Issue 15056: Figure 7.15 (uml2-rtf) Source: No Magic, Inc. (Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius, nerijus(at)nomagic.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: There are non-derived properties at both ends - clientDependency and supplierDependency. One association is non-navigable, that means supplierDependency is owned by Association, but what does it mean in UML metamodel implementation? How it should be implemented? Eclipse has no associations at all, we (MD) simply added this property into NamedElement, but not serializing it into XMI. I would suggest to make this property derived or remove at all (if it is not serialized, it does not affect backward compatibility). Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: February 18, 2010: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: Steve Cook To: Nerijus Jankevicius , "issues@omg.org" CC: Maged Elaasar Subject: RE: Ballot 2 is completed. Please submit resolutions for Ballot 4. Thread-Topic: Ballot 2 is completed. Please submit resolutions for Ballot 4. Thread-Index: AQHKsH2HTeY4iHPdmUehSYBFJKZmIpHLoGxAgAAKp/KAACENQIAALt6igAAHlOA= Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:53:14 +0000 Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: I am copying issues@omg.org . Juergen, please can we have a UML 2 issue corresponding to the last message from Nerijus. Nerijus, my interpretation of a non-navigable property is that it is not generated into the API and not serialized in the XMI. If you want a derived property, the way to do it is the same as we did for ConnectableElement::end. You can.t remove the property altogether: it is the end of the association, and has to be owned either by the association or the class. Thanks -- Steve From: Nerijus Jankevicius [mailto:nerijus@nomagic.com] Sent: 18 February 2010 15:20 To: Steve Cook Cc: Maged Elaasar Subject: Re: Ballot 2 is completed. Please submit resolutions for Ballot 4. Look at Figure 7.15 There are non-derived properties at both ends - clientDependency and supplierDependency. One association is non-navigable, that means supplierDependency is owned by Association, but what does it mean in UML metamodel implementation? How it should be implemented? Eclipse has no associations at all, we (MD) simply added this property into NamedElement, but not serializing it into XMI. I would suggest to make this property derived or remove at all (if it is not serialized, it does not affect backward compatibility). Nerijus ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Cook To: Nerijus Jankevicius Cc: Maged Elaasar Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 2:35 PM Subject: RE: Ballot 2 is completed. Please submit resolutions for Ballot 4. Nerijus I cannot find such an issue in the spreadsheet. What exactly is the issue? Is it that clientDependency is navigable, so if I create a dependency from A to B, then A is altered? -- Steve From: Nerijus Jankevicius [mailto:nerijus@nomagic.com] Sent: 18 February 2010 10:34 To: Steve Cook Cc: Maged Elaasar Subject: Re: Ballot 2 is completed. Please submit resolutions for Ballot 4. Thanks, Steve. Also, is the issue with "clientDependency" and "supplierDependency" as non-derived properties (independent element is always modified) included somewhere or not? I don't remember. It was critical issue for MARTE guys. Nerijus ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Cook To: Nerijus Jankevicius Cc: Maged Elaasar Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 11:58 AM Subject: RE: Ballot 2 is completed. Please submit resolutions for Ballot 4. Nerijus I am keen to get these things resolved but I too am very busy. We.ll do the best we can. -- Steve From: Nerijus Jankevicius [mailto:nerijus@nomagic.com] Sent: 18 February 2010 09:33 To: Nerijus Jankevicius; Steve Cook Cc: Maged Elaasar Subject: Re: Ballot 2 is completed. Please submit resolutions for Ballot 4. any feedback? Can at least one group from my reported "metamodel issues" be resolved? Who can do that? I will be on vacation starting from today till March 1. ----- Original Message ----- From: Nerijus Jankevicius To: Steve Cook Cc: Maged Elaasar Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 4:21 PM Subject: Re: Ballot 2 is completed. Please submit resolutions for Ballot 4. Steve, I feel duty and responsibility to submit some resolutions, but unfortunatelly have no time for that because of multiple urgent tasks at No Magic. Could You or Maged help and propose resolutions for some groups of issues I sent earlier? Thanks in advance. -- Nerijus Jankevicius SysML Product Manager OMG-Certified UML Professional No Magic Europe Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas, Lithuania 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! ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Cook To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 12:46 PM Subject: Ballot 2 is completed. Please submit resolutions for Ballot 4. We have completed Ballot 2. All resolutions were accepted. The final voting spreadsheet is attached. I have updated the issues spreadsheet and here is a summary of our current status. We.ve disposed of 8 issues and have 55 remaining that are triaged as 2.4 scope. No resolutions were submitted for ballot 3 so there will be no vote for it. Ballot 4 resolutions can be placed now in the folder at https://dev.enterprisecomponent.com:9992/repos/UML-RTF/trunk/Documents/Resolutions/2.4/Ballot4/Draft. The deadline for submitting resolutions to ballot 4 is next Monday, 15th February. A note on velocity: we have 5 more ballots scheduled and 55 issues triaged as in 2.4 scope, so we need to be resolving 11 issues per remaining ballot in order to complete our work. Our average velocity so far is 2.7 issues per ballot. I have updated the wiki http://www.omgwiki.org/uml2-rtf/doku.php?id=start. Thanks -- Steve