Issue 14093: BNF of Constructs::Property (uml2-rtf) Source: (, ) Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor Summary: The BNF of Constructs::Property defines <Visibility> ::= '+' | '-' clearly missing the package and protected visibilities. This Contradicts the Superstructure in 7.3.44, where the BNF states all four visibilites. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: July 24, 2009: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 24 Jul 2009 07:27:02 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Jonas Gorski Company: n/a mailFrom: jonas.gorski+omg@gmail.com Notification: Yes Specification: UML Infrastructure Section: 11.3.5 FormalNumber: formal/2009-02-04 Version: 2.2 RevisionDate: 02/04/2009 Page: 128 Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Opera/9.80 (Windows NT 5.1; U; de) Presto/2.2.15 Version/10.00 Description The BNF of Constructs::Property defines ::= '+' | '-' clearly missing the package and protected visibilities. This Contradicts the Superstructure in 7.3.44, where the BNF states all four visibilites. Cc: Juergen Boldt , uml2-rtf@omg.org From: Stephen Mellor To: Maged Elaasar Subject: Re: issue 14093 -- UML 2 RTF issue Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:08:51 +0100 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2) Under NO circumstances am I willing to vote for any resolution that removes an input pint. Except, of course, under normal "post processing" circumstances. On 2009 Jul 27, at 15:44 , Maged Elaasar wrote: Remove InputPint Stephen Mellor StephenMellor@StephenMellor.com Cc: Juergen Boldt , uml2-rtf@omg.org From: Stephen Mellor To: Maged Elaasar Subject: Re: issue 14093 -- UML 2 RTF issue Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:08:51 +0100 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2) Under NO circumstances am I willing to vote for any resolution that removes an input pint. Except, of course, under normal "post processing" circumstances. On 2009 Jul 27, at 15:44 , Maged Elaasar wrote: Remove InputPint Stephen Mellor StephenMellor@StephenMellor.com Subject: RE: issue 14093 -- UML 2 RTF issue Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 12:13:52 -0400 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: issue 14093 -- UML 2 RTF issue thread-index: AcoO1MBVySEYgL0DSPeicpBciUR+HgAAF1tg From: "Ed Seidewitz" To: "Stephen Mellor" Cc: "Juergen Boldt" , -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Mellor [mailto:StephenMellor@StephenMellor.com] Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 12:09 PM To: Maged Elaasar Cc: Juergen Boldt; uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 14093 -- UML 2 RTF issue Under NO circumstances am I willing to vote for any resolution that removes an input pint. Except, of course, under normal "post processing" circumstances. [EVS] But that would just be adding an .output pint.! On 2009 Jul 27, at 15:44 , Maged Elaasar wrote: Remove InputPint Stephen Mellor StephenMellor@StephenMellor.com Cc: Ed Seidewitz , uml2-rtf@omg.org, Bran Selic From: Stephen Mellor To: Juergen Boldt Subject: Re: issue 14093 -- UML 2 RTF issue Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 20:27:31 +0100 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2) Juergen, Please provide an issue number for the following: It appears that the volume and composition of an output pint is not the same as the corresponding input pint. This should probably be addressed in the Hyperstucture, aka the WhatTheStructure. Thanks. -- stephen On 2009 Jul 27, at 20:15 , Bran Selic wrote: I think that, usually, an input pint comes out as less than a full output pint--although sometimes I'll swear that it feels like more. Perhaps we should raise an official OMG issue on this. Cheers...bran On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Ed Seidewitz wrote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Mellor [mailto:StephenMellor@StephenMellor.com] Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 12:09 PM To: Maged Elaasar Cc: Juergen Boldt; uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 14093 -- UML 2 RTF issue Under NO circumstances am I willing to vote for any resolution that removes an input pint. Except, of course, under normal "post processing" circumstances. [EVS] But that would just be adding an .output pint.! On 2009 Jul 27, at 15:44 , Maged Elaasar wrote: Remove InputPint Stephen Mellor StephenMellor@StephenMellor.com Stephen Mellor StephenMellor@StephenMellor.com Subject: RE: issue 14093 -- UML 2 RTF issue Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:38:01 -0400 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: issue 14093 -- UML 2 RTF issue thread-index: AcoO8FTLp9GQJsi9QlWKtu/5sWSHIgAAUyng From: "Ed Seidewitz" To: "Stephen Mellor" , "Juergen Boldt" Cc: , "Bran Selic" And, certainly, the consumption of InputPints is generally not a StructuredActivity . particularly after the second or third one. