Issue 16874: Clause 5.2 depicts the UML model as informative (date-time-ftf) Source: NIST (Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer, edbark(at)nist.gov) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: In Clause 5.2, in explaining the conventions used for the UML models, the first two paragraphs contain the follwing text: "The intent of the model is two-fold: (a) to illustrate this vocabulary with UML diagrams; (b) to satisfy the RFP requirement for a matching UML model. The UML model is derived manually from the SBVR-based text in this document. In case of any discrepancies between the SBVR-based text in this document and the UML model, the text prevails because it is the original model." This text suggests that the purpose of the UML model is illustrative, rather than normative, and that it is derived from, and inferior in status to, the SBVR model. Bullet (b) belies the rest -- the RFP asked for a normative UML model. This specification presents one, and that is what should be said here. The Date/Time Vocabulary is (mostly) presented as a formal SBVR "business vocabulary" using the text conventions of SBVR. Clause 5.1 should say that, and does not. The interpretation of the vocabulary presentation is more important than the use of SBVR Structured English as the pseudo-formal form for definitions. It is the interpretation of the vocabulary structure that leads to the normative SBVR XML files attached to the specification. The UML model is a normative representation of that part of the Date/Time Vocabulary that can be conveniently represented in UML. The later text of 5.2 specifies the conventions used in creating the normative UML representation. They differ in some ways from the conventions presented in SBVR clause 13. That difference should be expressly stated in 5.2. The differences are primarily related to enabling effective formal specification of definitions and necessities in OCL. The SBVR business vocabulary includes normative elements that are not represented in the UML model, typically because UML does not support Synonyms and Synonymous forms. That is the extent of the inferiority of the UML model. Any other discrepancy between the two models is an inconsistency in the specification. SBVR SE is not a standard language and SBVR Annex C provides neither a grammar nor a formal interpretation for it. Formally, it is just a style that clarifies the use of English text. The formal forms of the Date/Time definitions and necessities are (incompletely) provided as OCL (and CLIF) formulations, that is, in standard languages with standard formal interpretations. Any discrepancy between the perceived meaning of the SBVR SE formulation and the OCL formulation may be an inconsistency in the specification, or just a misreading of the SBVR SE, but in any case the OCL formulation should take precedence -- it is well-defined. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: December 2, 2011: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== te: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 11:29:14 -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: Clause 5.2 depicts the UML model as informative X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-ID: pB2GTJDW022137 X-NISTMEL-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Watermark: 1323448160.15774@3736qqALaoVRZiC2u+sgqQ 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: Clause 5.2 depicts the UML model as informative Source: Ed Barkmeyer, NIST, edbark@nist.gov Summary: In Clause 5.2, in explaining the conventions used for the UML models, the first two paragraphs contain the follwing text: "The intent of the model is two-fold: (a) to illustrate this vocabulary with UML diagrams; (b) to satisfy the RFP requirement for a matching UML model. The UML model is derived manually from the SBVR-based text in this document. In case of any discrepancies between the SBVR-based text in this document and the UML model, the text prevails because it is the original model." This text suggests that the purpose of the UML model is illustrative, rather than normative, and that it is derived from, and inferior in status to, the SBVR model. Bullet (b) belies the rest -- the RFP asked for a normative UML model. This specification presents one, and that is what should be said here. The Date/Time Vocabulary is (mostly) presented as a formal SBVR "business vocabulary" using the text conventions of SBVR. Clause 5.1 should say that, and does not. The interpretation of the vocabulary presentation is more important than the use of SBVR Structured English as the pseudo-formal form for definitions. It is the interpretation of the vocabulary structure that leads to the normative SBVR XML files attached to the specification. The UML model is a normative representation of that part of the Date/Time Vocabulary that can be conveniently represented in UML. The later text of 5.2 specifies the conventions used in creating the normative UML representation. They differ in some ways from the conventions presented in SBVR clause 13. That difference should be expressly stated in 5.2. The differences are primarily related to enabling effective formal specification of definitions and necessities in OCL. The SBVR business vocabulary includes normative elements that are not represented in the UML model, typically because UML does not support Synonyms and Synonymous forms. That is the extent of the inferiority of the UML model. Any other discrepancy between the two models is an inconsistency in the specification. SBVR SE is not a standard language and SBVR Annex C provides neither a grammar nor a formal interpretation for it. Formally, it is just a style that clarifies the use of English text. The formal forms of the Date/Time definitions and necessities are (incompletely) provided