Issue 15236: not sure it is possible to define a constraint without a context (uml2-rtf) Source: Airbus Group (Mr. Yves Bernard, yves.bernard(at)airbus.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: According to the semantics sub-clause of the §7.3.10, it seems that the intent is that there is a relationship between the context and the owner of the constraint: “In general there are many possible kinds of owners for a Constraint. The only restriction is that the owning element must have access to the constrainedElements. The owner of the Constraint will determine when the constraint specification is evaluated. For example, this allows an Operation to specify if a Constraint represents a precondition or a postcondition” I not sure it is possible to define a constraint without a context. I believe a constraint always has a context even if it is an implicit one. Maybe a convenient solution would be to make the context non-derived but mandatory ([1..1]) with a default value set to the constraint’s owner. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: March 16, 2010: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== ubject: #issue 10830 Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:54:26 +0100 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: #issue 10830 Thread-Index: AcrFEDFkOYu/3YL6Q6G2/YDqcFBTLw== From: "BERNARD, Yves" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Mar 2010 13:54:27.0191 (UTC) FILETIME=[315E9070:01CAC510] According to the semantics sub-clause of the §7.3.10, it seems that the intent is that there is a relationship between the context and the owner of the constraint: .In general there are many possible kinds of owners for a Constraint. The only restriction is that the owning element must have access to the constrainedElements. The owner of the Constraint will determine when the constraint specification is evaluated. For example, this allows an Operation to specify if a Constraint represents a precondition or a postcondition. I not sure it is possible to define a constraint without a context. I believe a constraint always has a context even if it is an implicit one. Maybe a convenient solution would be to make the context non-derived but mandatory ([1..1]) with a default value set to the constraint.s owner. Yves The information in this e-mail is confidential. The contents may not be disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Airbus immediately and delete this e-mail. Airbus cannot accept any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this e-mail as it has been sent over public networks. If you have any concerns over the content of this message or its Accuracy or Integrity, please contact Airbus immediately. All outgoing e-mails from Airbus are checked using regularly updated virus scanning software but you should take whatever measures you deem to be appropriate to ensure that this message and any attachments are virus free. From: Steve Cook To: "BERNARD, Yves" , "uml2-rtf@omg.org" , "issues@omg.org" Subject: RE: #issue 10830 Thread-Topic: #issue 10830 Thread-Index: AcrFEDFkOYu/3YL6Q6G2/YDqcFBTLwAo4/nQ Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 09:30:36 +0000 Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Yves I assume your email is a review comment to the resolution to #10830 currently under vote in Ballot 5. If so, I think you are actually raising a new and different issue: whether or not a constraint should always have a context. So I.m copying this to issues@omg.org. -- Steve From: BERNARD, Yves [mailto:Yves.Bernard@airbus.com] Sent: 16 March 2010 13:54 To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: #issue 10830 According to the semantics sub-clause of the §7.3.10, it seems that the intent is that there is a relationship between the context and the owner of the constraint: .In general there are many possible kinds of owners for a Constraint. The only restriction is that the owning element must have access to the constrainedElements. The owner of the Constraint will determine when the constraint specification is evaluated. For example, this allows an Operation to specify if a Constraint represents a precondition or a postcondition. I not sure it is possible to define a constraint without a context. I believe a constraint always has a context even if it is an implicit one. Maybe a convenient solution would be to make the context non-derived but mandatory ([1..1]) with a default value set to the constraint.s owner. Yves The information in this e-mail is confidential. The contents may not be disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Airbus immediately and delete this e-mail. Airbus cannot accept any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this e-mail as it has been sent over public networks. If you have any concerns over the content of this message or its Accuracy or Integrity, please contact Airbus immediately. All outgoing e-mails from Airbus are checked using regularly updated virus scanning software but you should take whatever measures you deem to be appropriate to ensure that this message and any attachments are virus free. From: Steve Cook To: "juergen@omg.org" Subject: FW: #issue 10830 Thread-Topic: #issue 10830 Thread-Index: AcrFEDFkOYu/3YL6Q6G2/YDqcFBTLwAo4/nQAUIYfZA= Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 19:08:46 +0000 Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Juergen In the email below another issue to log, with the text of Yves message. Thanks -- Steve From: Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] Sent: 17 March 2010 09:31 To: BERNARD, Yves; uml2-rtf@omg.org; issues@omg.org Subject: RE: #issue 10830 Yves I assume your email is a review comment to the resolution to #10830 currently under vote in Ballot 5. If so, I think you are actually raising a new and different issue: whether or not a constraint should always have a context. So I.m copying this to issues@omg.org. -- Steve From: BERNARD, Yves [mailto:Yves.Bernard@airbus.com] Sent: 16 March 2010 13:54 To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: #issue 10830 According to the semantics sub-clause of the §7.3.10, it seems that the intent is that there is a relationship between the context and the owner of the constraint: .In general there are many possible kinds of owners for a Constraint. The only restriction is that the owning element must have access to the constrainedElements. The owner of the Constraint will determine when the constraint specification is evaluated. For example, this allows an Operation to specify if a Constraint represents a precondition or a postcondition. I not sure it is possible to define a constraint without a context. I believe a constraint always has a context even if it is an implicit one. Maybe a convenient solution would be to make the context non-derived but mandatory ([1..1]) with a default value set to the constraint.s owner. Yves The information in this e-mail is confidential. The contents may not be disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Airbus immediately and delete this e-mail. Airbus cannot accept any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this e-mail as it has been sent over public networks. If you have any concerns over the content of this message or its Accuracy or Integrity, please contact Airbus immediately. All outgoing e-mails from Airbus are checked using regularly updated virus scanning software but you should take whatever measures you deem to be appropriate to ensure that this message and any attachments are virus free.