Issue 11495: Constraint parameter notation conflicts with UML private ports notation (sysml-rtf) Source: No Magic, Inc. (Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius, nerijus(at)nomagic.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Constraint parameter notation conflicts with UML private ports notation. How to distinguish between part and ports if notation is the same? Resolution: This issue is being deferred because no proposed resolution was voted on during the schedule of the SysML 1.3 RTF. Disposition: Deferred Revised Text: Actions taken: September 19, 2007: received issue Discussion: Unable to be addressed in time. Disposition: Deferred Discussion: This issue is deferred because no other proposed resolution was voted on during the schedule of the SysML 1.2 RTF. Following is the discussion from a previous deferred resolution by the SysML 1.1 RTF: Unable to be addressed in time. Disposition: Deferred End of Annotations:===== s is issue # 11495 Constraint parameter notation conflicts with UML private ports notation Subject: RE: update of draft Ballot 4, Issue 11495 Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 16:47:47 +0200 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: update of draft Ballot 4, Issue 11495 Thread-Index: AciutRQ+ioNzdd07R+udoIz4h0p/YwADHG4gAAyZmCAAEgOSsAAN1YMgAAETTvAAAeOwsAACKXTg From: "ESPINOZA Huascar 218344" To: "Friedenthal, Sanford" , "Burkhart Roger M" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 May 2008 14:47:48.0449 (UTC) FILETIME=[26FB8510:01C8AF88] Hi, Issue 11495 (Deferred): Constraint parameter notation conflicts with UML private ports notation à I cannot see where in the UML spec. a private port is specified like constraint parameter. Could you please point out to that part of the UML spec? Otherwise, this issue should be Closed No Change. Cheers, Huascar -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : ESPINOZA Huascar 218344 Envoyé : mardi 6 mai 2008 15:48 À : Friedenthal, Sanford; Burkhart Roger M; sysml-rtf@omg.org Objet : RE: update of draft Ballot 4, Issue 11493 Hi again, Issue 11493 (Closed No Change): Lack of notation for units and dimensions on values à Using a .quantity. or a .unit. name as ValueType name should be normalized in SysML. Leaving users to decide if they will use .Weight. or .Kg. as ValueType name seems to not be a good practice in whatever language. Furthermore, the indistinct use of both in the SysML spec, makes its comprehension very hard. This is related to defining a clear semantics for value types, quantities, quantity kinds, dimensions and units. So I.d propose to defer this issue together with the other .quantity, unit, dimension. issues. Huascar -- Huascar ESPINOZA, Ph.D. CEA LIST Model-Driven Engineering for Real-Time Embedded Systems 91191 GIF/YVETTE CEDEX Phone/Fax: +33 1 69 08 45 87 / 20 82 FRANCE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : Friedenthal, Sanford [mailto:sanford.friedenthal@lmco.com] Envoyé : mardi 6 mai 2008 14:25 À : Burkhart Roger M; sysml-rtf@omg.org Objet : RE: update of draft Ballot 4 Roger Relative to the scope issue for the timing diagrams, I suggest we hear back from other vendors for thier input as well as others. I Sandy Sanford Friedenthal Lockheed Martin (703) 293-5557 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Burkhart Roger M [mailto:BurkhartRogerM@JohnDeere.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 1:44 AM To: Friedenthal, Sanford; sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: update of draft Ballot 4 Sandy-- In reply to your comments below: I've corrected the Disposition line in Issue 12157 to read Resolved. Thanks for the catch. Issues 11653, 11627 (and 11117 which you suggest could be associated), 10642, 10539, 10472, and 10073 all have resolutions of Deferred. I've given a Deferred resolution to all issues for which I've received no proposed resolutions to date, but which were received before the RTF Issue deadline of January 1, 2008 (later issues will be automatically deferred). Any Discussion notes on Deferred issues are only a brief summary which is by no means complete or authoritative, since their whole point is that more work is required to develop a resolution. While more discussion could always be added to a Deferred issue, the point of the resolution is that sufficient work was not completed to resolve the issue and that further work should continue a follow-on revision. Since the whole point of Deferred resolutions is that a more complete resolution was not developed by the cutoff date for the current RTF, I don't see a need for adding more to these resolutions (such as links to other issues) prior to voting. All further work can be continued by the task force responsible for the next revision. On Issue 10342, I'll leave any response to your comment on Issue 10342 to Eldad Palachi, who prepared the initial draft of this resolution. > The following statmenet does not appear to be correct since item flows are directed relationships and are not typed "Item Flows CAN be typed by any classifier as written in the second paragraph of section 9.3.2.6. Thanks for calling attention to the significant change in Issue 11654, to add a timing diagram to SysML to support timelines as referenced by Chapter 11 Activities. Do you think this scope of change should be considered within a revision update of the SysML 1.0 spec? --Roger -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Friedenthal, Sanford [mailto:sanford.friedenthal@lmco.com] Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 5:37 PM To: Burkhart Roger M; sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: update of draft Ballot 4 Roger Comments on Draft Ballot 4 Issue 12157 The last statement in the resolution says "Closed, no change". This should say "Resolved" Issue 11654 This issue adds a UML timing diagram to SysML. It also enables a timing diagram representation for an activity diagram. This is a significant change and attention should be called to this proposed resolution. Issue 11653 The discussion should be elaborated to refer to the comment below in Annex A, and possibly include a resolution that proposes a change to the reference to the formal