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Mellor [mailto:StephenMellor@StephenMellor.com] Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 3:28 PM To: Juergen Boldt Cc: Ed Seidewitz; uml2-rtf@omg.org; Bran Selic Subject: Re: issue 14093 -- UML 2 RTF issue Juergen, Please provide an issue number for the following: It appears that the volume and composition of an output pint is not the same as the corresponding input pint. This should probably be addressed in the Hyperstucture, aka the WhatTheStructure. Thanks. -- stephen On 2009 Jul 27, at 20:15 , Bran Selic wrote: I think that, usually, an input pint comes out as less than a full output pint--although sometimes I'll swear that it feels like more. Perhaps we should raise an official OMG issue on this. Cheers...bran On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Ed Seidewitz wrote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Mellor [mailto:StephenMellor@StephenMellor.com] Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 12:09 PM To: Maged Elaasar Cc: Juergen Boldt; uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 14093 -- UML 2 RTF issue Under NO circumstances am I willing to vote for any resolution that removes an input pint. Except, of course, under normal "post processing" circumstances. [EVS] But that would just be adding an .output pint.! On 2009 Jul 27, at 15:44 , Maged Elaasar wrote: Remove InputPint Stephen Mellor StephenMellor@StephenMellor.com Stephen Mellor StephenMellor@StephenMellor.com X-Auth-ID: koethe Cc: "Stephen Mellor" , "Juergen Boldt" , , "Bran Selic" From: "Manfred R. Koethe" To: "Ed Seidewitz" Subject: Re: issue 14093 -- UML 2 RTF issue Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:48:54 -0400 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 1.2.0 (v56) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3) X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=mr02.lnh.mail.rcn.net X-Junkmail-SD-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A020206.4A6E04B8.00BD,ss=1,fgs=0, ip=207.172.4.11, so=2009-06-02 17:34:35, dmn=5.7.1/2009-06-05, mode=single engine X-Junkmail-IWF: false Right, a from of FlowComposition.... On Jul 27, 2009, at 15:38 , Ed Seidewitz wrote: And, certainly, the consumption of InputPints is generally not a StructuredActivity . particularly after the second or third one. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Mellor [mailto:StephenMellor@StephenMellor.com] Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 3:28 PM To: Juergen Boldt Cc: Ed Seidewitz; uml2-rtf@omg.org; Bran Selic Subject: Re: issue 14093 -- UML 2 RTF issue Juergen, Please provide an issue number for the following: It appears that the volume and composition of an output pint is not the same as the corresponding input pint. This should probably be addressed in the Hyperstucture, aka the WhatTheStructure. Thanks. -- stephen On 2009 Jul 27, at 20:15 , Bran Selic wrote: I think that, usually, an input pint comes out as less than a full output pint--although sometimes I'll swear that it feels like more. Perhaps we should raise an official OMG issue on this. Cheers...bran On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Ed Seidewitz wrote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephen Mellor [mailto:StephenMellor@StephenMellor.com] Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 12:09 PM To: Maged Elaasar Cc: Juergen Boldt; uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 14093 -- UML 2 RTF issue Under NO circumstances am I willing to vote for any resolution that removes an input pint. Except, of course, under normal "post processing" circumstances. [EVS] But that would just be adding an .output pint.! On 2009 Jul 27, at 15:44 , Maged Elaasar wrote: Remove InputPint Stephen Mellor StephenMellor@StephenMellor.com Stephen Mellor StephenMellor@StephenMellor.com --------------------------------------------------------------- Manfred R. Koethe 88solutions Corporation tel: +1 (617) 848 0525 fax: +1 (617) 848 8819 mailto: koethe@88solutions.com web: http://www.88solutions.com --------(Model-Driven Modeling Solutions)--------