Issue 15050: Parameter (uml2-rtf) Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA (Dr. Sebastien Gerard, sebastien.gerard(at)cea.fr) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Who could explain me the following constraint on Parameter within section 9.3.10: Constraints [1] A parameter may only be associated with a connector end within the context of a collaboration. self.end->notEmpty() implies self.collaboration->notEmpty() I wanted to draw delegation connectors between a port and as for example the Parameters of a behaviour such as an activity. Am I allow to do that? Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: February 16, 2010: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== ubject: Question on Parameter Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:12:22 +0100 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Question on Parameter Thread-Index: Acqu6CQQPSbRHeofS2u12xUJQ28CXA== From: "GERARD Sebastien 166342" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Feb 2010 09:12:22.0649 (UTC) FILETIME=[25FD6690:01CAAEE8] Hi all, Who could explain me the following constraint on Parameter within section 9.3.10: Constraints [1] A parameter may only be associated with a connector end within the context of a collaboration. self.end->notEmpty() implies self.collaboration->notEmpty() I wanted to draw delegation connectors between a port and as for example the Parameters of a behaviour such as an activity. Am I allow to do that? Thanks, Cheers. Séstien. Dr. Séstien Gérd Head of MDD for DRES research project CEA LIST, Laboratoire d.Ingéerie dirigépar les modès pour les Systès Embarqué(LISE) Boî courrier 94, GIF SUR YVETTE CEDEX, F-91191 France Phone/fax : +33 1 69 08 58 24 / 83 95 Leader of the Eclipse Component Papyrus (The UML2 Graphical Modeler): www.papyrusuml.org http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/?project=papyrus Before printing, think about the environment DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc :content-type; bh=dhd2ijNOG+UowqqQXYF4Two3WjWfBn1kqir3SXrTfIo=; b=cYNFVEr41wIYF2Gi8W7QXhEgfSvkpC9dBFWKYqprCXXFNtQ0TxK4eqcZF2xmPfkZD8 GiaeQUT6h8RzamjGxojpAO3DI9RGwPJkFIZFpapKwnyUI47hvNjcgl0Ss7A2q/5ZI8lX egkGyIsygJYg4dEAyTi4nOCw1w8bQR9YDz270= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; b=S1pKZcjKIq83QNnIGQLx3JxbGDTqJ99nC5/rAqThhVuLfXl40DHuIC9Jgftipkl7lN IEJqA3iwyszjvDyBPfIaBksXGxMEqVyBwQg2zS1CP9VWHY/2yvHK4yMGcO+QO8JqMATU M6uQuj6bebE0fP97/o8RzNsYiDX9hf5Lz7U4s= Sender: bran.selic@gmail.com From: Bran Selic Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 04:30:40 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: dfd8636a87d163c5 Subject: Re: Question on Parameter To: GERARD Sebastien 166342 Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Seb, This is to support the special case of collaborations, where you may want to show roles as parameters. Namely, a role (i.e., parameter) needs to be shown as a connectable element to which you can draw connectors. See figures 9.11 and 9.12 for examples (the parameters in this case are Subject and Observer). Since parameters are used much more widely in UML than just collaborations, so the constraint was intended to prevent unintended inheritance. I am not sure, however, that the constraint actually achieves that. But, in answer to your specific question, since a property is a connectable element and a port is a kind of property, it should be possible to do what you want. Is the constraint preventing that somehow? Bran On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 4:12 AM, GERARD Sebastien 166342 wrote: Hi all, Who could explain me the following constraint on Parameter within section 9.3.10: Constraints [1] A parameter may only be associated with a connector end within the context of a collaboration. self.end->notEmpty() implies self.collaboration->notEmpty() I wanted to draw delegation connectors between a port and as for example the Parameters of a behaviour such as an activity. Am I allow to do that? Thanks, Cheers. Séstien. Dr. Séstien Gérd Head of MDD for DRES research project CEA LIST, Laboratoire d.Ingéerie dirigépar les modès pour les Systès Embarqué(LISE) Boî courrier 94, GIF SUR YVETTE CEDEX, F-91191 France Phone/fax : +33 1 69 08 58 24 / 83 95 Leader of the Eclipse Component Papyrus (The UML2 Graphical Modeler): www.papyrusuml.org http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/?project=papyrus Before printing, think about the environment From: Steve Cook To: Bran Selic , GERARD Sebastien 166342 CC: "uml2-rtf@omg.org" Subject: RE: Question on Parameter Thread-Topic: Question on Parameter Thread-Index: Acqu6CQQPSbRHeofS2u12xUJQ28CXAAAo/8AAACM9QA= Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:56:00 +0000 Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Séstien said: >I wanted to draw delegation connectors between a port and as for example the Parameters of a behaviour such as an activity. Am I allow to do that? The use of the word .draw. indicates that this is something to be done on a diagram. In order to draw such a thing, there has to be a depiction on the diagram of both the port and the parameter, between which a line representing the connector could be drawn. What kind of diagram would allow the question to make sense? A parameter on an Activity is represented indirectly by the notation for ActivityParameterNode; and a parameter on an Interaction can be represented indirectly by a Lifeline. So I suppose it would be possible in principle, on a mixed diagram, to draw a connector between a port (on, say, a class) and one of these elements. However, the constraint that such a connection can only be made in the context of a collaboration would indeed prohibit this. Are there any tools in existence (or at least, any tools that implement a metamodel) that support such diagrams? Thanks -- Steve From: bran.selic@gmail.com [mailto:bran.selic@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Bran Selic Sent: 16 February 2010 09:31 To: GERARD Sebastien 166342 Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Question on Parameter Seb, This is to support the special case of collaborations, where you may want to show roles as parameters. Namely, a role (i.e., parameter) needs to be shown as a connectable element to which you can draw connectors. See figures 9.11 and 9.12 for examples (the parameters in this case are Subject and Observer). Since parameters are used much more widely in UML than just collaborations, so the constraint was intended to prevent unintended inheritance. I am not sure, however, that the constraint actually achieves that. But, in answer to your specific question, since a property is a connectable element and a port is a kind of property, it should be possible to do what you want. Is the constraint preventing that somehow? Bran On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 4:12 AM, GERARD Sebastien 166342 wrote: Hi all, Who could explain me the following constraint on Parameter within section 9.3.10: Constraints [1] A parameter may only be associated with a connector end within the context of a collaboration. self.end->notEmpty() implies self.collaboration->notEmpty() I wanted to draw delegation connectors between a port and as for example the Parameters of a behaviour such as an activity. Am I allow to do that? Thanks, Cheers. Séstien. Dr. Séstien Gérd Head of MDD for DRES research project CEA LIST, Laboratoire d.Ingéerie dirigépar les modès pour les Systès Embarqué(LISE) Boî courrier 94, GIF SUR YVETTE CEDEX, F-91191 France Phone/fax : +33 1 69 08 58 24 / 83 95 Leader of the Eclipse Component Papyrus (The UML2 Graphical Modeler): www.papyrusuml.org http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/?project=papyrus Before printing, think about the environment Subject: RE: Question on Parameter Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:00:25 +0100 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Question on Parameter Thread-Index: Acqu6CQQPSbRHeofS2u12xUJQ28CXAAAo/8AAACM9QAAAHlToA== From: "GERARD Sebastien 166342" To: "Steve Cook" , "Bran Selic" Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Feb 2010 10:00:26.0365 (UTC) FILETIME=[DCD18AD0:01CAAEEE] There is at least one: www.eclipse.org/papyrus Dr. Séstien Gérd Head of MDD for DRES research project CEA LIST, Laboratoire d.Ingéerie dirigépar les modès pour les Systès Embarqué(LISE) Boî courrier 94, GIF SUR YVETTE CEDEX, F-91191 France Phone/fax : +33 1 69 08 58 24 / 83 95 Leader of the Eclipse Component Papyrus (The UML2 Graphical Modeler): www.papyrusuml.org http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/?project=papyrus Before printing, think about the environment -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] Envoyé mardi 16 féier 2010 10:56 À: Bran Selic; GERARD Sebastien 166342 Cc : uml2-rtf@omg.org Objet : RE: Question on Parameter Séstien said: >I wanted to draw delegation connectors between a port and as for example the Parameters of a behaviour such as an activity. Am I allow to do that? The use of the word .draw. indicates that this is something to be done on a diagram. In order to draw such a thing, there has to be a depiction on the diagram of both the port and the parameter, between which a line representing the connector could be drawn. What kind of diagram would allow the question to make sense? A parameter on an Activity is represented indirectly by the notation for ActivityParameterNode; and a parameter on an Interaction can be represented indirectly by a Lifeline. So I suppose it would be possible in principle, on a mixed diagram, to draw a connector between a port (on, say, a class) and one of these elements. However, the constraint that such a connection can only be made in the context of a collaboration would indeed prohibit this. Are there any tools in existence (or at least, any tools that implement a metamodel) that support such diagrams? Thanks -- Steve From: bran.selic@gmail.com [mailto:bran.selic@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Bran Selic Sent: 16 February 2010 09:31 To: GERARD Sebastien 166342 Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Question on Parameter Seb, This is to support the special case of collaborations, where you may want to show roles as parameters. Namely, a role (i.e., parameter) needs to be shown as a connectable element to which you can draw connectors. See figures 9.11 and 9.12 for examples (the parameters in this case are Subject and Observer). Since parameters are used much more widely in UML than just collaborations, so the constraint was intended to prevent unintended inheritance. I am not sure, however, that the constraint actually achieves that. But, in answer to your specific question, since a property is a connectable element and a port is a kind of property, it should be possible to do what you want. Is the constraint preventing that somehow? Bran On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 4:12 AM, GERARD Sebastien 166342 wrote: Hi all, Who could explain me the following constraint on Parameter within section 9.3.10: Constraints [1] A parameter may only be associated with a connector end within the context of a collaboration. self.end->notEmpty() implies self.collaboration->notEmpty() I wanted to draw delegation connectors between a port and as for example the Parameters of a behaviour such as an activity. Am I allow to do that? Thanks, Cheers. Séstien. Dr. Séstien Gérd Head of MDD for DRES research project CEA LIST, Laboratoire d.Ingéerie dirigépar les modès pour les Systès Embarqué(LISE) Boî courrier 94, GIF SUR YVETTE CEDEX, F-91191 France Phone/fax : +33 1 69 08 58 24 / 83 95 Leader of the Eclipse Component Papyrus (The UML2 Graphical Modeler): www.papyrusuml.org http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/?project=papyrus Before printing, think about the environment From: Steve Cook To: GERARD Sebastien 166342 , Bran Selic CC: "uml2-rtf@omg.org" Subject: RE: Question on Parameter Thread-Topic: Question on Parameter Thread-Index: Acqu6CQQPSbRHeofS2u12xUJQ28CXAAAo/8AAACM9QAAAHlToAAAFqTg Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:03:29 +0000 Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Did I interpret your question correctly with regard to what you want to draw on the diagrams? -- Steve From: GERARD Sebastien 166342 [mailto:Sebastien.GERARD@cea.fr] Sent: 16 February 2010 10:00 To: Steve Cook; Bran Selic Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Question on Parameter There is at least one: www.eclipse.org/papyrus Dr. Séstien Gérd Head of MDD for DRES research project CEA LIST, Laboratoire d.Ingéerie dirigépar les modès pour les Systès Embarqué(LISE) Boî courrier 94, GIF SUR YVETTE CEDEX, F-91191 France Phone/fax : +33 1 69 08 58 24 / 83 95 Leader of the Eclipse Component Papyrus (The UML2 Graphical Modeler): www.papyrusuml.org http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/?project=papyrus Before printing, think about the environment -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] Envoyé mardi 16 féier 2010 10:56 À: Bran Selic; GERARD Sebastien 166342 Cc : uml2-rtf@omg.org Objet : RE: Question on Parameter Séstien said: >I wanted to draw delegation connectors between a port and as for example the Parameters of a behaviour such as an activity. Am I allow to do that? The use of the word .draw. indicates that this is something to be done on a diagram. In order to draw such a thing, there has to be a depiction on the diagram of both the port and the parameter, between which a line representing the connector could be drawn. What kind of diagram would allow the question to make sense? A parameter on an Activity is represented indirectly by the notation for ActivityParameterNode; and a parameter on an Interaction can be represented indirectly by a Lifeline. So I suppose it would be possible in principle, on a mixed diagram, to draw a connector between a port (on, say, a class) and one of these elements. However, the constraint that such a connection can only be made in the context of a collaboration would indeed prohibit this. Are there any tools in existence (or at least, any tools that implement a metamodel) that support such diagrams? Thanks -- Steve From: bran.selic@gmail.com [mailto:bran.selic@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Bran Selic Sent: 16 February 2010 09:31 To: GERARD Sebastien 166342 Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Question on Parameter Seb, This is to support the special case of collaborations, where you may want to show roles as parameters. Namely, a role (i.e., parameter) needs to be shown as a connectable element to which you can draw connectors. See figures 9.11 and 9.12 for examples (the parameters in this case are Subject and Observer). Since parameters are used much more widely in UML than just collaborations, so the constraint was intended to prevent unintended inheritance. I am not sure, however, that the constraint actually achieves that. But, in answer to your specific question, since a property is a connectable element and a port is a kind of property, it should be possible to do what you want. Is the constraint preventing that somehow? Bran On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 4:12 AM, GERARD Sebastien 166342 wrote: Hi all, Who could explain me the following constraint on Parameter within section 9.3.10: Constraints [1] A parameter may only be associated with a connector end within the context of a collaboration. self.end->notEmpty() implies self.collaboration->notEmpty() I wanted to draw delegation connectors between a port and as for example the Parameters of a behaviour such as an activity. Am I allow to do that? Thanks, Cheers. Séstien. Dr. Séstien