as OCL (and CLIF) formulations, that is, in standard languages with standard formal interpretations. Any discrepancy between the perceived meaning of the SBVR SE formulation and the OCL formulation may be an inconsistency in the specification, or just a misreading of the SBVR SE, but in any case the OCL formulation should take precedence -- it is well-defined. -- 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 Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:01:49 -0400 From: Ed Barkmeyer Reply-To: edbark@nist.gov Organization: NIST User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) To: OMG DateTimeVoc FTF Subject: DTV Issue 16874 Normative UML X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-ID: q2EM1seE000372 X-NISTMEL-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Watermark: 1332367316.90514@rAJVeMo3zUrqhC/jcIiUyA X-Spam-Status: No X-NIST-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NIST-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov I attach a first draft of the writeup. There are a few comments in the margin. Issue 16874 says two things, and I turned it into 3. The issue says there should be a section in 5.1 that says DTV has the form of an SBVR vocabulary. So I put in a new subsection for that. The issue says that it should be clear that the UML model is normative in its own right. I modified section 5.2 to say that. There were many inaccuracies in the writeup for the UML model, mostly because some of these practices have changed over the last year. I took the liberty of rewriting the text of 5.2 in those areas. If we have another issue that mandates some of these changes, we can merge them. Technically, correcting the inaccuracies could be a separate issue. I don't think it changes any of the same paragraphs as the 'normative' issue. -Ed -- 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 Issue 16874-normative UML.doc To: date-time-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: DTV Issue 16874 Normative UML X-KeepSent: 3AA32615:9A904EB0-852579C3:00494C75; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.1FP5 SHF29 November 12, 2010 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 09:27:25 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.3 ZX853HP5|January 12, 2012) at 03/16/2012 09:27:26 X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 12031613-9360-0000-0000-0000049894DF Ed, I went through this carefully and made various editorial changes. I added a new update #3 to correct a typo that I spotted in clause 5.2. I changed the text about clause 5.1 to specify that what we create is an XMI document conforming to SBVR clauses 15.2 and 13.6. I added a bullet point saying that "· All operations defined by this specification for UML classes are formally specified by OCL definitions." -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research Date-Time Issue 16874 - Clause 5.2 depicts the UML model as informative.doc Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 17:16:40 -0400 From: Ed Barkmeyer Reply-To: edbark@nist.gov Organization: NIST User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) To: Mark H Linehan CC: "date-time-ftf@omg.org" Subject: Re: DTV Issue 16874 Normative UML X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-ID: q2GLGgRU016113 X-NISTMEL-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Watermark: 1332537409.77484@9BazvK+aB0HUHdTHr5zpZQ X-Spam-Status: No X-NIST-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NIST-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov I attach a further marked up version. I accepted all of your changes except those I think should be further discussed. Some of the argument is about 'style'. The one area that concerns me is the reference to Annex C.2 and C.3. Those sections of Annex C are about the structure of presentation of the Vocabulary and how it relates to SBVR concepts in clause 8 (and clause 11). Since the intent of the DTV presentation form is to have that interpretation, this is very important. That is what the new 5.1 is about. If this is not clear from the proposed text of 5.1, then it needs more work. The use of SBVR SE is only within certain elements, and it is specifically addressed in what was 5.1 and is now 5.2. The fact that SBVR put SE in the same Annex with the explanation of structures of bodies of meaning, and not in priority order, is just editorial confusion in SBVR. And we don't provide Rule sets or Elements of Guidance (C.4 and C.5). -Ed -- 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 Mark H Linehan wrote: Ed, I went through this carefully and made various editorial changes. I added a new update #3 to correct a typo that I spotted in clause 5.2. I changed the text about clause 5.1 to specify that what we create is an XMI document conforming to SBVR clauses 15.2 and 13.6. I added a bullet point saying that "· All operations defined by this specification for UML classes are formally specified by OCL definitions." -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research Issue 16874 - Clause 5.2 depicts the UML model as informative-d2.doc To: date-time-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: DTV Issue 16874 Normative UML X-KeepSent: 9730F2F7:8FE4E3CA-852579CA:00446C06; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.1FP5 SHF29 November 12, 2010 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 11:15:54 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.3 ZX853HP5|January 12, 2012) at 03/23/2012 11:15:55 X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 12032315-5518-0000-0000-0000032B0427 Let's discuss these issues during our next call, this coming Monday. How do you plan to keep the definitions/notes/etc synchronized between the UML and the document text? I inserted a few more comments and a correction: -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation IBM Research From: Ed Barkmeyer To: Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS Cc: "date-time-ftf@omg.org" Date: 03/16/2012 05:17 PM Subject: Re: DTV Issue 16874 Normative UML -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I attach a further marked up version. I accepted all of your changes except those I think should be further discussed. Some of the argument is about 'style'. The one area that concerns me is the reference to Annex C.2 and C.3. Those sections of Annex C are about the structure of presentation of the Vocabulary and how it relates to SBVR concepts in clause 8 (and clause 11). Since the intent of the DTV presentation form is to have that interpretation, this is very important. That is what the new 5.1 is about. If this is not clear from the proposed text of 5.1, then it needs more work. The use of SBVR SE is only within certain elements, and it is specifically addressed in what was 5.1 and is now 5.2. The fact that SBVR put SE in the same Annex with the explanation of structures of bodies of meaning, and not in priority order, is just editorial confusion in SBVR. And we don't provide Rule sets or Elements of Guidance (C.4 and C.5). -Ed -- 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 Mark H Linehan wrote: > Ed, > > I went through this carefully and made various editorial changes. I > added a new update #3 to correct a typo that I spotted in clause 5.2. > I changed the text about clause 5.1 to specify that what we create is > an XMI document conforming to SBVR clauses 15.2 and 13.6. I added a > bullet point saying that "· All operations defined by this > specification for UML classes are formally specified by OCL definitions." > > > -------------------------------- > Mark H. Linehan > STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation > IBM Research [attachment "Issue 16874 - Clause 5.2 depicts the UML model as informative-d2.doc" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] Issue 16874 - Clause 5.2 depicts the UML model as informative-d2 MHL.doc Disposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: 16874 Title: Clause 5.2 depicts the UML model as informative Source: Ed Barkmeyer, NIST, edbark@nist.gov Summary: In Clause 5.2, in explaining the conventions used for the UML models, the first two paragraphs contain the following text: "The intent of the model is two-fold: (a) to illustrate this vocabulary with UML diagrams; (b) to satisfy the RFP requirement for a matching UML model. The UML model is derived manually from the SBVR-based text in this document. In case of any discrepancies between the SBVR-based text in this document and the UML model, the text prevails because it is the original model." This text suggests that the purpose of the UML model is illustrative, rather than normative, and that it is derived from, and inferior in status to, the SBVR model. Bullet (b) belies the rest -- the RFP asked for a normative UML model. This specification presents one, and that is what should be said here. The Date/Time Vocabulary is (mostly) presented as a formal SBVR "business vocabulary" using the text conventions of SBVR. Clause 5.1 should say that, and does not. The interpretation of the vocabulary presentation is more important than the use of SBVR Structured English as the pseudo-formal form for definitions. It is the interpretation of the vocabulary structure that leads to the normative SBVR XML files attached to the specification. The UML model is a normative representation of that part of the Date/Time Vocabulary that can be conveniently represented in UML. The later text of 5.2 specifies the conventions used in creating the normative UML representation. They differ in some ways from the conventions presented in SBVR clause 13. That difference should be expressly stated in 5.2. The differences are primarily related to enabling effective formal specification of definitions and necessities in OCL. The SBVR business vocabulary includes normative elements that are not represented in the UML model, typically because UML does not support Synonyms and Synonymous forms. That is the extent of the inferiority of the UML model. Any other discrepancy between the two models is an inconsistency in the specification. SBVR SE is not a standard language and SBVR Annex C provides neither a grammar nor a formal interpretation for it. Formally, it is just a style that clarifies the use of English text. The formal forms of the Date/Time definitions and necessities are (incompletely) provided as OCL (and CLIF) formulations, that is, in standard languages with standard formal interpretations. Any discrepancy between the perceived meaning of the SBVR SE formulation and the OCL formulation may be an inconsistency in the specification, or just a misreading of the SBVR SE, but in any case the OCL formulation should take precedence -- it is well-defined. Resolution: The FTF agrees that Clause 5 should specify that the DTV is structured as an SBVR Vocabulary and is intended to be interpreted into the SBVR XML form for a vocabulary as specified in Clause xxx of SBVR. The FTF also agrees that the UML and OCL models are intended to be normative. Clause 5 will be modified to make this clear. In addition, clause 5 will be modified to reflect other corrections to the style of the UML and OCL models. Revised Text: 1. Immediately before existing subclause 5.1 (SBVR Structured English), INSERT a new subclause (renumbering the existing subclauses): 5.1 SBVR Vocabulary Clauses 8 through 12 of this specification introduce the Date-Time Vocabulary as a 'vocabulary', as defined by the OMG Semantics of Business Vocabulary and Rules specification [SBVR] . This specification presents the Date-Time Vocabulary in the forms specified in Annex C.2 