BNF. I suggest a change to the following on pg 176: FROM SysML diagrams including the enhancements described in this section is intended to conform to the Diagram Interchange Standard to facilitate exchange of diagram and layout information. A more formal BNF has been introduced in selected chapters to facilitate diagram interchange, which is referred to in the Language Formalism chapter. TO SysML diagrams including the enhancements described in this section are intended to conform to the Diagram Interchange Standard to facilitate exchange of diagram and layout information. [Deleted 2nd sentence] Issue 11627 This can be associated with issue 11117 by Eldad Pelachi regarding sending data via a message on a sequence diagram. A similar issue has been raised by M. chonoles with the need to enable sequence diagrams to be used with flowports. I would suggest tieing these issues together. Issue 10642 This should refer to proposed resolution for Issue 11654 which does add timing diagrams. Tie these two issues together. Issue 10539 I think this issue is resolved by the proposed resolution to issue 11501 Issue 10472 Suggest adding the statment on applicability of instance semantics and not deferring this. I think this will provide needed clarification. We can address broader issues related to instance semantics in future revisions. Issue 10342 The following statmenet does not appear to be correct since item flows are directed relationships and are not typed "Item Flows CAN be typed by any classifier as written in the second paragraph of section 9.3.2.6. Issue 10073 Seems like this is a duplicate issue (need for templates in SysML) but I did not check to confirm Sandy Sanford Friedenthal Lockheed Martin (703) 293-5557 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Burkhart Roger M [mailto:BurkhartRogerM@JohnDeere.com] Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 11:13 AM To: sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: update of draft Ballot 4 SysML RTF-- I've posted an update to the Ballot 4 which now includes resolutions to all issues for this RTF except those in the Blocks chapter which relate to property-specific types and the defaultValue compartment, which we decided at the Washington meeting to rename to initialValues. I'm trying to get all those issues resolved as a block, since they all relate to each other in one way or another. I expect to have those final resolutions posted by the end of today, at which time I expect no further resolutions for the draft ballot 4 currently under discussion. In the meantime, the current draft ballot has 14 additional proposed resolutions, in the Blocks, Constraint Blocks, and General sections. The table on the ballot page includes the numbers and titles of all the issues in the draft ballot, organized by chapter. --Roger -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Burkhart Roger M [mailto:BurkhartRogerM@JohnDeere.com] Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 8:37 AM To: sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: draft Ballot 4 available for discussion through May 10, 2008 I thought I had sent the message below last night, but for some reason it was stuck in my outbox, so I'm resending. More updates shortly ... SysML RTF-- An initial draft Ballot 4 is now available for review and discussion on the SysML RTF wiki at http://www.omg.org/members/sysml-rtf-wiki/doku.php?id=rtf:ballot4. Ballot 4 will be open for discussion through May 10, 2008. Voting is scheduled to begin Sunday, May 11 so that voting can be completed by the RTF report deadline of Monday, May 26. This current draft ballot includes 54 proposed resolutions including issues which are being deferred because no resolution was reached by the RTF. Deferred resolutions are not included for issues received by OMG later than the January 1, 2008 RTF Issue, since OMG will automatically defer these issues to the next RTF. I expect to include some additional draft resolutions for the Blocks and Constraint Blocks chapters, and one in the General category, later on Monday, May 5. Otherwise, this draft ballot covers the entire set of current issues against the SysML 1.0 spec. Because of the large number of issues, please try to begin reviewing these draft proposals and raise any questions and concerns while there is still at least some time for discussion. Because of the shortened time for this last discussion period, if major questions arise about any proposed resolution we can consider changing the resolution to "Deferred" so that further discussion can continue to occur in the next RTF. Thanks to everyone who contributed draft resolutions to this ballot. --Roger Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 21:24:09 +1000 From: Darren R C KELLY User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (X11/20070326) To: sysml-rtf@omg.org Cc: russell.peak@marc.gatech.edu, Nerijus Jankevicius Subject: Ballot 4: 11495_deferred: Constraint parameter notation conflicts with UML private ports notation X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.91.2/7097/Mon May 12 17:51:38 2008 on mail.nomagicasia.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_12,HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_04,HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_ONLY, RCVD_IN_PBL,RDNS_NONE,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=no version=3.2.3 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on mail.nomagicasia.com (Submitter Nerijus is on leave). Am happy to defer this. It has little consquence anyway now for MD SysML thanks to use of an explicit ConstraintParameter. http://school.nomagic.com/node/448 llustration of the problem statement only. In MD SysML a Port usually can't be displayed on a constraint property anyway unless stereotyped as a ConstraintParameter. -- Dr Darren R C Kelly, BSc, PhD No Magic Inc., Expert Advisor, Science, Engineering, and Education Phone: +61 (2) 9386 0090 Mobile: +61 (2) 405 029 008 Post: PO Box 1816, Bondi Junction, NSW 1355, Australia Magicdraw UML: Architecture made simple ! Constraint parameter notation conflicts with UML private ports notation. How to distinguish between part and ports if notation is the same?