Gérd Head of MDD for DRES research project CEA LIST, Laboratoire d.Ingéerie dirigépar les modès pour les Systès Embarqué(LISE) Boî courrier 94, GIF SUR YVETTE CEDEX, F-91191 France Phone/fax : +33 1 69 08 58 24 / 83 95 Leader of the Eclipse Component Papyrus (The UML2 Graphical Modeler): www.papyrusuml.org http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/?project=papyrus Before printing, think about the environment To: Steve Cook Cc: GERARD Sebastien 166342 , Bran Selic , "uml2-rtf@omg.org" Subject: RE: Question on Parameter X-KeepSent: A4E6BDB5:E20F72F6-852576CC:00460B45; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.1 September 28, 2009 From: Jim Amsden Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 07:53:06 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM118/03/M/IBM(Release 8.5.1HF41 | October 22, 2009) at 02/16/2010 05:53:04, Serialize complete at 02/16/2010 05:53:04 I believe the concepts of parameters being connectable elements could be used to depict the relationship between parameters inside an activity, interaction or state machines with a collaboration use that binds the parameters to the roles they play in a collaboration. In this case, the collaboration would describe the pattern of interaction intended to occur involving those parameters in the behavior containing the collaboration use. I know of no example where a port delegates to a parameter. Instead the port would use a delegation connector to a port of a part (or just a part) whose type is compatible with the type of the port. This connection allows all CallEvents on the source port to be routed to the target part which could invoke behaviors of that part. The target part may have been set from a parameter of some other operation whose method set the part. So parts don't need to be static. Jim Amsden, Senior Technical Staff Member Rational Enterprise Architecture Management 919-461-3689 From: Steve Cook To: GERARD Sebastien 166342 , Bran Selic Cc: "uml2-rtf@omg.org" Date: 02/16/2010 05:07 AM Subject: RE: Question on Parameter -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Did I interpret your question correctly with regard to what you want to draw on the diagrams? -- Steve From: GERARD Sebastien 166342 [mailto:Sebastien.GERARD@cea.fr] Sent: 16 February 2010 10:00 To: Steve Cook; Bran Selic Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Question on Parameter There is at least one: www.eclipse.org/papyrus Dr. Sébastien Gérard Head of MDD for DRES research project CEA LIST, Laboratoire dâIngénierie dirigée par les modèles pour les Systèmes Embarqués (LISE) Boîte courrier 94, GIF SUR YVETTE CEDEX, F-91191 France Phone/fax : +33 1 69 08 58 24 / 83 95 Leader of the Eclipse Component Papyrus (The UML2 Graphical Modeler): www.papyrusuml.org http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/?project=papyrus Before printing, think about the environment -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] Envoyé : mardi 16 février 2010 10:56 Ã : Bran Selic; GERARD Sebastien 166342 Cc : uml2-rtf@omg.org Objet : RE: Question on Parameter Sébastien said: >I wanted to draw delegation connectors between a port and as for example the Parameters of a behaviour such as an activity. Am I allow to do that? The use of the word âdrawâ indicates that this is something to be done on a diagram. In order to draw such a thing, there has to be a depiction on the diagram of both the port and the parameter, between which a line representing the connector could be drawn. What kind of diagram would allow the question to make sense? A parameter on an Activity is represented indirectly by the notation for ActivityParameterNode; and a parameter on an Interaction can be represented indirectly by a Lifeline. So I suppose it would be possible in principle, on a mixed diagram, to draw a connector between a port (on, say, a class) and one of these elements. However, the constraint that such a connection can only be made in the context of a collaboration would indeed prohibit this. Are there any tools in existence (or at least, any tools that implement a metamodel) that support such diagrams? Thanks -- Steve From: bran.selic@gmail.com [mailto:bran.selic@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Bran Selic Sent: 16 February 2010 09:31 To: GERARD Sebastien 166342 Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Question on Parameter Seb, This is to support the special case of collaborations, where you may want to show roles as parameters. Namely, a role (i.e., parameter) needs to be shown as a connectable element to which you can draw connectors. See figures 9.11 and 9.12 for examples (the parameters in this case are Subject and Observer). Since parameters are used much more widely in UML than just collaborations, so the constraint was intended to prevent unintended inheritance. I am not sure, however, that the constraint actually achieves that. But, in answer to your specific question, since a property is a connectable element and a port is a kind of property, it should be possible to do what you want. Is the constraint preventing that somehow? Bran On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 4:12 AM, GERARD Sebastien 166342 wrote: Hi all, Who could explain me the following constraint on Parameter within section 9.3.10: Constraints [1] A parameter may only be associated with a connector end within the context of a collaboration. self.end->notEmpty() implies self.collaboration->notEmpty() I wanted to draw delegation connectors between a port and as for example the Parameters of a behaviour such as an activity. Am I allow to do that? Thanks, Cheers. Sébastien. Dr. Sébastien Gérard Head of MDD for DRES research project CEA LIST, Laboratoire dâIngénierie dirigée par les modèles pour les Systèmes Embarqués (LISE) Boîte courrier 94, GIF SUR YVETTE CEDEX, F-91191 France Phone/fax : +33 1 69 08 58 24 / 83 95 Leader of the Eclipse Component Papyrus (The UML2 Graphical Modeler): www.papyrusuml.org http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/?project=papyrus Before printing, think about the environment DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc :content-type; bh=WaBoSHn2R4MV304K3PchHLl8SfPQdnBGAO6FcOgs7N4=; b=WJpaaE16dcGPsg/CjvS2RCKvHfwx7TIWQ5wdY9F9owF9BKdT7o9ThLwRPZ11g627qg D2lh/dMrYpzlh5c6h3HuJcdT+1fmIdqbWRjc46bFjtR5ow4bpdynrL1p22ZfhtnkZD76 Zry1Zxwp8It2RC++vlM1jjTUkjhyTMiB3VCE4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; b=Sd3BrlEMe0kySmFiG7eaHJW29bG5zGLOvaUgeQek8ba93ZUhfIHk0UslREmwRn2S9O E0fXwINURaL2ApnapQw/JG9VRyqTtyKhX5ff8e5xnq8c4VHbmlyyMUB8Xwr94zFPonwA zSUbWoskHs4lA6fRWWNzyfFgRo0fOnwxv3v2I= Sender: bran.selic@gmail.com From: Bran Selic Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 08:56:20 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: a9d45d911e90b7e0 Subject: Re: Question on Parameter To: Jim Amsden Cc: Steve Cook , GERARD Sebastien 166342 , "uml2-rtf@omg.org" Jim, On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 7:53 AM, Jim Amsden wrote: I believe the concepts of parameters being connectable elements could be used to depict the relationship between parameters inside an activity, interaction or state machines with a collaboration use that binds the parameters to the roles they play in a collaboration. In this case, the collaboration would describe the pattern of interaction intended to occur involving those parameters in the behavior containing the collaboration use. While this may be a useful capability, that was definitely not the intent when the idea of collaboration parameters were defined. At that time, they were meant to represent purely structural things. I know of no example where a port delegates to a parameter. I have not only seen examples of this, but actually used it to advantage when capturing behavioral constraints on connectors. Instead the port