and C.3 of SBVR. The intent is that these formsthe Date-Time Vocabulary shall beis interpreted as specified in SBVR Annex C to render the Date-Time Vocabulary into an XML document that conforms to the SBVR Metamodel XML Schema that is described in [SBVR] clause 15.2, according to the patterns given in [SBVR] clause 13.6. Annex A of this specification identifies the normative attachment that contains the formal representation of the Date-Time Vocabulary as an SBVR Vocabulary in the normative XML document form prescribed by SBVR Clauses 13.65 and 15.2. The XML document includes all the meanings, definitions, rules, and other representations that are given in this specification in text form. It is possible to represent most, but not all, of the definitions and rules given in this specification in the formal logical form specified by SBVR Clause 9. That representation may be a normative part of a future version of this specification. 2. In existing subclause 5.1, CHANGE the beginning of the first sentence: "This document adopts ..." TO: "For definitions of vocabulary terms, and for 'structural rules' (necessities, axioms) that relate to those terms, this document adopts ..." 3. (Typo fix) In existing subclause 5.1, in the paragraph that starts "Ordinary arithmetic is meant ...", replace an existing closing quotation mark withadd a right parenthesis to properly close the phrase, and move the period outside the quoted and parenthesized example: " (e.g., .number1 = number2")." 4. In existing subclause 5.2, REPLACE the first three paragraphs: This specification includes a matching and normative UML (Unified Markup Language) model that is inventoried in .Annex A. The intent of the model is two-fold: (a) to illustrate this vocabulary with UML diagrams; (b) to satisfy the RFP requirement for a matching UML model. The UML model is derived manually from the SBVR-based text in this document. In case of any discrepancies between the SBVR-based text in this document and the UML model, the text prevails because it is the original model. The UML model is constructed generally following the principles in [SBVR] Clause 13. Names in the UML model match the corresponding SBVR names. UML name-quoting syntax is applied as necessary to quote names with embedded spaces. For example the SBVR term 'consecutive sequence' is quoted in UML as "consecutive sequence". with the following: This specification includes a normative UML (Unified Modeling Language) model of the concepts represented in the Date-Time Vocabulary, using the same terms as the SBVR vocabulary to the extent possible. The intent of the model is two-fold: (a) to provide a normative UML representation of the concepts, for use in software models of date and time concepts, and. (b) to illustrate the Date-Time Vocabulary concepts with UML diagrams. Annex A of this specification identifies the normative attachment that is the UML model. The UML model is derived manually from the Date-Time Vocabulary presented in the SBVR form. The UML model is constructed generally following the principles in [SBVR] Clause 13. The names in the UML model are identical to the primary vocabulary terms for the same concepts. 5. In existing clause 5.2, in the first bullet list, REPLACE all of the following bullets: . Each SBVR verb concept that uses the fact symbol has maps to a UML property. . Other binary verb concepts map to UML associations and also to UML operations on one of the classes. The associations correspond to what SBVR calls the "noun form" of the verb concepts: an OCL (Object Constraint Language) expression can navigate across the association. The operations test whether two objects participate in the association and return a boolean result, supporting what SBVR calls the "sentential form" of the verb concepts. . Verb concepts with more than two roles map to UML classes stereotyped as <>. These are modeled with UML associations from the <> to the UML classes that model the corresponding SBVR noun concepts, and also to a UML operation on the associated classes. The associations have cardinality '1' at the noun concept end because each fact type role is filled with exactly one instance for each instance of its fact type. The associations are one-way navigable from the fact type to the noun concept because normally one cannot navigate from an instance of a noun to all the fact types that involve the noun. The UML operations enable OCL expressions to directly exploit these concepts as functions. . SBVR roles map to UML property names, association end names (rolenames), or to UML classes stereotyped with <>. with these: . Each binary verb concept maps to a UML association. The association is named for the primary verb concept form for the verb concept, discarding all markup. The placeholders (role names) in the verb concept are mapped to the association end names, with subscripts being elevated to plain text. . Each binary verb concept that uses the SBVR verb symbol has in any of its synonymous forms maps to a UML Property of the class that is the subject of the verb; that is, the association end is owned by the class. In some cases, this means that the association end name (the property name) is taken from the has form, rather than the primary form. . Regardless of the verb symbol, where the intent of the vocabulary is that the association represents a property of the class that plays the subject role, and/or the class that plays the 'object' role, the corresponding association end is owned by the class. . Binary verb concepts that do not clearly imply a property of either participating class, such as 'time interval1 is before time interval2', are mapped to associations in which both association ends are owned by the association. . Verb concepts with more than two roles map to UML classes stereotyped as «verb