Issue 16873: UML operations are not defined (dtv-rtf) Source: NIST (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, edbark(at)nist.gov) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Many of the UML classes defined in Clause 8 have several UML operations. While it may be easy to guess the relationship between the operations and the associations, there is no text that defines these operations, or even mentions their relationship to the associations. In each case, these operations should be formally documented under the "glossary entry" for the class. (The description in clause 5.2 is helpful, but it alone does not meet the documentation requirement. It just says that each such operation is somehow related to some defined association.) Resolution: The UML operations have names that are based on the verb symbols of the verb concepts that are defined in the text. So the relationship between the UML operations and the verb concepts is generally easy to recognize. Formally documenting the relationships, while desirable, is not needed to understand the specification correctly. The Date-Time FTF-2 did not have time to address this issue, so it is deferred for future consideration. Revised Text: Disposition: Deferred Revised Text: Actions taken: December 2, 2011: received issue April 1, 2013: transferred from FTF Discussion: End of Annotations:===== te: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 10:34:49 -0500 From: Ed Barkmeyer Reply-To: edbark@nist.gov Organization: NIST User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) To: issues@omg.org, "date-time-ftf@omg.org" Subject: Date/Time issue: UML operations are not defined X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-ID: pB2FYsou018859 X-NISTMEL-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Watermark: 1323444900.18348@ptB/U5wyTDT72/rc2dnjeQ X-Spam-Status: No X-NIST-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NIST-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov OMG Issue Specification: Date/Time Vocabulary (DTV) Version: draft Beta-1 Title: UML operations are not defined Source: Ed Barkmeyer, NIST, edbark@nist.gov Summary: Many of the UML classes defined in Clause 8 have several UML operations. While it may be easy to guess the relationship between the operations and the associations, there is no text that defines these operations, or even mentions their relationship to the associations. In each case, these operations should be formally documented under the "glossary entry" for the class. (The description in clause 5.2 is helpful, but it alone does not meet the documentation requirement. It just says that each such operation is somehow related to some defined association.) -- Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@nist.gov National Institute of Standards & Technology Manufacturing Systems Integration Division 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 Cel: +1 240-672-5800 To: date-time-ftf@omg.org Subject: DTV Issue 16873 - UML operations are not defined X-KeepSent: E2B45912:FA9726B4-852579A3:006D8885; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.1FP5 SHF29 November 12, 2010 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:07:05 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.3 ZX853HP5|January 12, 2012) at 02/13/2012 15:06:50, Serialize complete at 02/13/2012 15:06:50 X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 12021320-3534-0000-0000-0000058FC5CD Ed, Looking more closely at figure 8.6 and the associated OCL, I see that: The "plus" operation shown in the figure is actually defined in the OCL. See the OCL lines that start with "def:" (which mean operation definition) rather than "inv" which mean "invariant" or "constraint". However, this is a mismatch in the operation name that we need to fix. I think that if we did fix it, then the concern raised in this issue ("While it may be easy to guess the relationship between the operations and the associations, there is no text that defines these operations, or even mentions their relationship to the associations. ") is not valid. In addition to the "plus" function operation that generates the result t1 + t2, we need a predicate operation that answers the question t3 ?= t1+t2. This operation is referenced (for example), in the first corollary on page 36. It's interesting to note that the class shown in figure 8.6 is fine for documentation but has no real value to a UML modeler nor to the OCL. That point would also be true if it were shown as an association class. Either way, if a domain vocabulary imported DTV as a UML model, such classes are essentially noise. With respect to point (2), I note that we do have predicate operations defined in figure 8.4. So I think we need to make a pass through the text to ensure we are consistent both in terms of which UML operations we define and with respect to consistent naming between the UML and the OCL. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research