would use a delegation connector to a port of a part (or just a part) whose type is compatible with the type of the port. This connection allows all CallEvents on the source port to be routed to the target part which could invoke behaviors of that part. The target part may have been set from a parameter of some other operation whose method set the part. So parts don't need to be static. I am having trouble following your explanation, but, knowing your fertile mind, I suspect there is a good idea behind this. Could you explain with a diagram perhaps? Cheers...Bran Subject: RE: Question on Parameter Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:09:07 +0100 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Question on Parameter Thread-Index: Acqu6CQQPSbRHeofS2u12xUJQ28CXAAAo/8AAACM9QAAAHlToAAAFqTgAAn5uQA= From: "GERARD Sebastien 166342" To: "Steve Cook" , "Bran Selic" Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Feb 2010 15:09:08.0110 (UTC) FILETIME=[FCA38AE0:01CAAF19] Maybe I missed to say that I was working with specific ports that are the one called FlawPort as defined in both SysML and MARTE and that enable to define data flow based communication between composite structures. In that case, I try to explain my goal in a better way: I assume i have a composite structure with flow ports and that composite class owns several behaviors denoted by activities. These activities may have Parameters. Now, I want to use connector to explicit the delegation between the flow ports of the Composite structure owning the behaviors and the parameters of these behaviours, cf. example below. Dr. Séstien Gérd Head of MDD for DRES research project CEA LIST, Laboratoire d.Ingéerie dirigépar les modès pour les Systès Embarqué(LISE) Boî courrier 94, GIF SUR YVETTE CEDEX, F-91191 France Phone/fax : +33 1 69 08 58 24 / 83 95 Leader of the Eclipse Component Papyrus (The UML2 Graphical Modeler): www.papyrusuml.org http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/?project=papyrus Before printing, think about the environment -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] Envoyé mardi 16 féier 2010 11:03 À: GERARD Sebastien 166342; Bran Selic Cc : uml2-rtf@omg.org Objet : RE: Question on Parameter Did I interpret your question correctly with regard to what you want to draw on the diagrams? -- Steve From: GERARD Sebastien 166342 [mailto:Sebastien.GERARD@cea.fr] Sent: 16 February 2010 10:00 To: Steve Cook; Bran Selic Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Question on Parameter There is at least one: www.eclipse.org/papyrus Dr. Séstien Gérd Head of MDD for DRES research project CEA LIST, Laboratoire d.Ingéerie dirigépar les modès pour les Systès Embarqué(LISE) Boî courrier 94, GIF SUR YVETTE CEDEX, F-91191 France Phone/fax : +33 1 69 08 58 24 / 83 95 Leader of the Eclipse Component Papyrus (The UML2 Graphical Modeler): www.papyrusuml.org http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/?project=papyrus Before printing, think about the environment -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] Envoyé mardi 16 féier 2010 10:56 À: Bran Selic; GERARD Sebastien 166342 Cc : uml2-rtf@omg.org Objet : RE: Question on Parameter Séstien said: >I wanted to draw delegation connectors between a port and as for example the Parameters of a behaviour such as an activity. Am I allow to do that? The use of the word .draw. indicates that this is something to be done on a diagram. In order to draw such a thing, there has to be a depiction on the diagram of both the port and the parameter, between which a line representing the connector could be drawn. What kind of diagram would allow the question to make sense? A parameter on an Activity is represented indirectly by the notation for ActivityParameterNode; and a parameter on an Interaction can be represented indirectly by a Lifeline. So I suppose it would be possible in principle, on a mixed diagram, to draw a connector between a port (on, say, a class) and one of these elements. However, the constraint that such a connection can only be made in the context of a collaboration would indeed prohibit this. Are there any tools in existence (or at least, any tools that implement a metamodel) that support such diagrams? Thanks -- Steve From: bran.selic@gmail.com [mailto:bran.selic@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Bran Selic Sent: 16 February 2010 09:31 To: GERARD Sebastien 166342 Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Question on Parameter Seb, This is to support the special case of collaborations, where you may want to show roles as parameters. Namely, a role (i.e., parameter) needs to be shown as a connectable element to which you can draw connectors. See figures 9.11 and 9.12 for examples (the parameters in this case are Subject and Observer). Since parameters are used much more widely in UML than just collaborations, so the constraint was intended to prevent unintended inheritance. I am not sure, however, that the constraint actually achieves that. But, in answer to your specific question, since a property is a connectable element and a port is a kind of property, it should be possible to do what you want. Is the constraint preventing that somehow? Bran On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 4:12 AM, GERARD Sebastien 166342 wrote: Hi all, Who could explain me the following constraint on Parameter within section 9.3.10: Constraints [1] A parameter may only be associated with a connector end within the context of a collaboration. self.end->notEmpty() implies self.collaboration->notEmpty() I wanted to draw delegation connectors between a port and as for example the Parameters of a behaviour such as an activity. Am I allow to do that? Thanks, Cheers. Séstien. Dr. Séstien Gérd Head of MDD for DRES research project CEA LIST, Laboratoire d.Ingéerie dirigépar les modès pour les Systès Embarqué(LISE) Boî courrier 94, GIF SUR YVETTE CEDEX, F-91191 France Phone/fax : +33 1 69 08 58 24 / 83 95 Leader of the Eclipse Component Papyrus (The UML2 Graphical Modeler): www.papyrusuml.org http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/?project=papyrus Before printing, think about the environment From: Steve Cook To: GERARD Sebastien 166342 , Bran Selic CC: "uml2-rtf@omg.org" Subject: RE: Question on Parameter Thread-Topic: Question on Parameter Thread-Index: Acqu6CQQPSbRHeofS2u12xUJQ28CXAAAo/8AAACM9QAAAHlToAAAFqTgAAn5uQAABZF58A== Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:35:40 +0000 Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Aha! I guessed right. You are correct that the constraint in 9.3.10 prohibits that. Removing that constraint would require the semantics of the kind of thing you are proposing below to be documented somewhere in the UML spec. -- Steve From: GERARD Sebastien 166342 [mailto:Sebastien.GERARD@cea.fr] Sent: 16 February 2010 15:09 To: Steve Cook; Bran Selic Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Question on Parameter Maybe I missed to say that I was working with specific ports that are the one called FlawPort as defined in both SysML and MARTE and that enable to define data flow based communication between composite structures. In that case, I try to explain my goal in a better way: I assume i have a composite structure with flow ports and that composite class owns several behaviors denoted by activities. These activities may have Parameters. Now, I want to use connector to explicit the delegation between the flow ports of the Composite structure owning the behaviors and the parameters of these behaviours, cf. example below. Dr. Séstien Gérd Head of MDD for DRES research project CEA LIST, Laboratoire d.Ingéerie dirigépar les modès pour les Systès Embarqué(LISE) Boî courrier 94, GIF SUR YVETTE CEDEX, F-91191 France Phone/fax : +33 1 69 08 58 24 / 83 95 Leader of the Eclipse Component Papyrus (The UML2 Graphical Modeler): www.papyrusuml.org http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/?project=papyrus Before printing, think about the environment -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] Envoyé mardi 16 féier 2010 11:03 À: GERARD Sebastien 166342; Bran Selic Cc : uml2-rtf@omg.org Objet : RE: Question on Parameter Did I interpret your question correctly with regard to what you want to draw on the diagrams? -- Steve From: GERARD Sebastien 166342 [mailto:Sebastien.GERARD@cea.fr] Sent: 16 February 2010 10:00 To: Steve Cook; Bran Selic Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Question on Parameter There is at least one: www.eclipse.org/papyrus Dr. Séstien Gérd Head of MDD for DRES research project CEA LIST, Laboratoire d.Ingéerie dirigépar les modès pour les Systès Embarqué(LISE) Boî courrier 94, GIF SUR YVETTE CEDEX, F-91191 France Phone/fax : +33 1 69 08 58 24 / 83 95 Leader of the Eclipse Component Papyrus (The UML2 Graphical Modeler): www.papyrusuml.org http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/?project=papyrus Before printing, think about the environment -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] Envoyé mardi 16 féier 2010 10:56 À: Bran Selic; GERARD Sebastien 166342 Cc : uml2-rtf@omg.org Objet : RE: Question on Parameter Séstien said: >I wanted to draw delegation connectors between a port and as for example the Parameters of a behaviour such as an activity. Am I allow to do that? The use of the word .draw. indicates that this is something to be done on a diagram. In order to draw such a thing, there has to be a depiction on the diagram of both the port and the parameter, between which a line representing the connector could be drawn. What kind of diagram would allow the question to make sense? A parameter on an Activity is represented indirectly by the notation for ActivityParameterNode; and a parameter on an Interaction can be represented indirectly by a Lifeline. So I suppose it would be possible in principle, on a mixed diagram, to draw a connector between a port (on, say, a class) and one of these elements. However, the constraint that such a connection can only be made in the context of a collaboration would indeed prohibit this. Are there any tools in existence (or at least, any tools that implement a metamodel) that support such diagrams? Thanks -- Steve From: bran.selic@gmail.com [mailto:bran.selic@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Bran Selic Sent: 16 February 2010 09:31 To: GERARD Sebastien 166342 Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Question on Parameter Seb, This is to support the special case of collaborations, where you may want to show roles as parameters. Namely, a role (i.e., parameter) needs to be shown as a connectable element to which you can draw connectors. See figures 9.11 and 9.12 for examples (the parameters in this case are Subject and Observer). Since parameters are used much more widely in UML than just collaborations, so the constraint was intended to prevent unintended inheritance. I am not sure, however, that the constraint actually achieves that. But, in answer to your specific question, since a property is a connectable element and a port is a kind of property, it should be possible to do what you want. Is the constraint preventing that somehow? Bran On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 4:12 AM, GERARD Sebastien 166342 wrote: Hi all, Who could explain me the following constraint on Parameter within section 9.3.10: Constraints [1] A parameter may only be associated with a connector end within the context of a collaboration. self.end->notEmpty() implies self.collaboration->notEmpty() I wanted to draw delegation connectors between a port and as for example the Parameters of a behaviour such as an activity. Am I allow to do that? Thanks, Cheers. Séstien. Dr. Séstien Gérd Head of MDD for DRES research project CEA LIST, Laboratoire d.Ingéerie dirigépar les modès pour les Systès Embarqué(LISE) Boî courrier 94, GIF SUR YVETTE CEDEX, F-91191 France Phone/fax : +33 1 69 08 58 24 / 83 95 Leader of the Eclipse Component Papyrus (The UML2 Graphical Modeler): www.papyrusuml.org http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/?project=papyrus Before printing, think about the environment Subject: RE: Question on Parameter Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:31:49 +0100 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Question on Parameter Thread-Index: AcqvOSeJFCdn7TLHRVKV2hskg7H9ZQABXB4Q From: "GERARD Sebastien 166342" To: "Juergen Boldt" , "Steve Cook" , "Bran Selic" Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Feb 2010 19:31:50.0403 (UTC) FILETIME=[AFB29530:01CAAF3E] Yes please. Steve, do you think we could deal with it in the current RTF of UML? Thanks, Cheers. Séstien. Dr. Séstien Gérd Head of MDD for DRES research project CEA LIST, Laboratoire d.Ingéerie dirigépar les modès pour les Systès Embarqué(LISE) Boî courrier 94, GIF SUR YVETTE CEDEX, F-91191 France Phone/fax : +33 1 69 08 58 24 / 83 95 Leader of the Eclipse Component Papyrus (The UML2 Graphical Modeler): www.papyrusuml.org http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/?project=papyrus Before printing, think about the environment -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Envoyé mardi 16 féier 2010 19:52 À: Steve Cook; GERARD Sebastien 166342; Bran Selic Cc : uml2-rtf@omg.org Objet : RE: Question on Parameter issue? -Juergen At 12:35 PM 2/16/2010, Steve Cook wrote: Aha! I guessed right. You are correct that the constraint in 9.3.10 prohibits that. Removing that constraint would require the semantics of the kind of thing you are proposing below to be documented somewhere in the UML spec. -- Steve From: GERARD Sebastien 166342 [ mailto:Sebastien.GERARD@cea.fr] Sent: 16 February 2010 15:09 To: Steve Cook; Bran Selic Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Question on Parameter Maybe I missed to say that I was working with specific ports that are the one called FlawPort as defined in both SysML and MARTE and that enable to define data flow based communication between composite structures. In that case, I try to explain my goal in a better way: I assume i have a composite structure with flow ports and that composite class owns several behaviors denoted by activities. These activities may have Parameters. Now, I want to use connector to explicit the delegation between the flow ports of the Composite structure owning the behaviors and the parameters of these behaviours, cf. example below. Dr. Séstien Gérd Head of MDD for DRES research project CEA LIST, Laboratoire d.Ingéerie dirigépar les modès pour les Systès Embarqué(LISE) Boî courrier 94, GIF SUR YVETTE CEDEX, F-91191 France Phone/fax : +33 1 69 08 58 24 / 83 95 Leader of the Eclipse Component Papyrus (The UML2 Graphical Modeler): www.papyrusuml.org http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/?project=papyrus Before printing, think about the environment -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : Steve Cook [ mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] Envoyé mardi 16 féier 2010 11:03 À: GERARD Sebastien 166342; Bran Selic Cc : uml2-rtf@omg.org Objet : RE: Question on Parameter Did I interpret your question correctly with regard to what you want to draw on the diagrams? -- Steve From: GERARD Sebastien 166342 [ mailto:Sebastien.GERARD@cea.fr] Sent: 16 February 2010 10:00 To: Steve Cook; Bran Selic Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Question on Parameter There is at least one: www.eclipse.org/papyrus Dr. Séstien Gérd Head of MDD for DRES research project CEA LIST, Laboratoire d.Ingéerie dirigépar les modès pour les Systès Embarqué(LISE) Boî courrier 94, GIF SUR YVETTE CEDEX, F-91191 France Phone/fax : +33 1 69 08 58 24 / 83 95 Leader of the Eclipse