concept». The roles in these verb concepts are modeled by UML associations from the «verb concept» class to the UML classes that model the ranges of the roles. These associations are stereotyped «verb concept role» and are properties of the «verb concept» class. These properties always have cardinality '1', because each instance of the class represents a single instance of the relationship, having exactly one participant in each role. The cardinality of the association-owned end of a «verb concept role» association represents the number of such verb concept relationships a given instance of the range class can play that role in. . Binary verb concepts that do not map to properties, and verb concepts with more than two roles, also map to UML operations on one or more of the participating classes. This enables Object Constraint Language (OCL) expressions (see below) to exploit the associations as functions. Each such verb concept maps to an operation on at least one of the participating classes that takes one argument for each role and returns a Boolean result. The Boolean result indicates whether a given set of argument values, as participants in those roles, represents an actual and /valid instance of the association. The operation is named for the verb concept form, omitting the placeholder for the subject role (the class to which it is attached). . Some verb concepts with more than two roles also map to UML operations that are assigned to one participating class (role), take arguments that represent the objects that play all but one of the other roles, and return the object that plays the remaining role. E.g. 'duration3 = duration1 plus duration2' maps to an operation on class 'duration': plus(duration2: duration): duration, which returns the value of 'duration3'. . All operations defined for UML classes by this specification for UML classes are formally specified by OCL definitions. 6. In existing subclause 5.2, at the very end of the first bullet list, before the paragraph beginning "Several subtypes are employed ...", INSERT two additional bullets: . Definitions, notes, and examples that are attached to entries in the Date-Time Vocabulary, are included in the UML model as ownedComments attached to the corresponding UML model elements (class, association, association end ). . Because UML does not support the concept of Synonym (for a noun concept) or Synonymous Form (for a verb concept), the UML model does not include any equivalents for those elements of the vocabulary . 7. In existing subclause 5.2, in the paragraph beginning "Several stereotypes are employed ...", just before the Table, CHANGE "Several" TO "The following", so that the sentence reads: The following stereotypes are employed to relate UML model elements to SBVR concepts: 8. In existing subclause 5.2, in the Table, REPLACE rows 2 and 3: <> Labels a class to indicate that it models an SBVR Fact Type (Verb Concept). <> Labels a class to indicate that it models an SBVR Fact Type Role. with: «verb concept» Labels a UML class to indicate that it models an SBVR verb concept that has more than two roles. «verb concept role» Labels a UML association to indicate that it models an SBVR verb concept role in a verb concept that has more than two roles. 9. In existing subclause 5.2, immediately after the Table, at the beginning of the paragraph "OCL constraints are incorporated...", INSERT the following sentence: For the definitions and rules in the Date-Time Vocabulary, this specification adds Object Constraint Language (OCL) rules to the UML model, to the extent possible . (Some definitions and rules cannot be completely stated in terms of classes and associations in the model .) 10. In existing subclause 5.2, at the end of the second bullet list, immediately before the paragraph beginning "OCL is provided for...", INSERT a new bullet: . OCL name-quoting syntax is applied as necessary to quote UML names with embedded spaces. For example the term 'consecutive sequence' is quoted in OCL as "consecutive sequence". Disposition: Resolved To: date-time-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: DTV Issue 16874 (resent with attachment) X-KeepSent: C583874C:B54931A7-85257A6B:00597CFC; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.3 September 15, 2011 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 12:20:22 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.3FP2IF1|July 25, 2012) at 08/31/2012 12:20:25, Serialize complete at 08/31/2012 12:20:25 X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 12083116-8974-0000-0000-00000CD2FF47 X-IBM-ISS-SpamDetectors: X-IBM-ISS-DetailInfo: BY=3.00000293; HX=3.00000196; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000001; SC=3.00000007; SDB=6.00170118; UDB=6.00038570; UTC=2012-08-31 16:20:33 Ed, I think that we should drop the following unless we know that we have the time to implement these points. And I don't think that we do: · Definitions, notes, and examples that are attached to entries in the Date-Time Vocabulary are included in the UML model as ownedComments attached to the corresponding UML model elements (class, association, association end). · Because UML does not support the concept of Synonym (for a noun concept) or Synonymous Form (for a verb concept), the UML model does not include any formal model elements for those elements of the vocabulary. They are also included as ownedComments. Otherwise, this looks good. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, IBM Research From: Edward Barkmeyer To: Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, Cc: OMG DateTimeVoc FTF Date: 08/30/2012 05:26 PM Subject: Re: DTV Issue 16874 (resent with attachment) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I attach a revised version of the writeup of Issue 16874. This issue seems to have fallen into the cracks several months ago. I applied all the changes that were agreed upon, and deleted all the comments that discussed them. In the Resolution text, I created text to satisfy Mark's 3rd bullet below. I made one correction and minor wording/punctuation changes to change#1 (the new 5.1). I reworded change#3. I made an effort to clarify the 3rd bullet of change#5, because the term 'object' is overloaded when describing UML. In the 5th bullet, I made an effort to simplify the wording, per Mark's first bullet below. In change#6, with respect to Mark's second bullet below, I think it is essential that at least the text definitions of the DTV concepts be incorporated in the final UML model as ownedComments, whether automatically or by hand. Similarly, Synonyms should be incorporated as ownedComments if no other mechanism is available. The revised text says this. It is possible to stereotype ownedComment, but the proposed stereotypes are not currently in the package, and it is not clear that we will attempt to automate the conversion of SBVR supporting vocabulary elements to stereotyped ownedComments. The text does not mention any of that; it just says they are included. If we define such stereotypes and implement the conversions, then the SBVR stereotype package (new Annex J, per Issue 17129) will be modified, and the appropriate changes can be made to the text of 5.2. That is not a high-priority FTF concern. Is it soup yet? -Ed Mark H Linehan wrote: > Re 16874 "Clause 5.2 depicts the UML model as informative " - I think > this is almost ready to go. The latest email is from March 23, and > these notes from our March 26 discussion. Can we finish this one? > > * > o In point 5, simplify the note about the cardinality of > «verb concept role» associations > o In point 6 (putting definitions, etc into ownedComments): > + Drop the entire point until we know whether and how > we can do this automatically > + Regarding the second part of point 6 . synonyms > could also be put in as ownedComments > + Consider stereotyping the ownedComments, if we have > them, and adding an XML structure for distinguishing > nouns, keywords, etc. > o Add to the Rationale section a comment saying that issue > 16714 says that we use the wrong OCL syntax for quoting > symbols. We will address that point when we get to that issue. > > > -------------------------------- > Mark H. Linehan > STSM, IBM Research > -- 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 "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST, and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." [attachment "DTV Issue 16874 - Clause 5.2 depicts the UML model as informative-d3.doc" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:04:07 -0400 From: Ed Barkmeyer Reply-To: Organization: NIST User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) To: Mark H Linehan CC: "date-time-ftf@omg.org" Subject: Re: DTV Issue 16874 (resent with attachment) X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-ID: q7VI4C6F000930 X-NISTMEL-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Watermark: 1347041054.3465@Zrf4C3uDeQZUFxyrpmH4tw X-Spam-Status: No Mark H Linehan wrote: Ed, I think that we should drop the following unless we know that we have the time to implement these points. And I don't think that we do: · Definitions, notes, and examples that are attached to entries in the Date-Time Vocabulary are included in the UML model as ownedComments attached to the corresponding UML model elements (class, association, association end). Would you prefer a bullet that says: Definitions, Notes, Examples are not included in the UML model? One of those two bullets should be there. If we want the UML model to be used, it should be internally documented. It is already partly done. This is our intent, whether we complete it by December or not. If not, the RTF can complete the documentation of the UML model. I don't want to remove the description of the pattern and the declared intent from clause 5, just because the process is incomplete at the moment. I am much less worried about machine processing of the DTV XMI than about human use of the UML model. The Definitions and the Synonyms should be in there, so that the user can click on the UML Class or Association and see the text definition. · Because UML does not support the concept of Synonym (for a noun concept) or Synonymous Form (for a verb concept), the UML model does not include any formal model elements for those elements of the vocabulary. They are also included as ownedComments. This bullet must be kept in any case. The issue is whether the last sentence stays or goes. You and I are not going to agree, it seems. So how about a show of hands? If there is total apathy, then we can flip a coin. -Ed Otherwise, this looks good. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, IBM Research From: Edward Barkmeyer To: Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, Cc: OMG DateTimeVoc FTF Date: 08/30/2012 05:26 PM Subject: Re: DTV Issue 16874 (resent with attachment) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I attach a revised version of the writeup of Issue 16874. This issue seems to have fallen into the cracks several months ago. I applied all the changes that were agreed upon, and deleted all the comments that discussed them. In the Resolution text, I created text to satisfy Mark's 3rd bullet below. I made one correction and minor wording/punctuation changes to change#1 (the new 5.1). I reworded change#3. I made an effort to clarify the 3rd bullet of change#5, because the term 'object' is overloaded when describing UML. In the 5th bullet, I made an effort to simplify the wording, per Mark's first bullet below. In change#6, with respect to Mark's second bullet below, I think it is essential that at least