Issue 15451: Clarifying the support for and semantics of subsetting/redefinition for a pair of properties defined in different contex (uml2-rtf) Source: NASA (Dr. Nicolas F. Rouquette, nicolas.f.rouquette(at)jpl.nasa.gov) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Currently, the prevalent use of property subsetting/redefinition mechanism has been confined to a pairs of properties defined within a single artifact (e.g., metamodel, user model, ....) In principle, the specification allows using this mechanism even for a pair of properties where the subsetted/redefined property is defined in one artifact (e.g., a metamodel) and the subsetting/redefining property is defined in another artifact (e.g., a profile extending the metamodel). This flexibility could be useful in practice -- e.g., see some of the proposed changes for SysML1.3 here: http://www.omg.org/members/sysml-rtf-wiki/doku.php?id=rtf3:groups:9_ports_and_flows. The specification does not explicitly discuss what is the semantics of subsetting/redefinition when the subsetted/redefined property is in a different artifact, potentially at a different level than the artifact where the subsetting/redefining property is defined. Combinations of subsetted/redefined property vs. subsetting/redefining property could include: - metamodel/profile - profile/profile - library/profile Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: September 8, 2010: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: "Rouquette, Nicolas F (316A)" To: "issues@omg.org" CC: "uml2-rtf@omg.org" , "Jenkins, J Steven (3101)" Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 13:28:48 -0700 Subject: Clarifying the support for and semantics of subsetting/redefinition for a pair of properties defined in different contexts (e.g., profile & metamodel) Thread-Topic: Clarifying the support for and semantics of subsetting/redefinition for a pair of properties defined in different contexts (e.g., profile & metamodel) Thread-Index: ActPlHF53q4u5zPES0qhWdrVgg25XQ== Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US X-Source-IP: altvirehtstap01.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.137.72] X-Source-Sender: nicolas.f.rouquette@jpl.nasa.gov X-AUTH: Authorized Currently, the prevalent use of property subsetting/redefinition mechanism has been confined to a pairs of properties defined within a single artifact (e.g., metamodel, user model, ....) In principle, the specification allows using this mechanism even for a pair of properties where the subsetted/redefined property is defined in one artifact (e.g., a metamodel) and the subsetting/redefining property is defined in another artifact (e.g., a profile extending the metamodel). This flexibility could be useful in practice -- e.g., see some of the proposed changes for SysML1.3 here: http://www.omg.org/members/sysml-rtf-wiki/doku.php?id=rtf3:groups:9_ports_and_flows. The specification does not explicitly discuss what is the semantics of subsetting/redefinition when the subsetted/redefined property is in a different artifact, potentially at a different level than the artifact where the subsetting/redefining property is defined. Combinations of subsetted/redefined property vs. subsetting/redefining property could include: - metamodel/profile - profile/profile - library/profile Subject: RE: issue 15451 -- UML 2 RTF issue Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 14:22:23 -0700 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: issue 15451 -- UML 2 RTF issue Thread-Index: ActPlqUSVgg5hKpaRS+jXBEmOwzYiAAA+Nag From: "Pete Rivett" To: Since a Stereotype does not subtype the metaclass it extends I just don.t see how subsetting/redefinition could apply. (I don.t have time to wade through the long list of SysML issue numbers and minutes you pointed to). This sounds like something best addressed through unifying metamodels and profiles as part of the MOF3 response to the Architecture Ecosystem, RFP Since subtyping can exist between Stereotypes in different Profiles I don.t see any problem there or anything that needs clarifying. Pete From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 1:44 PM To: issues@omg.org; uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 15451 -- UML 2 RTF issue From: "Rouquette, Nicolas F (316A)" To: "issues@omg.org" CC: "uml2-rtf@omg.org" , "Jenkins, J Steven (3101)" Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 13:28:48 -0700 Subject: Clarifying the support for and semantics of subsetting/redefinition for a pair of properties defined in different contexts (e.g., profile & metamodel) Thread-Topic: Clarifying the support for and semantics of subsetting/redefinition for a pair of properties defined in different contexts (e.g., profile & metamodel) Thread-Index: ActPlHF53q4u5zPES0qhWdrVgg25XQ== Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US X-Source-IP: altvirehtstap01.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.137.72] X-Source-Sender: nicolas.f.rouquette@jpl.nasa.gov X-AUTH: Authorized Currently, the prevalent use of property subsetting/redefinition mechanism has been confined to a pairs of properties defined within a single artifact (e.g., metamodel, user model, ....) In principle, the specification allows using this mechanism even for a pair of properties where the subsetted/redefined property is defined in one artifact (e.g., a metamodel) and the subsetting/redefining property is defined in another artifact (e.g., a profile extending the metamodel). This flexibility could be useful in practice -- e.g., see some of the proposed changes for SysML1.3 here: http://www.omg.org/members/sysml-rtf-wiki/doku.php?id=rtf3:groups:9_ports_and_flows . The specification does not explicitly discuss what is the semantics of subsetting/redefinition when the subsetted/redefined property is in a different artifact, potentially at a different level than the artifact where the subsetting/redefining property is defined. Combinations of subsetted/redefined property vs. subsetting/redefining property could include: - metamodel/profile - profile/profile - library/profile - Nicolas. Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services Object Management Group 140 Kendrick St Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA tel: +1 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: +1 781 444 0320 email: juergen@omg.org www.omg.org From: "Bock, Conrad" To: "uml2-rtf@omg.org" Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 08:27:03 -0400 Subject: RE: issue 15451 -- UML 2 RTF issue Thread-Topic: issue 15451 -- UML 2 RTF issue Thread-Index: ActPlqUSVgg5hKpaRS+jXBEmOwzYiAAA+NagAB/lWTA= 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 Pete, > Since a Stereotype does not subtype the metaclass it > extends I just don't see how subsetting/redefinition could apply. A steretype is semantically a subtype of its base class, even though the current abstract syntax doesn't capture that. Conrad From: "BERNARD, Yves" To: "Bock, Conrad" , "uml2-rtf@omg.org" Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 14:59:41 +0200 Subject: RE: issue 15451 -- UML 2 RTF issue Thread-Topic: issue 15451 -- UML 2 RTF issue Thread-Index: ActPlqUSVgg5hKpaRS+jXBEmOwzYiAAA+NagAB/lWTAAAPs+kA== Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: fr-FR, en-US X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Sep 2010 12:59:44.0470 (UTC) FILETIME=[DFD4D760:01CB501E] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id o89Ck53r028544 Conrad, I don't think so: a stereotype defines the type of an extension of a class. It is the couple (base class, stereotype) that could be seen as a "subtype of the base class" but not the stereotype alone which in some case is be applicable to several distinct metaclasses. Yves -----Message d'origine----- De : Bock, Conrad [mailto:conrad.bock@nist.gov] Envoyé jeudi 9 septembre 2010 14:27 À: uml2-rtf@omg.org Objet : RE: issue 15451 -- UML 2 RTF issue Pete, > Since a Stereotype does not subtype the metaclass it > extends I just don't see how subsetting/redefinition could apply. A steretype is semantically a subtype of its base class, even though the current abstract syntax doesn't capture that. Conrad This mail has originated outside your organization, either from an external partner or the Global Internet. Keep this in mind if you answer this message. 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: "Bock, Conrad" To: "uml2-rtf@omg.org" Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 09:15:23 -0400 Subject: RE: issue 15451 -- UML 2 RTF issue Thread-Topic: issue 15451 -- UML 2 RTF issue Thread-Index: ActPlqUSVgg5hKpaRS+jXBEmOwzYiAAA+NagAB/lWTAAAPs+kAAAkd3A 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 Yves, > I don't think so: a stereotype defines the type of an extension of a > class. It is the couple (base class, stereotype) that could be seen > as a "subtype of the base class" but not the stereotype alone which > in some case is be applicable to several distinct metaclasses. OK, so redefinition and subsetting can only be used on properties that are in common to all base classes (usually there's only one base class, which is the case I was referring to). Conrad From: "BERNARD, Yves" To: "Bock, Conrad" , "uml2-rtf@omg.org" Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 15:55:38 +0200 Subject: RE: issue 15451 -- UML 2 RTF issue Thread-Topic: issue 15451 -- UML 2 RTF issue Thread-Index: ActPlqUSVgg5hKpaRS+jXBEmOwzYiAAA+NagAB/lWTAAAPs+kAAAkd3AAABnBHA= Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: fr-FR, en-US X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Sep 2010 13:55:39.0947 (UTC) FILETIME=[AFD9FFB0:01CB5026] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id o89DdaUb011569 Seen from to the base class, a stereotype appears semantically closer from an associated class than from anything else. Therefore what "redefinition" could mean in the context of an associated class, which represents something completely different, is not clear to me. More, what would be the criteria to decide whether a property is "common" to all the base classes? Obviously type, name and multiplicity aren't sufficient, does it implies it is inherited from a common ancestor? I think derived properties really make sense within a stereotype but about redefined properties, I wonder... Yves -----Message d'origine----- De : Bock, Conrad [mailto:conrad.bock@nist.gov] Envoyé jeudi 9 septembre 2010 15:15 À: uml2-rtf@omg.org Objet : RE: issue 15451 -- UML 2 RTF issue Yves, > I don't think so: a stereotype defines the type of an extension of a > class. It is the couple (base class, stereotype) that could be seen > as a "subtype of the base class" but not the stereotype alone which > in some case is be applicable to several distinct metaclasses. OK, so redefinition and subsetting can only be used on properties that are in common to all base classes (usually there's only one base class, which is the case I was referring to). Conrad This mail has originated outside your organization, either from an external partner or the Global Internet. Keep this in mind if you answer this message. 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: "Bock, Conrad" To: "uml2-rtf@omg.org" Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 10:04:19 -0400 Subject: RE: issue 15451 -- UML 2 RTF issue Thread-Topic: issue 15451 -- UML 2 RTF issue Thread-Index: ActPlqUSVgg5hKpaRS+jXBEmOwzYiAAA+NagAB/lWTAAAPs+kAAAkd3AAABnBHAAAXoT8A== 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 Yves, > More, what would be the criteria to decide whether a > property is "common" to all the base classes? If they are redefined/subsetted from the same property in a generalization ancestor. This used to be explicitly defined in UML 1.x to address diamond-shaped inheritance trees, not sure if it still is. Conrad - Nicolas.