevicius Datum: An: Steve Cook Cc: Tom Rutt ,uml25-ftf@omg.org Betreff: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 In addition, is it legal to show represented part's stereotype on lifeline symbol? For example, UML Testing Profile's "system under test" is a <> stereotype on part, often shown on lifeline symbols too. Is it clarified in spec? Thanks, Nerijus On May 16, 2013, at 1:53 PM, Steve Cook wrote: > Tom > > I think the resolution for 11068 is wrong. A Lifeline can represent a Property that is typed by an Actor. The issue as raised is incorrect - an Actor is indeed a kind of Type. The issue should be closed, but not for the reason given. > > Using Lifelines to represent Actors is a very common user scenario and as far as I know is supported by many tools, even to the extent of having stick-man headers for the lifeline. This is allowed by the following wording in 17.3.4: > > "The Lifeline head has a shape that is based on the classifier for the part that this lifeline represents. Often the head is a white rectangle containing the name." > > Thanks > -- Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com] > Sent: 15 May 2013 19:21 > To: uml25-ftf@omg.org > Subject: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 > > I posted draft resolutions for some more Clause 17 issues for Ballot 6. > > > > Tom Rutt > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------- > Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com > Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 > -- ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 -- ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 13:26:31 -0400 From: Tom Rutt User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 To: Steve Cook CC: "Wendland, Marc-Florian" , "nerijus@nomagic.com" , "uml25-ftf@omg.org" Subject: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - neptune.host4u.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - omg.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - coastin.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: neptune.host4u.net: authenticated_id: tom@coastin.com X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org On 5/16/2013 12:56 PM, Steve Cook wrote: >the message MUST not have a signature I just realized that we are actually discussing a resolution to Nicolas's issue 18131, and is associated merged issues. I insert text from a february email post on this subject: Merged Issues regarding Operation and Signal constraints on Lifelines Issue 12455: Section 14 Interaction Issue 13256: Section: 14.3.13 Interaction (from BasicInteraction, Fragments) Issue 18131: 17 Semantics of interactions Merged Issue Resolution Discussion: Syntax for LifelineIdent currently allows vacant "Class" field. Do constraints on messages allow them to be associated with operations and signals which are not defined on the type associated with represented ConnectableElement? We really need to clarify what kind of connectable elements can be represented by lifelines Thus the resolution this merged issue is related to the resolution of the other Merged Issue on Types of Connectable Elements on Lifelines. We should consider adding a constraint on message signature association to Signal or Operation, tying it to type of connectable element. " this is the issue which this thread seems to be driving at finding a resolution to. Tom Can.t it have a Signal? The Signal does not need to have any Receptions. >Also what would the semantics of a messageName on a Message to such a Lifeline convey with respect to that Actor Type? Any old name the modeller wants to give it. -- Steve From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com] Sent: 16 May 2013 17:52 To: Steve Cook Cc: Wendland, Marc-Florian; nerijus@nomagic.com; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 On 5/16/2013 12:47 PM, Steve Cook wrote: >The rationale to close 11068 was provided by Oystein. Well, he is wrong. >I would as Steve if his view is that a ConnectableElement can be typed as an Actor? I thought I had made that clear in this thread, so I am puzzled by the question. To quote myself: A Lifeline can represent a Property that is typed by an Actor. The issue as raised is incorrect - an Actor is indeed a kind of Type. I now understand you point, however, the Actor type cannot have operations associated with it, as has been clarified on other emails. so if a lifeline ConnectableElement is typed to actor, the message MUST not have a signature. This might need to be clarified. Also what would the semantics of a messageName on a Message to such a Lifeline convey with respect to that Actor Type? Tom >If so we might want to add a clarification of what types the ConnectableElement can refer to? The metamodel tells us this by the meaning of inheritance. If it were to be clarified that would have to be in Clause 11. In fact Clause 11 currently allows the type of a ConnectableElement to be an Association . we might consider that to be an issue, but it is a different