the text definitions of the DTV concepts be incorporated in the final UML model as ownedComments, whether automatically or by hand. Similarly, Synonyms should be incorporated as ownedComments if no other mechanism is available. The revised text says this. It is possible to stereotype ownedComment, but the proposed stereotypes are not currently in the package, and it is not clear that we will attempt to automate the conversion of SBVR supporting vocabulary elements to stereotyped ownedComments. The text does not mention any of that; it just says they are included. If we define such stereotypes and implement the conversions, then the SBVR stereotype package (new Annex J, per Issue 17129) will be modified, and the appropriate changes can be made to the text of 5.2. That is not a high-priority FTF concern. Is it soup yet? -Ed Mark H Linehan wrote: > Re 16874 "Clause 5.2 depicts the UML model as informative " - I think > this is almost ready to go. The latest email is from March 23, and > these notes from our March 26 discussion. Can we finish this one? > > * > o In point 5, simplify the note about the cardinality of > «verb concept role» associations > o In point 6 (putting definitions, etc into ownedComments): > + Drop the entire point until we know whether and how > we can do this automatically > + Regarding the second part of point 6 . synonyms > could also be put in as ownedComments > + Consider stereotyping the ownedComments, if we have > them, and adding an XML structure for distinguishing > nouns, keywords, etc. > o Add to the Rationale section a comment saying that issue > 16714 says that we use the wrong OCL syntax for quoting > symbols. We will address that point when we get to that issue. > > > -------------------------------- > Mark H. Linehan > STSM, IBM Research > -- 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 "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST, and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." [attachment "DTV Issue 16874 - Clause 5.2 depicts the UML model as informative-d3.doc" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] -- 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 "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST, and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." To: date-time-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: DTV Issue 16874 (resent with attachment) X-KeepSent: 8DBEABC2:BC577444-85257A6B:0064AD7E; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.3 September 15, 2011 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:22:18 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.3FP2IF1|July 25, 2012) at 08/31/2012 14:22:39, Serialize complete at 08/31/2012 14:22:39 X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 12083118-5806-0000-0000-00001906044E My responses like this. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, IBM Research From: Ed Barkmeyer To: Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, Cc: "date-time-ftf@omg.org" Date: 08/31/2012 02:07 PM Subject: Re: DTV Issue 16874 (resent with attachment) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark H Linehan wrote: Ed, I think that we should drop the following unless we know that we have the time to implement these points. And I don't think that we do: · Definitions, notes, and examples that are attached to entries in the Date-Time Vocabulary are included in the UML model as ownedComments attached to the corresponding UML model elements (class, association, association end). Would you prefer a bullet that says: Definitions, Notes, Examples are not included in the UML model? One of those two bullets should be there. Yes. Or maybe say that some of them are included in the model, if that is the case. If we want the UML model to be used, it should be internally documented. It is already partly done. This is our intent, whether we complete it by December or not. If not, the RTF can complete the documentation of the UML model. I don't want to remove the description of the pattern and the declared intent from clause 5, just because the process is incomplete at the moment. I did not realize that you had done any of it. And I am concerned that we have no mechanism to keep definitions etc in the UML model in synch with the text in the spec. I am much less worried about machine processing of the DTV XMI than about human use of the UML model. The Definitions and the Synonyms should be in there, so that the user can click on the UML Class or Association and see the text definition. · Because UML does not support the concept of Synonym (for a noun concept) or Synonymous Form (for a verb concept), the UML model does not include any formal model elements for those elements of the vocabulary. They are also included as ownedComments. This bullet must be kept in any case. The issue is whether the last sentence stays or goes. I am ok with keeping the bullet and just dropping the last sentence. You and I are not going to agree, it seems. So how about a show of hands? If there is total apathy, then we can flip a coin. -Ed Otherwise, this looks good. