Issue 15399: "unique" annotation (uml2-rtf) Source: International Business Machines (Dr. Maged Elaasar, melaasar(at)ca.ibm.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Since the "isUnique" and "isOrdered" properties have default values, do we need to have both 'unique'/'nonunique' and 'ordered'/'unordered' textual annotations? or do we only need ones for non-default values? I noticed that in some presentation option sections in the spec both annotation values are mentioned, while in other sections only one value is mentioned (diagrams in the spec also use them inconsistently): Superstructure: 7.3.3 Association has 'nonunique' and 'ordered <= This seems to be the most correct 7.3.32 MultiplicityElement has 'unique'/'nonunique' and 'ordered'/'unordered' 7.3.36 Operation has 'unique' and 'ordered' 7.3.44 Property have 'unique'/ 'nonunique' and 'ordered' Infrastructure: 9.12.1 MultiplicityElement has 'unique'/'nonunique' and 'ordered'/'unordered' 11.8.2 Operation has 'unique' and 'ordered' 11.3.5 Property have 'unique' and 'ordered' What made me notice that is the addition of 'id' by resolution 15369, do we need to log an issue to fix this later? Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: August 5, 2010: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== ubject: "unique" annotation To: uml2-rtf@omg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 From: Maged Elaasar Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 10:37:55 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML03/25/M/IBM(Release 8.0.1|February 07, 2008) at 08/05/2010 10:37:56 Since the "isUnique" and "isOrdered" properties have default values, do we need to have both 'unique'/'nonunique' and 'ordered'/'unordered' textual annotations? or do we only need ones for non-default values? I noticed that in some presentation option sections in the spec both annotation values are mentioned, while in other sections only one value is mentioned (diagrams in the spec also use them inconsistently): Superstructure: 7.3.3 Association has 'nonunique' and 'ordered <= This seems to be the most correct 7.3.32 MultiplicityElement has 'unique'/'nonunique' and 'ordered'/'unordered' 7.3.36 Operation has 'unique' and 'ordered' 7.3.44 Property have 'unique'/ 'nonunique' and 'ordered' Infrastructure: 9.12.1 MultiplicityElement has 'unique'/'nonunique' and 'ordered'/'unordered' 11.8.2 Operation has 'unique' and 'ordered' 11.3.5 Property have 'unique' and 'ordered' What made me notice that is the addition of 'id' by resolution 15369, do we need to log an issue to fix this later? Maged From: Steve Cook To: Maged Elaasar , "uml2-rtf@omg.org" Subject: RE: "unique" annotation Thread-Topic: "unique" annotation Thread-Index: AQHLNKw9UAOsuKOU1U+mEyDjPBzEUpLS+Sdg Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 15:17:13 +0000 Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.166.20.35] I.d say yes we need an issue . we can handle in 2.5. From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: 05 August 2010 15:38 To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: "unique" annotation Since the "isUnique" and "isOrdered" properties have default values, do we need to have both 'unique'/'nonunique' and 'ordered'/'unordered' textual annotations? or do we only need ones for non-default values? I noticed that in some presentation option sections in the spec both annotation values are mentioned, while in other sections only one value is mentioned (diagrams in the spec also use them inconsistently): Superstructure: 7.3.3 Association has 'nonunique' and 'ordered <= This seems to be the most correct 7.3.32 MultiplicityElement has 'unique'/'nonunique' and 'ordered'/'unordered' 7.3.36 Operation has 'unique' and 'ordered' 7.3.44 Property have 'unique'/ 'nonunique' and 'ordered' Infrastructure: 9.12.1 MultiplicityElement has 'unique'/'nonunique' and 'ordered'/'unordered' 11.8.2 Operation has 'unique' and 'ordered' 11.3.5 Property have 'unique' and 'ordered' What made me notice that is the addition of 'id' by resolution 15369, do we need to log an issue to fix this later? Maged Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 12:21:22 -0400 From: "Chonoles, Michael J" Subject: RE: Ex: RE: unique annotation To: Steve Cook , Maged Elaasar , "uml2-rtf@omg.org" Thread-Topic: Ex: RE: unique annotation Thread-Index: AQHLNKw9UAOsuKOU1U+mEyDjPBzEUpLS+SdggAARNbA= Accept-Language: en-US acceptlanguage: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: I generally recommend both notations to be available, as well as the default. The problem with using the default all the time, is that the reader can.t be sure that the modeler was complete or unfinished/lazy. We generally recommend on our projects to use the explicit values until the diagrams have reached a certain level of maturity (perhaps successful peer review) and then allow the default values to replaced to improve readability. Michael From: Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 11:17 AM To: Maged Elaasar; uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Ex: RE: unique annotation I.d say yes we need an issue . we can handle in 2.5. From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: 05 August 2010 15:38 To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: "unique" annotation Since the "isUnique" and "isOrdered" properties have default values, do we need to have both 'unique'/'nonunique' and 'ordered'/'unordered' textual annotations? or do we only need ones for non-default values? I noticed that in some presentation option sections in the spec both annotation values are mentioned, while in other sections only one value is mentioned (diagrams in the spec also use them inconsistently): Superstructure: 7.3.3 Association has 'nonunique' and 'ordered <= This seems to be the most correct 7.3.32 MultiplicityElement has 'unique'/'nonunique' and 'ordered'/'unordered' 7.3.36 Operation has 'unique' and 'ordered' 7.3.44 Property have 'unique'/ 'nonunique' and 'ordered' Infrastructure: 9.12.1 MultiplicityElement has 'unique'/'nonunique' and 'ordered'/'unordered' 11.8.2 Operation has 'unique' and 'ordered' 11.3.5 Property have 'unique' and 'ordered' What made me notice that is the addition of 'id' by resolution 15369, do we need to log an issue to fix this later? Maged Subject: RE: "unique" annotation Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 12:38:56 -0700 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: "unique" annotation Thread-Index: AQHLNKw9UAOsuKOU1U+mEyDjPBzEUpLS+SdggAAQYUA= From: "Pete Rivett" To: "Steve Cook" , "Maged Elaasar" , I agree we should fix the inconsistencies (ideally by mentioning the options in only one place), but not quite sure about removing the option: the default visibility is public and yet we have a notation for it. Likewise other defaults that come to mind such as navigability and {incomplete, disjoint} for GeneralizationSet. Pete From: Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 8:17 AM To: Maged Elaasar; uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: "unique" annotation I.d say yes we need an issue . we can handle in 2.5. From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: 05 August 2010 15:38 To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: "unique" annotation Since the "isUnique" and "isOrdered" properties have default values, do we need to have both 'unique'/'nonunique' and 'ordered'/'unordered' textual annotations? or do we only need ones for non-default values? I noticed that in some presentation option sections in the spec both annotation values are mentioned, while in other sections only one value is mentioned (diagrams in the spec also use them inconsistently): Superstructure: 7.3.3 Association has 'nonunique' and 'ordered <= This seems to be the most correct 7.3.32 MultiplicityElement has 'unique'/'nonunique' and 'ordered'/'unordered' 7.3.36 Operation has 'unique' and 'ordered' 7.3.44 Property have 'unique'/ 'nonunique' and 'ordered' Infrastructure: 9.12.1 MultiplicityElement has 'unique'/'nonunique' and 'ordered'/'unordered' 11.8.2 Operation has 'unique' and 'ordered' 11.3.5 Property have 'unique' and 'ordered' What made me notice that is the addition of 'id' by resolution 15369, do we need to log an issue to fix this later? Maged