Component Papyrus (The UML2 Graphical Modeler): www.papyrusuml.org http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/?project=papyrus Before printing, think about the environment -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : Steve Cook [ mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] Envoyé mardi 16 féier 2010 10:56 À: Bran Selic; GERARD Sebastien 166342 Cc : uml2-rtf@omg.org Objet : RE: Question on Parameter Séstien said: >I wanted to draw delegation connectors between a port and as for example the Parameters of a behaviour such as an activity. Am I allow to do that? The use of the word .draw. indicates that this is something to be done on a diagram. In order to draw such a thing, there has to be a depiction on the diagram of both the port and the parameter, between which a line representing the connector could be drawn. What kind of diagram would allow the question to make sense? A parameter on an Activity is represented indirectly by the notation for ActivityParameterNode; and a parameter on an Interaction can be represented indirectly by a Lifeline. So I suppose it would be possible in principle, on a mixed diagram, to draw a connector between a port (on, say, a class) and one of these elements. However, the constraint that such a connection can only be made in the context of a collaboration would indeed prohibit this. Are there any tools in existence (or at least, any tools that implement a metamodel) that support such diagrams? Thanks -- Steve From: bran.selic@gmail.com [ mailto:bran.selic@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Bran Selic Sent: 16 February 2010 09:31 To: GERARD Sebastien 166342 Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Question on Parameter Seb, This is to support the special case of collaborations, where you may want to show roles as parameters. Namely, a role (i.e., parameter) needs to be shown as a connectable element to which you can draw connectors. See figures 9.11 and 9.12 for examples (the parameters in this case are Subject and Observer). Since parameters are used much more widely in UML than just collaborations, so the constraint was intended to prevent unintended inheritance. I am not sure, however, that the constraint actually achieves that. But, in answer to your specific question, since a property is a connectable element and a port is a kind of property, it should be possible to do what you want. Is the constraint preventing that somehow? Bran On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 4:12 AM, GERARD Sebastien 166342 wrote: Hi all, Who could explain me the following constraint on Parameter within section 9.3.10: Constraints [1] A parameter may only be associated with a connector end within the context of a collaboration. self.end->notEmpty() implies self.collaboration->notEmpty() I wanted to draw delegation connectors between a port and as for example the Parameters of a behaviour such as an activity. Am I allow to do that? Thanks, Cheers. Séstien. Dr. Séstien Gérd Head of MDD for DRES research project CEA LIST, Laboratoire d.Ingéerie dirigépar les modès pour les Systès Embarqué(LISE) Boî courrier 94, GIF SUR YVETTE CEDEX, F-91191 France Phone/fax : +33 1 69 08 58 24 / 83 95 Leader of the Eclipse Component Papyrus (The UML2 Graphical Modeler): www.papyrusuml.org http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/?project=papyrus Before printing, think about the environment Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:35:12 -0500 From: "Friedenthal, Sanford" Subject: RE: Question on Parameter To: GERARD Sebastien 166342 , Juergen Boldt , Steve Cook , Bran Selic Cc: "uml2-rtf@omg.org" Thread-Topic: Question on Parameter Thread-Index: AcqvOSeJFCdn7TLHRVKV2hskg7H9ZQABXB4QAAAcBrA= Accept-Language: en-US acceptlanguage: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: This is also of interest to SysML, so we will try to engage in the dialogue as well and hopefully come up with an approach that can be applied to UML, SysML, MARTE, and others. Sandy From: GERARD Sebastien 166342 [mailto:Sebastien.GERARD@cea.fr] Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 2:32 PM To: Juergen Boldt; Steve Cook; Bran Selic Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Question on Parameter Yes please. Steve, do you think we could deal with it in the current RTF of UML? Thanks, Cheers. Séstien. Dr. Séstien Gérd Head of MDD for DRES research project CEA LIST, Laboratoire d.Ingéerie dirigépar les modès pour les Systès Embarqué(LISE) Boî courrier 94, GIF SUR YVETTE CEDEX, F-91191 France Phone/fax : +33 1 69 08 58 24 / 83 95 Leader of the Eclipse Component Papyrus (The UML2 Graphical Modeler): www.papyrusuml.org http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/?project=papyrus Before printing, think about the environment -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Envoyé mardi 16 féier 2010 19:52 À: Steve Cook; GERARD Sebastien 166342; Bran Selic Cc : uml2-rtf@omg.org Objet : RE: Question on Parameter issue? -Juergen At 12:35 PM 2/16/2010, Steve Cook wrote: Aha! I guessed right. You are correct that the constraint in 9.3.10 prohibits that. Removing that constraint would require the semantics of the kind of thing you are proposing below to be documented somewhere in the UML spec. -- Steve From: GERARD Sebastien 166342 [ mailto:Sebastien.GERARD@cea.fr] Sent: 16 February 2010 15:09 To: Steve Cook; Bran Selic Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Question on Parameter Maybe I missed to say that I was working with specific ports that are the one called FlawPort as defined in both SysML and MARTE and that enable to define data flow based communication between composite structures. In that case, I try to explain my goal in a better way: I assume i have a composite structure with flow ports and that composite class owns several behaviors denoted by activities. These activities may have Parameters. Now, I want to use connector to explicit the delegation between the flow ports of the Composite structure owning the behaviors and the parameters of these behaviours, cf. example below. Dr. Séstien Gérd Head of MDD for DRES research project CEA LIST, Laboratoire d.Ingéerie dirigépar les modès pour les Systès Embarqué(LISE) Boî courrier 94, GIF SUR YVETTE CEDEX, F-91191 France Phone/fax : +33 1 69 08 58 24 / 83 95 Leader of the Eclipse Component Papyrus (The UML2 Graphical Modeler): www.papyrusuml.org http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/?project=papyrus Before printing, think about the environment -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : Steve Cook [ mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] Envoyé mardi 16 féier 2010 11:03 À: GERARD Sebastien 166342; Bran Selic Cc : uml2-rtf@omg.org Objet : RE: Question on Parameter Did I interpret your question correctly with regard to what you want to draw on the diagrams? -- Steve From: GERARD Sebastien 166342 [ mailto:Sebastien.GERARD@cea.fr] Sent: 16 February 2010 10:00 To: Steve Cook; Bran Selic Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Question on Parameter There is at least one: www.eclipse.org/papyrus Dr. Séstien Gérd Head of MDD for DRES research project CEA LIST, Laboratoire d.Ingéerie dirigépar les modès pour les Systès Embarqué(LISE) Boî courrier 94, GIF SUR YVETTE CEDEX, F-91191 France Phone/fax : +33 1 69 08 58 24 / 83 95 Leader of the Eclipse Component Papyrus (The UML2 Graphical Modeler): www.papyrusuml.org http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/?project=papyrus Before printing, think about the environment -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : Steve Cook [ mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] Envoyé mardi 16 féier 2010 10:56 À: Bran Selic; GERARD Sebastien 166342 Cc : uml2-rtf@omg.org Objet : RE: Question on Parameter Séstien said: >I wanted to draw