Issue 12158: The spec needs to clarify  the isConsistentWith() method for transitions (uml2-rtf)
Source: International Business Machines (Mr. James Bruck, nobody)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary: In the 2.1.1 specification (070203) states on page 583/732  (or pg.569), it states: 
[1] The query isConsistentWith() specifies that a redefining transition is consistent with a redefined transition provided that 
the redefining transition has the following relation to the redefined transition: A redefining transition redefines all 
properties of the corresponding redefined transition, except the source state and the trigger. 

This restriction seems a little harsh.  Consider the use case: 
1)  a user has a state machine, in a top level abstract class, and there exists a transition between two states with no triggers. 
2) the users expect to add triggers to the transition in the concrete sub class state machines.  (i.e. redefine in the sub class context and add a trigger) 

The way the above constraint is written does not allow new triggers to be added to redefined transitions.  I am requesting a clarification point that will state that new triggers can be added to the redefined transition. 


Resolution: 
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
January 4, 2008: received issue
Discussion: 

End of Annotations:=====
c: Adam Neal <Adam_Neal@ca.ibm.com>
Subject: Issue with spec.
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 August 18, 2005
From: James Bruck <jbruck@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 13:49:45 -0500
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML03/25/M/IBM(Release 7.0.2HF446 | March 16, 2007) at
 01/04/2008 13:49:45,
        Serialize complete at 01/04/2008 13:49:45



Happy New Year Juergen, 

An issue that I would like to raise with the current UML superstructure spec: 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
The spec needs to clarify  the isConsistentWith() method for transitions. 

In the 2.1.1 specification (070203) states on page 583/732  (or pg.569), it states: 
[1] The query isConsistentWith() specifies that a redefining transition is consistent with a redefined transition provided that 
the redefining transition has the following relation to the redefined transition: A redefining transition redefines all 
properties of the corresponding redefined transition, except the source state and the trigger. 

This restriction seems a little harsh.  Consider the use case: 
1)  a user has a state machine, in a top level abstract class, and there exists a transition between two states with no triggers. 
2) the users expect to add triggers to the transition in the concrete sub class state machines.  (i.e. redefine in the sub class context and add a trigger) 

The way the above constraint is written does not allow new triggers to be added to redefined transitions.  I am requesting a clarification point that will state that new triggers can be added to the redefined transition. 

_____________________________ 


Thanks, 

- James.