Issue 16569: Relation of message arguments to signature parameters ambiguous (uml2-rtf)
Source: Fraunhofer FOKUS (Mr. Marc-Florian Wendland, marc-florian.wendland(at)fokus.fraunhofer.de)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary: In section 14.3.18, the constraints 3 and 4 say that the arguments of message must correspond to the parameters/properties of the signature (operation/signal). This leads to an ambiguous siuation in some situations. For example:


Let's assume there is an operation with the following signatur op1(x:String[*], y:String[*]) or a Signal S with two properties
S::p1 : String[0..1]
S::p2 : String[0..1]


Since there is no direct relationship between an argument and a parameter/property it is not possible to determine what argument belongs to the first parameter/property (list in case opf operation example) and what to the second one.


This problem always occurrs when two parameters/properties of the same type are specified in a sequence and the first one has either an optional multiplicity or an upper bound equals *.


A possible solution is to introduce an additional metaclass MessageArgumentSpecification, which should be contained by Message instead of ValueSpecification directly, with the following structure:


MessageArgumentSpecification{
   refersTo: TypedElement [1] {where the    referenced TypedElement is either an instance of parameter or property}
   arguments : ValueSpecification [1..*] {ordered}
}

It might be also considerable to keep the association between a referenced element and an argument bilateral. In this case, the association between Message and MessageArgumentSpecification should be ordered.
Resolution: 
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
September 29, 2011: received issue
Discussion: 

End of Annotations:=====

m: webmaster@omg.org
Date: 29 Sep 2011 03:10:25 -0400
To: <issues@omg.org>
Subject: Issue/Bug Report


*******************************************************************************
Name:            Marc-Florian Wendland
Employer:        Fraunhofer FOKUS
mailFrom:        marc-florian.wendland@fokus.fraunhofer.de
Terms_Agreement: I agree
Specification:   UML Superstructure
Section:         14.3.18
FormalNumber:    ptc/2010-11-14
Version:         2.4
Doc_Year:        2011
Doc_Month:       January
Doc_Day:         01
Page:            506 ff.
Title:           Relation of message arguments to signature parameters ambiguous
Nature:          Revision
Severity:        Significant
CODE:            3TMw8
B1:              Report Issue


Description:


In section 14.3.18, the constraints 3 and 4 say that the arguments of message must correspond to the parameters/properties of the signature (operation/signal). This leads to an ambiguous siuation in some situations. For example:


Let's assume there is an operation with the following signatur op1(x:String[*], y:String[*]) or a Signal S with two properties
S::p1 : String[0..1]
S::p2 : String[0..1]


Since there is no direct relationship between an argument and a parameter/property it is not possible to determine what argument belongs to the first parameter/property (list in case opf operation example) and what to the second one.


This problem always occurrs when two parameters/properties of the same type are specified in a sequence and the first one has either an optional multiplicity or an upper bound equals *.


A possible solution is to introduce an additional metaclass MessageArgumentSpecification, which should be contained by Message instead of ValueSpecification directly, with the following structure:


MessageArgumentSpecification{
   refersTo: TypedElement [1] {where the    referenced TypedElement is either an instance of parameter or property}
   arguments : ValueSpecification [1..*] {ordered}
}

It might be also considerable to keep the association between a referenced element and an argument bilateral. In this case, the association between Message and MessageArgumentSpecification should be ordered.