one. -- Steve From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com] Sent: 16 May 2013 17:31 To: Steve Cook Cc: Wendland, Marc-Florian; nerijus@nomagic.com; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 On 5/16/2013 11:26 AM, Steve Cook wrote: The rationale to close 11068 was provided by Oystein. I would as Steve if his view is that a ConnectableElement can be typed as an Actor? If so we might want to add a clarification of what types the ConnectableElement can refer to? Tom I think the answer is no. Showing a stereotype on a Lifeline would simply signify that the stereotype is applied to the Lifeline. A profile can always define a stereotype for Lifelines as well as Properties and require that they correspond. -- Steve From: Wendland, Marc-Florian [mailto:marc-florian.wendland@fokus.fraunhofer.de] Sent: 16 May 2013 14:15 To: nerijus@nomagic.com; Steve Cook Cc: tom@coastin.com; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: AW: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 Hi Nerijus, This is an interesting question. I'd say it would make sense to allow showing the stereotypes of the ConnectableElement it represents. Because the represented ConnectableElement is the only relevant information for a Lifeline. Marc-Florian -------- Ursprühe Nachricht -------- Von: Nerijus Jankevicius Datum: An: Steve Cook Cc: Tom Rutt ,uml25-ftf@omg.org Betreff: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 In addition, is it legal to show represented part's stereotype on lifeline symbol? For example, UML Testing Profile's "system under test" is a <> stereotype on part, often shown on lifeline symbols too. Is it clarified in spec? Thanks, Nerijus On May 16, 2013, at 1:53 PM, Steve Cook wrote: > Tom > > I think the resolution for 11068 is wrong. A Lifeline can represent a Property that is typed by an Actor. The issue as raised is incorrect - an Actor is indeed a kind of Type. The issue should be closed, but not for the reason given. > > Using Lifelines to represent Actors is a very common user scenario and as far as I know is supported by many tools, even to the extent of having stick-man headers for the lifeline. This is allowed by the following wording in 17.3.4: > > "The Lifeline head has a shape that is based on the classifier for the part that this lifeline represents. Often the head is a white rectangle containing the name." > > Thanks > -- Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com] > Sent: 15 May 2013 19:21 > To: uml25-ftf@omg.org > Subject: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 > > I posted draft resolutions for some more Clause 17 issues for Ballot 6. > > > > Tom Rutt > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------- > Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com > Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 > -- ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 -- ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 -- ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 13:40:55 -0400 From: Tom Rutt User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 To: Steve Cook CC: "Wendland, Marc-Florian" , "nerijus@nomagic.com" , "uml25-ftf@omg.org" Subject: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - neptune.host4u.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - omg.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - coastin.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: neptune.host4u.net: authenticated_id: tom@coastin.com X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org On 5/16/2013 1:26 PM, Tom Rutt wrote: On 5/16/2013 12:56 PM, Steve Cook wrote: >the message MUST not have a signature I just realized that we are actually discussing a resolution to Nicolas's issue 18131, and is associated merged issues. Upon further reflection on this Issue, we need to be careful not to introduce constraints into UML 2.5 which were not in UML 2.4.1 Currently there are no constraints requiring an operation or signal to be tied to the Type of the ConnectableElement represented by the lifeline. this has allowed vendors to do all sorts of stuff regarding operation and signal signatures associated with Messages on lifelines. Thus I propose that we close the issues in the batch below with "Closed NO Change" since any new constraints could break existing implementations. Then we can close the Actors in Lifeline issue as "closed no change" since Actor is a type which can be referred from a ConnectableElement. Also I would need to modify the static issue resolution to reflect this change. What do you think about this radical way forward (basically allow any operation on the lifeline, regardless of whether the type has it defined. Tom I insert text from a february email post on this subject: Merged Issues regarding Operation and Signal constraints on Lifelines Issue 12455: Section 14 Interaction Issue 13256: Section: 14.3.13 Interaction (from BasicInteraction, Fragments) Issue 18131: 17 Semantics of interactions Merged Issue