Issue 11815: Section: 14.4 (uml2-rtf) Source: (, ) Nature: Clarification Severity: Significant Summary: Our company uses UML 2.1 for model driven architecture. We are now at the point, where we need interaction overview diagrams (like the example on figure 14.28 on page 530). So, we searched the UML elements that are used in this diagram: ControlFlow, InteractionUse, InitialNode, ActivityFinalNode, ... Then, we tried to combine them via the metamodel to have a little class diagram which shows us the connections of the elements (for example ControlFlow has source and target to ActivityNode). But there is one problem: We can't find a way to add the InteractionUse in this diagram. It seems, that a ControlFlow isn't able to have an InteractionUse on one of its ends. Can you tell us, how the InteractionUse can be used correctly (so we can use it for XMI-export)? Thank you in advance. We look forward to hearing from you. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: December 13, 2007: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 13 Dec 2007 06:20:51 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Reinhard Jeschull Company: Validas AG mailFrom: jeschull@validas.de Notification: Yes Specification: UML 2.1.1 Superstructure Specification Section: 14.4 FormalNumber: / Version: 2.1.1 RevisionDate: 02-05-2007 Page: 530 Nature: Clarification Severity: Significant HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.8.1.11) Gecko/20071127 Firefox/2.0.0.11 Description Our company uses UML 2.1 for model driven architecture. We are now at the point, where we need interaction overview diagrams (like the example on figure 14.28 on page 530). So, we searched the UML elements that are used in this diagram: ControlFlow, InteractionUse, InitialNode, ActivityFinalNode, ... Then, we tried to combine them via the metamodel to have a little class diagram which shows us the connections of the elements (for example ControlFlow has source and target to ActivityNode). But there is one problem: We can't find a way to add the InteractionUse in this diagram. It seems, that a ControlFlow isn't able to have an InteractionUse on one of its ends. Can you tell us, how the InteractionUse can be used correctly (so we can use it for XMI-export)? Thank you in advance. We look forward to hearing from you. Yours sincerely, Reinhard Jeschull DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=MmoDYlh93QF7fkFIxNg0PlfxunhFqHj8R+1aD1vkfMk=; b=X5ue0aeKVqI1xfk2DzcSQbOC3yczL46kxlJ07gw3XF3YRjQLEjdhdlA3XE+qRvo0zzbsmAPZvObwECuH3qypgR24Kl1uOUtf8VMnNYCyRzqymLUVHaa7sxZqZTSVF24e71tCwmSYm3CaHS1gl+WsOt9Pfo/AAH89z08zz09Ldb0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=QujgUoZ/E9B93qj9vF8cH0PXdbcLHjJ/WJpD+wFCRH7Q7uPDXSZZzRBeiQh5F0t3owqFrBND9i1MeeH214ncNiT1kNHoEsRc2yQLgoPiY3lFaujq0KVsonKG1NCMe4aZz347AjSVAwycW3th+MDDCXLOffko1nCgTQetLUrqZd4= Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 07:11:47 -0500 From: "Bran Selic" To: jeschull@validas.de Subject: Fwd: issue 11815 -- UML 2 RTF issue Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Dear Mr. Jeschull, Regarding your question and the resulting OMG issue report (1185): The UML Interaction Overview diagram is a particular graphical method of depicting UML interactions. Behind this diagram are the exact same concepts that you see in sequence diagrams and other interaction diagram types: lifelines, messages, occurrence specifications, etc. (see chapter 14 in the latest superstructure spec). Consequently, what appears as a "control flow" in an interaction overview diagram really maps to a set of lifelines and are not really control flows. In other words, the similarity that this diagram has with UML activities is purely syntactic. Unfortunately, we have not done an adequate job of clarifying this point, so it is natural for people to assume that there is a tight conceptual link between UML interactions and UML activities. However, this is not the case. If you examine the metamodel of UML interactions in chapter 14 ( e.g., figure 14.1), you will notice that there are no links to the activities packages. This means that what you are trying to do is not possible with the current definition of UML. One option is for you to define an activity diagram that includes CallBehaviorActions which invoke behaviors described by Interactions. Regards....Bran Selic (UML 2 RTF co-chair) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Juergen Boldt Date: Dec 21, 2007 2:08 PM Subject: issue 11815 -- UML 2 RTF issue To: issues@omg.org, uml2-rtf@omg.org From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 13 Dec 2007 06:20:51 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Reinhard Jeschull