delegation connectors between a port and as for example the Parameters of a behaviour such as an activity. Am I allow to do that? The use of the word .draw. indicates that this is something to be done on a diagram. In order to draw such a thing, there has to be a depiction on the diagram of both the port and the parameter, between which a line representing the connector could be drawn. What kind of diagram would allow the question to make sense? A parameter on an Activity is represented indirectly by the notation for ActivityParameterNode; and a parameter on an Interaction can be represented indirectly by a Lifeline. So I suppose it would be possible in principle, on a mixed diagram, to draw a connector between a port (on, say, a class) and one of these elements. However, the constraint that such a connection can only be made in the context of a collaboration would indeed prohibit this. Are there any tools in existence (or at least, any tools that implement a metamodel) that support such diagrams? Thanks -- Steve From: bran.selic@gmail.com [ mailto:bran.selic@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Bran Selic Sent: 16 February 2010 09:31 To: GERARD Sebastien 166342 Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Question on Parameter Seb, This is to support the special case of collaborations, where you may want to show roles as parameters. Namely, a role (i.e., parameter) needs to be shown as a connectable element to which you can draw connectors. See figures 9.11 and 9.12 for examples (the parameters in this case are Subject and Observer). Since parameters are used much more widely in UML than just collaborations, so the constraint was intended to prevent unintended inheritance. I am not sure, however, that the constraint actually achieves that. But, in answer to your specific question, since a property is a connectable element and a port is a kind of property, it should be possible to do what you want. Is the constraint preventing that somehow? Bran On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 4:12 AM, GERARD Sebastien 166342 wrote: Hi all, Who could explain me the following constraint on Parameter within section 9.3.10: Constraints [1] A parameter may only be associated with a connector end within the context of a collaboration. self.end->notEmpty() implies self.collaboration->notEmpty() I wanted to draw delegation connectors between a port and as for example the Parameters of a behaviour such as an activity. Am I allow to do that? Thanks, Cheers. Séstien. Dr. Séstien Gérd Head of MDD for DRES research project CEA LIST, Laboratoire d.Ingéerie dirigépar les modès pour les Systès Embarqué(LISE) Boî courrier 94, GIF SUR YVETTE CEDEX, F-91191 France Phone/fax : +33 1 69 08 58 24 / 83 95 Leader of the Eclipse Component Papyrus (The UML2 Graphical Modeler): www.papyrusuml.org http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/?project=papyrus Before printing, think about the environment From: Steve Cook To: "Friedenthal, Sanford" , "GERARD Sebastien 166342" , Juergen Boldt , Bran Selic CC: "uml2-rtf@omg.org" Subject: RE: Question on Parameter Thread-Topic: Question on Parameter Thread-Index: Acqu6CQQPSbRHeofS2u12xUJQ28CXAAAo/8AAACM9QAAAHlToAAAFqTgAAn5uQAABZF58AAC+BQKAAFegoAAAB4/AAAAIXsg Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:47:45 +0000 Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: The scope of UML 2.4 has been defined to .make the L3 Merged XMI accurate, complete and valid, by fixing those issues needed to do so, and also to fix critical showstopping issues. - in preparation for Specification Simplification. Our velocity towards achieving even this modest goal is currently low. Having said that, if you believe this is an important issue and you wish to propose a resolution within the current RTF then please go ahead. Just bear in mind that it is not just a matter of removing the constraint: it is a matter of documenting the resulting semantics. Thanks -- Steve From: Friedenthal, Sanford [mailto:sanford.friedenthal@lmco.com] Sent: 16 February 2010 19:35 To: GERARD Sebastien 166342; Juergen Boldt; Steve Cook; Bran Selic Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Question on Parameter This is also of interest to SysML, so we will try to engage in the dialogue as well and hopefully come up with an approach that can be applied to UML, SysML, MARTE, and others. Sandy From: GERARD Sebastien 166342 [mailto:Sebastien.GERARD@cea.fr] Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 2:32 PM To: Juergen Boldt; Steve Cook; Bran Selic Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Question on Parameter Yes please. Steve, do you think we could deal with it in the current RTF of UML? Thanks, Cheers. Séstien. Dr. Séstien Gérd Head of MDD for DRES research project CEA LIST, Laboratoire d.Ingéerie dirigépar les modès pour les Systès Embarqué(LISE) Boî courrier 94, GIF SUR YVETTE CEDEX, F-91191 France Phone/fax : +33 1 69 08 58 24 / 83 95 Leader of the Eclipse Component Papyrus (The UML2 Graphical Modeler): www.papyrusuml.org http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/?project=papyrus Before printing, think about the environment -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Envoyé mardi 16 féier 2010 19:52 À: Steve Cook; GERARD Sebastien 166342; Bran Selic Cc : uml2-rtf@omg.org Objet : RE: Question on Parameter issue? -Juergen At 12:35 PM 2/16/2010, Steve Cook wrote: Aha! I guessed right. You are correct that the constraint in 9.3.10 prohibits that. Removing that constraint would require the semantics of the kind of thing you are proposing below to be documented somewhere in the UML spec. -- Steve From: GERARD Sebastien 166342 [ mailto:Sebastien.GERARD@cea.fr] Sent: 16 February 2010 15:09 To: Steve Cook; Bran Selic Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Question on Parameter Maybe I missed to say that I was working with specific ports that are the one called FlawPort as defined in both SysML and MARTE and that enable to define data flow based communication between composite structures. In that case, I try to explain my goal in a better way: I assume i have a composite structure with flow ports and that composite class owns several behaviors denoted by activities. These activities may have Parameters. Now, I want to use connector to explicit the delegation between the flow ports of the Composite structure owning the behaviors and the parameters of these behaviours, cf. example below. Dr. Séstien Gérd Head of MDD for DRES research project CEA LIST, Laboratoire d.Ingéerie dirigépar les modès pour les Systès Embarqué(LISE) Boî courrier 94, GIF SUR YVETTE CEDEX, F-91191 France Phone/fax : +33 1 69 08 58 24 / 83 95 Leader of the Eclipse Component Papyrus (The UML2 Graphical Modeler): www.papyrusuml.org http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/?project=papyrus Before printing, think about the environment -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : Steve Cook [ mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] Envoyé mardi 16 féier 2010 11:03 À: GERARD Sebastien 166342; Bran Selic Cc : uml2-rtf@omg.org Objet : RE: Question on Parameter Did I interpret your question correctly with regard to what you want to draw on the diagrams? -- Steve From: GERARD Sebastien 166342 [ mailto:Sebastien.GERARD@cea.fr] Sent: 16 February 2010 10:00 To: Steve Cook; Bran Selic Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Question on Parameter There is at least one: www.eclipse.org/papyrus Dr. Séstien Gérd Head of MDD for DRES research project CEA LIST, Laboratoire d.Ingéerie dirigépar les modès pour les Systès Embarqué(LISE) Boî courrier 94, GIF SUR YVETTE CEDEX, F-91191 France Phone/fax : +33 1 69 08 58 24 / 83 95 Leader of the Eclipse Component Papyrus (The UML2 Graphical Modeler): www.papyrusuml.org