Resolution Discussion: Syntax for LifelineIdent currently allows vacant "Class" field. Do constraints on messages allow them to be associated with operations and signals which are not defined on the type associated with represented ConnectableElement? We really need to clarify what kind of connectable elements can be represented by lifelines Thus the resolution this merged issue is related to the resolution of the other Merged Issue on Types of Connectable Elements on Lifelines. We should consider adding a constraint on message signature association to Signal or Operation, tying it to type of connectable element. " this is the issue which this thread seems to be driving at finding a resolution to. Tom Can.t it have a Signal? The Signal does not need to have any Receptions. >Also what would the semantics of a messageName on a Message to such a Lifeline convey with respect to that Actor Type? Any old name the modeller wants to give it. -- Steve From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com] Sent: 16 May 2013 17:52 To: Steve Cook Cc: Wendland, Marc-Florian; nerijus@nomagic.com; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 On 5/16/2013 12:47 PM, Steve Cook wrote: >The rationale to close 11068 was provided by Oystein. Well, he is wrong. >I would as Steve if his view is that a ConnectableElement can be typed as an Actor? I thought I had made that clear in this thread, so I am puzzled by the question. To quote myself: A Lifeline can represent a Property that is typed by an Actor. The issue as raised is incorrect - an Actor is indeed a kind of Type. I now understand you point, however, the Actor type cannot have operations associated with it, as has been clarified on other emails. so if a lifeline ConnectableElement is typed to actor, the message MUST not have a signature. This might need to be clarified. Also what would the semantics of a messageName on a Message to such a Lifeline convey with respect to that Actor Type? Tom >If so we might want to add a clarification of what types the ConnectableElement can refer to? The metamodel tells us this by the meaning of inheritance. If it were to be clarified that would have to be in Clause 11. In fact Clause 11 currently allows the type of a ConnectableElement to be an Association . we might consider that to be an issue, but it is a different one. -- Steve From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com] Sent: 16 May 2013 17:31 To: Steve Cook Cc: Wendland, Marc-Florian; nerijus@nomagic.com; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 On 5/16/2013 11:26 AM, Steve Cook wrote: The rationale to close 11068 was provided by Oystein. I would as Steve if his view is that a ConnectableElement can be typed as an Actor? If so we might want to add a clarification of what types the ConnectableElement can refer to? Tom I think the answer is no. Showing a stereotype on a Lifeline would simply signify that the stereotype is applied to the Lifeline. A profile can always define a stereotype for Lifelines as well as Properties and require that they correspond. -- Steve From: Wendland, Marc-Florian [mailto:marc-florian.wendland@fokus.fraunhofer.de] Sent: 16 May 2013 14:15 To: nerijus@nomagic.com; Steve Cook Cc: tom@coastin.com; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: AW: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 Hi Nerijus, This is an interesting question. I'd say it would make sense to allow showing the stereotypes of the ConnectableElement it represents. Because the represented ConnectableElement is the only relevant information for a Lifeline. Marc-Florian -------- Ursprühe Nachricht -------- Von: Nerijus Jankevicius Datum: An: Steve Cook Cc: Tom Rutt ,uml25-ftf@omg.org Betreff: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 In addition, is it legal to show represented part's stereotype on lifeline symbol? For example, UML Testing Profile's "system under test" is a <> stereotype on part, often shown on lifeline symbols too. Is it clarified in spec? Thanks, Nerijus On May 16, 2013, at 1:53 PM, Steve Cook wrote: > Tom > > I think the resolution for 11068 is wrong. A Lifeline can represent a Property that is typed by an Actor. The issue as raised is incorrect - an Actor is indeed a kind of Type. The issue should be closed, but not for the reason given. > > Using Lifelines to represent Actors is a very common user scenario and as far as I know is supported by many tools, even to the extent of having stick-man headers for the lifeline. This is allowed by the following wording in 17.3.4: > > "The Lifeline head has a shape that is based on the classifier for the part that this lifeline represents. Often the head is a white rectangle containing the name." > > Thanks > -- Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com] > Sent: 15 May 2013 19:21 > To: uml25-ftf@omg.org > Subject: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 > > I posted draft resolutions for some more Clause 17 issues for Ballot 6. > > > > Tom Rutt > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------- > Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com > Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 > -- ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 -- ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 -- ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 -- ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 X-Trusted-NM: yes Subject: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 From: Nerijus Jankevicius Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 09:00:44 +0300 Cc: Steve Cook , "Wendland, Marc-Florian" , "uml25-ftf@omg.org" To: Tom Rutt X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org Normally, message goes FROM Actor to other lifelines, so there is no difference, what sender lifeline represents. On May 16, 2013, at 7:51 PM, Tom Rutt wrote: On 5/16/2013 12:47 PM, Steve Cook wrote: >The rationale to close 11068 was provided by Oystein. Well, he is wrong. >I would as Steve if his view is that a ConnectableElement can be typed as an Actor? I thought I had made that clear in this thread, so I am puzzled by the question. To quote myself: A Lifeline can represent a Property that is typed by an Actor. The issue as raised is incorrect - an Actor is indeed a kind of Type. I now understand you point, however, the Actor type cannot have operations associated with it, as has been clarified on other emails. so if a lifeline ConnectableElement is typed to actor, the message MUST not have a signature. This might need to be clarified. Also what would the semantics of a messageName on a Message to such a Lifeline convey with respect to that Actor Type? Tom >If so we might want to add a clarification of what types the ConnectableElement can refer to? The metamodel tells us this by the meaning of inheritance. If it were to be clarified that would have to be in Clause 11. In fact Clause 11 currently allows the type of a ConnectableElement to be an Association . we might consider that to be an issue, but it is a different one. -- Steve From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com] Sent: 16 May 2013 17:31 To: Steve Cook Cc: Wendland, Marc-Florian; nerijus@nomagic.com; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 On 5/16/2013 11:26 AM, Steve Cook wrote: The rationale to close 11068 was provided by Oystein. I would as Steve if his view is that a ConnectableElement can be typed as an Actor? If so we might want to add a clarification of what types the ConnectableElement can refer to? Tom I think the answer is no. Showing a stereotype on a Lifeline would simply signify that the stereotype is applied to the Lifeline. A profile can always define a stereotype for Lifelines as well as Properties and require that they correspond. -- Steve From: Wendland, Marc-Florian [mailto:marc-florian.wendland@fokus.fraunhofer.de] Sent: 16 May 2013 14:15 To: nerijus@nomagic.com; Steve Cook Cc: tom@coastin.com; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: AW: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 Hi Nerijus, This is an interesting question. I'd say it would make sense to allow showing the stereotypes of the ConnectableElement it represents. Because the represented ConnectableElement is the only relevant information for a Lifeline. Marc-Florian -------- Ursprühe Nachricht -------- Von: Nerijus Jankevicius Datum: An: Steve Cook Cc: Tom Rutt ,uml25-ftf@omg.org Betreff: Re: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 In addition, is it legal to show represented part's stereotype on lifeline symbol? For example, UML Testing Profile's "system under test" is a <> stereotype on part, often shown on lifeline symbols too. Is it clarified in spec? Thanks, Nerijus On May 16, 2013, at 1:53 PM, Steve Cook wrote: > Tom > > I think the resolution for 11068 is wrong. A Lifeline can represent a Property that is typed by an Actor. The issue as raised is incorrect - an Actor is indeed a kind of Type. The issue should be closed, but not for the reason given. > > Using Lifelines to represent Actors is a very common user scenario and as far as I know is supported by many tools, even to the extent of having stick-man headers for the lifeline. This is allowed by the following wording in 17.3.4: > > "The Lifeline head has a shape that is based on the classifier for the part that this lifeline represents. Often the head is a white rectangle containing the name." > > Thanks > -- Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com] > Sent: 15 May 2013 19:21 > To: uml25-ftf@omg.org > Subject: I posted draft resolutions for Clause 17 Issues for Ballot 6 > > I posted draft resolutions for some more Clause 17 issues for Ballot 6. > > > > Tom Rutt > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------- > Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com > Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 > -- ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 -- ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133