Company: Validas AG mailFrom: jeschull@validas.de Notification: Yes Specification: UML 2.1.1 Superstructure Specification Section: 14.4 FormalNumber: / Version: 2.1.1 RevisionDate: 02-05-2007 Page: 530 Nature: Clarification Severity: Significant HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.8.1.11) Gecko/20071127 Firefox/2.0.0.11 Description Our company uses UML 2.1 for model driven architecture. We are now at the point, where we need interaction overview diagrams (like the example on figure 14.28 on page 530). So, we searched the UML elements that are used in this diagram: ControlFlow, InteractionUse, InitialNode, ActivityFinalNode, ... Then, we tried to combine them via the metamodel to have a little class diagram which shows us the connections of the elements (for example ControlFlow has source and target to ActivityNode). But there is one problem: We can't find a way to add the InteractionUse in this diagram. It seems, that a ControlFlow isn't able to have an InteractionUse on one of its ends. Can you tell us, how the InteractionUse can be used correctly (so we can use it for XMI-export)? Thank you in advance. We look forward to hearing from you. Yours sincerely, Reinhard Jeschull 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 Reply-To: From: "Conrad Bock" To: Subject: RE: Ballot 8 draft is available for review! Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:38:01 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcnquaCJCLRejHoGTj29HMYNJrjy2ACXF99AACLT+RAAE56ksAAb+QKwABIlHkA= X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-ID: n5GHc6UD025196 X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-MailScanner-From: conrad.bock@nist.gov X-MailScanner-Watermark: 1245778687.69542@jv3RIoM3zTZkVF7BYGgCKQ X-Spam-Status: No Steve, > Since you feel so strongly, let's withdraw 8026 from ballot > 8 and leave it deferred. Thanks. > You say the other scope questions are agreed. What about > 11815 and 6083? I have not seen agreement there, and they > are still on the ballot. Hadn't heard back but these were my comments: Issue 11815 (Interaction Overview Diagram), as the resolution says, is just a misunderstanding that the Interaction Overview Diagram is stored on the activity model. It could be either clarified in the spec, or if the spec is clear enough already, closed as usual. It isn't a scoping issue. Issue 6083 (More examples) asks for more examples in the Interactions chapter, which are certainly needed. Since these are just clarifications in an area that needs it, they aren't out of scope. If there isn't enough time, they can be deferred. Subject: RE: Ballot 8 draft is available for review! To: Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 From: Maged Elaasar Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:51:25 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML03/25/M/IBM(Release 8.0.1|February 07, 2008) at 06/16/2009 13:51:27 > Issue 11815 (Interaction Overview Diagram), as the resolution says, is > just a misunderstanding that the Interaction Overview Diagram is > stored on the activity model. It could be either clarified in the > spec, or if the spec is clear enough already, closed as usual. It > isn't a scoping issue. > Conrad, the ineraction overview diagram is very vague as described in the spec. Is it an activity model or an interaction model abstract-syntax wise? You can find evidence both ways in the spec. Also notice that the original writers of this part of the spec (I think Oystein Haugen is one of them) tends to argue it is interaction, where some tools implement it already as activity. So, I am not sure if clarifying this, given it is substantial work and possibly invalidating existing tools is within scope of RTF. - Maged Reply-To: From: "Conrad Bock" To: Subject: RE: Ballot 8 draft is available for review! Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:19:22 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcnuqyS9bwWQ1wvsRharbZi1Ih+dZgAAqPUQ X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-ID: n5GIJRuQ030895 X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-MailScanner-From: conrad.bock@nist.gov X-MailScanner-Watermark: 1245781172.78442@pcBcY+C+oxqLm9uKob54lQ X-Spam-Status: No Maged, > Conrad, the ineraction overview diagram is very vague as > described in the spec. Is it an activity model or an > interaction model abstract-syntax wise? You can find > evidence both ways in the spec. Also notice that the > original writers of this part of the spec (I think Oystein > Haugen is one of them) tends to argue it is interaction, I always understood the interaction overview diagram to be a activity notation on the interaction metamodel, as