Issue 12168: TemplateSignature / TemplateParameter / StructuredClassifier (uml2-rtf) Source: International Business Machines (Mr. James Bruck, nobody) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Version 2.1.1 2007-02-05 of the spec. TemplateSignature p. 625 parameter : TemplateParameter[] Should mention that it is a derived union of TemplateSignature::ownedParameter ( or show ‘/’ ) ownedParameter: TemplateParameter[] Should mention that it subsets TemplateSignature::parameter. TemplateParameter p. 623 default : ParameterableElement should mention that it is a derived union of TemplateParameter::ownedDefault ( or show ‘/’ ) parameteredElement::ParameterableElement[] should mention it is a derived union of TemplateParameter::ownedParameteredElement StructuredClassifier p. 186 There seems to be some discrepency in the spec in regards to Role : ConnectableElement[]. The spec mentions that it is a derived union (it uses the term Abstract union which is inconsistent ) that subsets Classifier::feature. I believe we should have StructuredClassifier::ownedAttribute subsetting StructuredClassifier::role. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: January 8, 2008: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== c: Anthony Hunter Subject: Issue with the UML superstructure spec. X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 August 18, 2005 From: James Bruck Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 15:54:10 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML03/25/M/IBM(Release 7.0.2HF446 | March 16, 2007) at 01/08/2008 15:54:10, Serialize complete at 01/08/2008 15:54:10 Hi Juergen, I would like to raise the following issue with the spec. --------------------------------------------------- Version 2.1.1 2007-02-05 of the spec. TemplateSignature p. 625 parameter : TemplateParameter[] Should mention that it is a derived union of TemplateSignature::ownedParameter ( or show ./. ) ownedParameter: TemplateParameter[] Should mention that it subsets TemplateSignature::parameter. TemplateParameter p. 623 default : ParameterableElement should mention that it is a derived union of TemplateParameter::ownedDefault ( or show ./. ) parameteredElement::ParameterableElement[] should mention it is a derived union of TemplateParameter::ownedParameteredElement StructuredClassifier p. 186 There seems to be some discrepency in the spec in regards to Role : ConnectableElement[]. The spec mentions that it is a derived union (it uses the term Abstract union which is inconsistent ) that subsets Classifier::feature. I believe we should have StructuredClassifier::ownedAttribute subsetting StructuredClassifier::role. __________________________________ Cheers, - James. From: "Nerijus Jankevicius" To: Subject: Re: Official ballot #5: start of voting tonight at 6 pm EDT Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 21:38:29 +0300 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 No Magic votes YES for all proposed resolutions, except 12168 (NO). If I understand correctly, this resolution removes ability to have NOT OWNED defaults for template parameter and in my opinion is wrong. Referenced defaults (classes, interfaces) are often used in case of ClassifierTemplateParameter. Look at the spec: "A TemplateParameter may reference a ParameterableElement as the default for this formal parameter in any binding that does not provide an explicit substitution. The TemplateParameter may own this default ParameterableElement in situations where the exposed ParameterableElement is not owned by the TemplateParameter." Please correct me if I'm wrong, I will change my vote. Regards, -- Nerijus Jankevicius SysML Product Manager OMG-Certified UML Professional No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas P.O. box 2166, LT- 3000, Kaunas Phone: +370-37-324032 Fax: +370-37-320670 e-mail: nerijus@magicdraw.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture made simple! 12168 ----- Original Message ----- From: Bran Selic To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 5:21 PM Subject: Official ballot #5: start of voting tonight at 6 pm EDT Apologies, I accidentally sent this to the wrong mailing list. I will extend the balloting period appropriately. Bran ================================================== Attached, please find official ballot #5. These resolutions have been soaking for two weeks and there has not been any controversy, so I presume that they are safe to put on the ballot. The vote starts tonight at 6 pm EDT and will close on Friday, April 25 at the same time. We probably have time for just one more ballot, so please send me your proposed resolutions for UML 2.2 in the next week or so and I will put them in the draft ballot. The following companies did not vote in the last ballot and stand in danger of losing their status on the RTF, unless they cast a vote on this ballot: - Artisan SW - Lockheed Martin - No Magic - Thales Cheers...Bran Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:42:22 +0100 From: Dave Hawkins User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070728) To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Revised version of ballot 5 (less resolution to 12168) X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Whitelist: TRUE X-Whitelist: TRUE It's perhaps a little late for this question and I've probably just missed the discussion. However I was wondering why the resolutions to 10536 and 10537 didn't simply make the associations unidirectional rather than using a derived end. The OCL is what I'd expect for a 'non-navigable' end, but I think these resolutions would be the only place in the specification where this was made explicit. Is this simply because these ends are used in constraints and OCL only supports navigable end traversal? Cheers, Dave Bran Selic wrote: Here is the revised version of ballot 5, with the resolution to issue 12168 removed (thanks to Nerijus' sharp eye). If you've already voted on ballot 5, there is no need to vote again, I will simply all votes made on resolution 12168. The deadline for submitting your vote is Satruday, April 26 at 6 pm EDT. Last but not least: *we have only one more ballot left in this RTF round, so if you have any outstanding resolution proposals, please submit them before April 26.* Cheers...Bran -- 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: Revised version of ballot 5 (less resolution to 12168) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:51:51 -0400 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Revised version of ballot 5 (less resolution to 12168) Thread-Index: Acie+Hsp6mrJtCntRL+7Igcc0gHv+QABGRQQ From: "Kenn Hussey" To: "Dave Hawkins" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Apr 2008 13:51:52.0673 (UTC) FILETIME=[DC1BFD10:01C89EFF] X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-7.0.0.1345-5.0.1023-15850.005 X-TM-AS-Result: No--22.122600-8.000000-1 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id m3FDvwjq010660 Dave, I believe the reason was to minimize the impact on existing API-based implementations; making these associations unidirectional would effectively result in removal of properties from classes, i.e. API breakage. Cheers, Kenn Hussey Program Manager, EA/Studio [Embarcadero Technologies Logo] Embarcadero Technologies, Inc. | www.embarcadero.com 110 Spadina Avenue, Suite 400 | Toronto, ON M5V 2K4 Kenn.Hussey@embarcadero.com Mobile: 613-301-9105 -----Original Message----- From: Dave Hawkins [mailto:dave.hawkins@oracle.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 8:42 AM To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Revised version of ballot 5 (less resolution to 12168) It's perhaps a little late for this question and I've probably just missed the discussion. However I was wondering why the resolutions to 10536 and 10537 didn't simply make the associations unidirectional rather than using a derived end. The OCL is what I'd expect for a 'non-navigable' end, but I think these resolutions would be the only place in the specification where this was made explicit. Is this simply because these ends are used in constraints and OCL only supports navigable end traversal? Cheers, Dave Bran Selic wrote: > Here is the revised version of ballot 5, with the resolution to issue > 12168 removed (thanks to Nerijus' sharp eye). > > If you've already voted on ballot 5, there is no need to vote again, I > will simply all votes made on resolution 12168. > > The deadline for submitting your vote is Satruday, April 26 at 6 pm EDT. > > Last but not least: *we have only one more ballot left in this RTF > round, so if you have any outstanding resolution proposals, please > submit them before April 26.* > > Cheers...Bran -- 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. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please