Issue 11200: Actor concept was indeed changed (uml2-rtf) Source: Capability Measurement (Mr. Karl Frank, karl.karolus(at)gmail.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: The constraints on associations include a condition that an Actor not be associated with a Behavior, which blocks the owned behavior and classifier behavior, but in that case, it is a mystery to me why Actors were made to be BehavioredClassifiers. This is not an issue with the consistency or clarity of the spec. It is an issue with understanding the use of UML 2 as contrasted with UML 1.n The 2.1.1 spec, section 16.3.1, says: Changes from previous UML There are no changes to the Actor concept except for the addition of a constraint that requires that all actors must have names. But a very important change was introducing BehavioredClassifier (there was no BehavioredClassifier in UML 1) , and then making it the generalization of Actor, which gives Actors 1. ability to own behaviors 2. ability to have a unique classifier behavior 3. and own triggers. some remarks on the intended pragmatics of this change would make UML spec better. Merely citing the change in the "Changes.." section provide accuracy without value, but explaining what use is foreseen for this change, would provide value. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: July 24, 2007: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== ubject: Actor concept was indeed changed Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:06:11 -0400 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Actor concept was indeed changed Thread-Index: AcfOHKM2SqXGUOlZTVqa3cGEzvRXxw== From: "Frank, Karl (Mission Systems)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Jul 2007 18:06:13.0651 (UTC) FILETIME=[527AEE30:01C7CE1D] The constraints on associations include a condition that an Actor not be associated with a Behavior, which blocks the owned behavior and classifier behavior, but in that case, it is a mystery to me why Actors were made to be BehavioredClassifiers. - Karl This is not an issue with the consistency or clarity of the spec. It is an issue with understanding the use of UML 2 as contrasted with UML 1.n The 2.1.1 spec, section 16.3.1, says: Changes from previous UML There are no changes to the Actor concept except for the addition of a constraint that requires that all actors must have names. But a very important change was introducing BehavioredClassifier (there was no BehavioredClassifier in UML 1) , and then making it the generalization of Actor, which gives Actors 1. ability to own behaviors 2. ability to have a unique classifier behavior 3. and own triggers. some remarks on the intended pragmatics of this change would make UML spec better. Merely citing the change in the "Changes.." section provide accuracy without value, but explaining what use is foreseen for this change, would provide value. Cordially yours, Karl Frank General Scientist, Mission Systems Northrop-Grumman Corporation GMT-5 (EDT, EST) cell: +1 978 853 3592 Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:56:17 -0400 From: "Manfred R. Koethe" User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (Windows/20070509) To: "Frank, Karl (Mission Systems)" Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Actor concept was indeed changed X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=mr08.lnh.mail.rcn.net X-Junkmail-SD-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A090206.46A65967.0018,ss=1,fgs=0, ip=207.172.4.11, so=2006-12-09 10:45:40, dmn=5.3.14/2007-05-31 Karl, this is called "reality modeling" - or have you ever heard about an Actor who behaves?? Manfred Frank, Karl (Mission Systems) wrote: The constraints on associations include a condition that an Actor not be associated with a Behavior, which blocks the owned behavior and classifier behavior, but in that case, it is a mystery to me why Actors were made to be BehavioredClassifiers. - Karl This is not an issue with the consistency or clarity of the spec. It is an issue with understanding the use of UML 2 as contrasted with UML 1.n The 2.1.1 spec, section 16.3.1, says: *Changes from previous UML* There are no changes to the Actor concept except for the addition of a constraint that requires that all actors must have names. But a very important change was introducing BehavioredClassifier (there was no BehavioredClassifier in UML 1) , and then making it the generalization of Actor, which gives Actors 1. ability to own behaviors 2. ability to have a unique classifier behavior 3. and own triggers. some remarks on the intended pragmatics of this change would make UML spec better. Merely citing the change in the "Changes.." section provide accuracy without value, but explaining what use is foreseen for this change, would provide value. /Cordially yours,/ /Karl Frank/ /General Scientist, Mission Systems/ /Northrop-Grumman Corporation/ /GMT-5 (EDT, EST)/ /cell: +1 978 853 3592/ -- ___________________ / Manfred R. Koethe \_____________________________________ 88solutions Corp. E-Mail: koethe@88solutions.com 37 Mague Avenue Tel: +1 (617) 848 0525 Newton, MA 02465-1553 FAX: +1 (617) 848 8819 U.S.A. _____________________________"We make your business flow"_ Subject: RE: Actor concept was indeed changed Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:01:46 -0400 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Actor concept was indeed changed Thread-Index: AcfOHnI2dhPhAeexSbqrW8Zs3Sk00wADkhEQ From: "Frank, Karl (Mission Systems)" To: "Juergen Boldt" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Jul 2007 20:01:48.0004 (UTC) FILETIME=[77AD3A40:01C7CE2D] Yes, imo. But an error wrt whether there was a change from UML 1, is a minor issue. my personal interest is I don't understand why BehavioredClassifier is the generalization for Actor, when the constraint seems to undo the effects of the inheritance, since the peculiar features of BehavioredClassifier (as contrasted with Kernel::Classifier) are all of type Behavior. Cordially yours, Karl Frank General Scientist, Mission Systems Northrop-Grumman Corporation GMT-5 (EDT, EST) cell: +1 978 853 3592 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:13 PM To: Frank, Karl (Mission Systems) Subject: Re: Actor concept was indeed changed Hi Karl....log as an issue? -Juergen At 02:06 PM 7/24/2007, you wrote: The constraints on associations include a condition that an Actor not be associated with a Behavior, which blocks the owned behavior and classifier behavior, but in that case, it is a mystery to me why Actors were made to be BehavioredClassifiers. - Karl This is not an issue with the consistency or clarity of the spec. It is an issue with understanding the use of UML 2 as contrasted with UML 1.n The 2.1.1 spec, section 16.3.1, says: Changes from previous UML There are no changes to the Actor concept except for the addition of a constraint that requires that all actors must have names. But a very important change was introducing BehavioredClassifier (there was no BehavioredClassifier in UML 1) , and then making it the generalization of Actor, which gives Actors 1. ability to own behaviors 2. ability to have a unique classifier behavior 3. and own triggers. some remarks on the intended pragmatics of this change would make UML spec better. Merely citing the change in the "Changes.." section provide accuracy without value, but explaining what use is foreseen for this change, would provide value. Cordially yours, Karl Frank General Scientist, Mission Systems Northrop-Grumman Corporation GMT-5 (EDT, EST) cell: +1 978 853 3592 Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services Object Management Group 140 Kendrick St Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA tel: +1 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: +1 781 444 0320 email: juergen@omg.org www.omg.org Subject: RE: Actor concept was indeed changed Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:17:56 +0200 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Actor concept was indeed changed Thread-Index: AcfOHKM2SqXGUOlZTVqa3cGEzvRXxwAiCwow From: "Tim Weilkiens" To: "Frank, Karl (Mission Systems)" , X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id l6PAEeiP005390 If I remind correctly the idea was that the actor can realize interfaces. Now it is possible to define the interfaces between the system and it's actors. Tim > -----Original Message----- > From: Frank, Karl (Mission Systems) [mailto:Karl.Frank@ngc.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 8:06 PM > To: uml2-rtf@omg.org > Subject: Actor concept was indeed changed > > The constraints on associations include a condition that an > Actor not be associated with a Behavior, which blocks the > owned behavior and classifier behavior, but in that case, it > is a mystery to me why Actors were made to be BehavioredClassifiers. > > - Karl > > > This is not an issue with the consistency or clarity of the spec. > It is an issue with understanding the use of UML 2 as > contrasted with UML 1.n > > The 2.1.1 spec, section 16.3.1, says: > > Changes from previous UML There are no changes to the Actor > concept except for the addition of a constraint that requires > that all actors must have names. > > But a very important change was introducing > BehavioredClassifier (there was no BehavioredClassifier in > UML 1) , and then making it the generalization of Actor, > which gives Actors > > 1. ability to own behaviors > 2. ability to have a unique classifier behavior > 3. and own triggers. > > some remarks on the intended pragmatics of this change would > make UML spec better. > > Merely citing the change in the "Changes.." section provide > accuracy without value, but explaining what use is foreseen > for this change, would provide value. > > Cordially yours, > > Karl Frank > General Scientist, Mission Systems > Northrop-Grumman Corporation > GMT-5 (EDT, EST) > cell: +1 978 853 3592 >