Oystein said in the resolution. If that's the intention, and the spec isn't clear about it, then the RTF should clarify it. It would only take a few sentences, and would address the issue as filed. If there are other things to clarify, and I'm sure there are, they could be filed as separate issues. > where some tools implement it already as activity. So, I am not sure > if clarifying this, given it is substantial work and possibly > invalidating existing tools is within scope of RTF. Activities aren't interactions, so any tool implementing interactions notation on the activities metamodel (or at least interchanging them this way) are not following the standard anyway. The RTF would be helping the market with a clarification here. Currently it's confusing and preventing tool interoperability. Conrad DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=1a+1X9ijrYkRoV9H+cgnlhbn1JmjZdHoJCeCP4UjAqQ=; b=FsZ9MyNFly19M898vUwMdREd7Ahohy+Ermee0T2AKyYvOU2pPHNRu+07SG2n+beLBR v2albXWRMM81bZJa7ZcKgjBWa18RuLO+DZwWyAhGMPblGklGnvvmHcJ6ZFSY60OUOhdl R5JFnUJEwZJERQXFCy+amyFNzCkDJiPVsEKUY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=Ov1NoygivIJtn2736aTh1z/McXz6lffK2IXcaBe+SEdGXbOv6ls0oLP1UEuQMtvDS9 ASYH8fExoGuTidt7+ElVU0HVUhGhND32ZIKhs1HyNF+Sn5ZaBSTTZI5wM2g0a6Mg1gpL oo6pcwbRaU7ORuRI11tEncuwYhG7nIN+qLvLk= Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 20:23:29 +0200 Subject: Re: Ballot 8 draft is available for review! From: Bran Selic To: Maged Elaasar Cc: conrad.bock@nist.gov, uml2-rtf@omg.org The interaction overview diagram jhas NOTHING to do with activities. It is just a different representation of an interaction. I am sure that Oystein will confirm this. Cheers...Bran On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 7:51 PM, Maged Elaasar wrote: > Issue 11815 (Interaction Overview Diagram), as the resolution says, is > just a misunderstanding that the Interaction Overview Diagram is > stored on the activity model. It could be either clarified in the > spec, or if the spec is clear enough already, closed as usual. It > isn't a scoping issue. > Conrad, the ineraction overview diagram is very vague as described in the spec. Is it an activity model or an interaction model abstract-syntax wise? You can find evidence both ways in the spec. Also notice that the original writers of this part of the spec (I think Oystein Haugen is one of them) tends to argue it is interaction, where some tools implement it already as activity. So, I am not sure if clarifying this, given it is substantial work and possibly invalidating existing tools is within scope of RTF. - Maged DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=39rLj+soylGqAg4Ttb08ofsXXuF7Tn6GU5kWNTVzCUw=; b=QDtXdR29sw1oAMHsUr8/lVBTs5xXpxyv88IOkmOuPf1SRgEsZ+D5tb/0vhJEIeiKoa JcP06hTLgJRPuG2UFa36ooljfs/PDFUa+kTlb3bcSTPGv0uq3w5gIC6T5Y+mQ15oE29m us67SnFpF4QZp6HFTBR2jNARDf9f0BoSWlGrw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=l66icBPN+c/fNhshOYe6mKR9fH43DeZJCs6MAtrY8JtzH4jxQPKlZIvJ1iHz2wCEy4 MRlecFljUliE6mR2X4isXev4B0qIYTSaBSHHzvPWRQii1zTwZYZaCrNcABkiMSjirttT YfJxfm2h1h7OqYeGXc179XnDEOj1eez0vzf2M= Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 20:24:16 +0200 Subject: Re: Ballot 8 draft is available for review! From: Bran Selic To: conrad.bock@nist.gov Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Agreed....Bran On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 8:19 PM, Conrad Bock wrote: Maged, > Conrad, the ineraction overview diagram is very vague as > described in the spec. Is it an activity model or an > interaction model abstract-syntax wise? You can find > evidence both ways in the spec. Also notice that the > original writers of this part of the spec (I think Oystein > Haugen is one of them) tends to argue it is interaction, I always understood the interaction overview diagram to be a activity notation on the interaction metamodel, as Oystein said in the resolution. If that's the intention, and the spec isn't clear about it, then the RTF should clarify it. It would only take a few sentences, and would address the issue as filed. If there are other things to clarify, and I'm sure there are, they could be filed as separate issues. > where some tools implement it already as activity. So, I am not sure > if clarifying this, given it is substantial work and possibly > invalidating existing tools is within scope of RTF. Activities aren't interactions, so any tool implementing interactions notation on the activities metamodel (or at least interchanging them this way) are not following the standard anyway. The RTF would be helping the market with a clarification here. Currently it's confusing and preventing tool interoperability. Conrad