http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/?project=papyrus Before printing, think about the environment -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : Steve Cook [ mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] Envoyé mardi 16 féier 2010 10:56 À: Bran Selic; GERARD Sebastien 166342 Cc : uml2-rtf@omg.org Objet : RE: Question on Parameter Séstien said: >I wanted to draw delegation connectors between a port and as for example the Parameters of a behaviour such as an activity. Am I allow to do that? The use of the word .draw. indicates that this is something to be done on a diagram. In order to draw such a thing, there has to be a depiction on the diagram of both the port and the parameter, between which a line representing the connector could be drawn. What kind of diagram would allow the question to make sense? A parameter on an Activity is represented indirectly by the notation for ActivityParameterNode; and a parameter on an Interaction can be represented indirectly by a Lifeline. So I suppose it would be possible in principle, on a mixed diagram, to draw a connector between a port (on, say, a class) and one of these elements. However, the constraint that such a connection can only be made in the context of a collaboration would indeed prohibit this. Are there any tools in existence (or at least, any tools that implement a metamodel) that support such diagrams? Thanks -- Steve From: bran.selic@gmail.com [ mailto:bran.selic@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Bran Selic Sent: 16 February 2010 09:31 To: GERARD Sebastien 166342 Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Question on Parameter Seb, This is to support the special case of collaborations, where you may want to show roles as parameters. Namely, a role (i.e., parameter) needs to be shown as a connectable element to which you can draw connectors. See figures 9.11 and 9.12 for examples (the parameters in this case are Subject and Observer). Since parameters are used much more widely in UML than just collaborations, so the constraint was intended to prevent unintended inheritance. I am not sure, however, that the constraint actually achieves that. But, in answer to your specific question, since a property is a connectable element and a port is a kind of property, it should be possible to do what you want. Is the constraint preventing that somehow? Bran On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 4:12 AM, GERARD Sebastien 166342 wrote: Hi all, Who could explain me the following constraint on Parameter within section 9.3.10: Constraints [1] A parameter may only be associated with a connector end within the context of a collaboration. self.end->notEmpty() implies self.collaboration->notEmpty() I wanted to draw delegation connectors between a port and as for example the Parameters of a behaviour such as an activity. Am I allow to do that? Thanks, Cheers. Séstien. Dr. Séstien Gérd Head of MDD for DRES research project CEA LIST, Laboratoire d.Ingéerie dirigépar les modès pour les Systès Embarqué(LISE) Boî courrier 94, GIF SUR YVETTE CEDEX, F-91191 France Phone/fax : +33 1 69 08 58 24 / 83 95 Leader of the Eclipse Component Papyrus (The UML2 Graphical Modeler): www.papyrusuml.org http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/?project=papyrus Before printing, think about the environment From: "Bock, Conrad" To: "uml2-rtf@omg.org" Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:26:50 -0500 Subject: RE: Question on Parameter Thread-Topic: Question on Parameter Thread-Index: AcqvOSeJFCdn7TLHRVKV2hskg7H9ZQABXB4QAAP3AFA= Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US X-NIST-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NIST-MailScanner-From: conrad.bock@nist.gov X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id o1GLK09D005645 Sebastian, et al, Here are some notes on connecting parameters to ports, from discussion of MARTE's support for this with Eldad. Conrad -----Original Message----- From: Conrad Bock [mailto:conrad.bock@nist.gov] Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 12:07 PM To: 'sysml-rtf@omg.org' Subject: RE: Meeting summary - mapping flow ports to activity parameters Eldad, Thanks for the notes. > In the Push semantics the items from the flow port are relayed > directly into the activity. > One way to do it is have a special event tied to a flow property or > an atomic flow port and use an accept event action to receive the > event which contains the relevant data. An example is shown in > figure 12.22. This would be pull, because the activity calls the accept event action when it wants, rather than when the item arrives on the port. > Another way for push semantics is to connect the flow port to a > parameter (which is allowed since a parameter is a connectable > element) and have an activity parameter node be associated with this > parameter. If the activity parameter node is streaming into the > actions within the activity then the items will flow after the > activity has been started. An example is shown in figure 12.25 on > MARTE beta 3. Connectors can only be between elements owned at least indirectly by the same element as the connector. For example, you can't connect a part in an IBD for a Car with a part in an IBD for a House, if the connector is owned by the model for Car or House. The above technique might work if the activity (as block) is used as the type of a property of the block owning the connector and the flow port. Then the parameter is effectively a port on a part in the IBD, and can be connected to the flow port. The semantics would be that the property typed by an activity has executions of the activity as values (at system "runtime"). The semantics of the connector I'm assuming is relaying the item from the flow port to the inside of the block, rather than static links or equivalence (binding). This assumes the activity execution is started at some point, and there's a UML action for that (StartObjectBehaviorAction). The upshot is I think this fits within UML semantics, but SysML should clarify it, especially the semantics of parameters as connectable elements. > A push semantics is shown in the example of 12.24 - the value is > relayed to a property of the block which is connected to an activity > parameter of an operation or behavior. Not sure if the relaying semantics in UML supports this indirection through another property in the same block, maybe someone else knows. BTW, when parameters are used as ports like this, the repository model in figure 12.24 should show the partWithPort association, because the same activity might be the type of more than one property on the same block. > When calling the operation a read action is carried out to read the > value stored in the property. Alan commented that this is violating > a constraint since when calling an operation one must specify all > parameter values in the call. Not if the parameter is optional (has multiplicity lower bound of 0) or is streaming. > A. What type of diagram are we going to use for that (is it an > IBD or ACD)? It's an IBD, because it has connectors, but would need a notational extension to show the contents of activities that type properties. > B. How to we connect a flow property of a non-atomic flow port > to an activity parameter? Parameters are typed by exactly one classifier, so the multiple types of a non-atomic flow port (if I'm understanding that correctly) would need a supertype of those for the parameter type. Or Parameter could be extended with multiple types. > 4. We still need to see how to connect a flow port\flow property to > a parameter of an activity invoked by an operation call. This would probably need an extension. A property typed my the method of the operation would need to refer to the operation, with the semantics that executions of the method are values of the property. Conrad