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, IBM Research From: Edward Barkmeyer To: Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, Cc: OMG DateTimeVoc FTF Date: 08/30/2012 05:26 PM Subject: Re: DTV Issue 16874 (resent with attachment) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I attach a revised version of the writeup of Issue 16874. This issue seems to have fallen into the cracks several months ago. I applied all the changes that were agreed upon, and deleted all the comments that discussed them. In the Resolution text, I created text to satisfy Mark's 3rd bullet below. I made one correction and minor wording/punctuation changes to change#1 (the new 5.1). I reworded change#3. I made an effort to clarify the 3rd bullet of change#5, because the term 'object' is overloaded when describing UML. In the 5th bullet, I made an effort to simplify the wording, per Mark's first bullet below. In change#6, with respect to Mark's second bullet below, I think it is essential that at least the text definitions of the DTV concepts be incorporated in the final UML model as ownedComments, whether automatically or by hand. Similarly, Synonyms should be incorporated as ownedComments if no other mechanism is available. The revised text says this. It is possible to stereotype ownedComment, but the proposed stereotypes are not currently in the package, and it is not clear that we will attempt to automate the conversion of SBVR supporting vocabulary elements to stereotyped ownedComments. The text does not mention any of that; it just says they are included. If we define such stereotypes and implement the conversions, then the SBVR stereotype package (new Annex J, per Issue 17129) will be modified, and the appropriate changes can be made to the text of 5.2. That is not a high-priority FTF concern. Is it soup yet? -Ed Mark H Linehan wrote: > Re 16874 "Clause 5.2 depicts the UML model as informative " - I think > this is almost ready to go. The latest email is from March 23, and > these notes from our March 26 discussion. Can we finish this one? > > * > o In point 5, simplify the note about the cardinality of > «verb concept role» associations > o In point 6 (putting definitions, etc into ownedComments): > + Drop the entire point until we know whether and how > we can do this automatically > + Regarding the second part of point 6 . synonyms > could also be put in as ownedComments > + Consider stereotyping the ownedComments, if we have > them, and adding an XML structure for distinguishing > nouns, keywords, etc. > o Add to the Rationale section a comment saying that issue > 16714 says that we use the wrong OCL syntax for quoting > symbols. We will address that point when we get to that issue. > > > -------------------------------- > Mark H. Linehan > STSM, IBM Research > -- 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 "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST, and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." [attachment "DTV Issue 16874 - Clause 5.2 depicts the UML model as informative-d3.doc" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] -- 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 "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST, and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:40:40 -0400 From: Ed Barkmeyer Reply-To: Organization: NIST User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) To: Mark H Linehan CC: "date-time-ftf@omg.org" Subject: Re: DTV Issue 16874 (resent with attachment) X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-ID: q7VIejKv003702 X-NISTMEL-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-From: edbark@nist.gov X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-Watermark: 1347043248.8531@yBWYbVPQ53WVVn7GzadvqQ X-Spam-Status: No Mark H Linehan wrote: My responses like this. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, IBM Research From: Ed Barkmeyer To: Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, Cc: "date-time-ftf@omg.org" Date: 08/31/2012 02:07 PM Subject: Re: DTV Issue 16874 (resent with attachment) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mark H Linehan wrote: Ed, I think that we should drop the following unless we know that we have the time to implement these points. And I don't think that we do: · Definitions, notes, and examples that are attached to entries in the Date-Time Vocabulary are included in the UML model as ownedComments attached to the corresponding UML model elements (class, association, association end). Would you prefer a bullet that says: Definitions, Notes, Examples are not included in the UML model? One of those two bullets should be there. Yes. Or maybe say that some of them are included in the model, if that is the case. 5.2 is not about the state of the documentation. It is about the relationships between the models. Our intent is either to have copies of the Definitions in the UML model or not to. So what is the sense of the FTF? If we want the UML model to be used, it should be internally documented. It is already partly done. This is our intent, whether we complete it by December or not. If not, the RTF can complete the documentation of the UML model. I don't want to remove the description of the pattern and the declared intent from clause 5, just because the process is incomplete at the moment. I did not realize that you had done any of it. I think I put in the Time Infrastructure definitions. I noticed that the Documentation was not empty when I opened some of the green boxes (the Infrastructure imports) in the recently worked diagrams. And I am concerned that we have no mechanism to keep definitions etc in the UML model in synch with the text in the spec. So, there are the arguments, for and against. Undocumented UML is not good for users; two copies of Definitions have to be kept in sync by the RTF. Which does the FTF want? Now, the diagram-free vanilla UML 2.4 model is the normative UML, while the MDraw model, with diagrams et al. is just an informative convenience. So, I suppose I could delete all the ownedComments from the UML 2.4 model, along with all the extensions. And the informative document may or may not have all the Definitions or all the correct definitions, depending on how well it is maintained. -Ed -Ed Otherwise, this looks good. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, IBM Research From: Edward Barkmeyer __ To: Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, Cc: OMG DateTimeVoc FTF __ Date: 08/30/2012 05:26 PM Subject: Re: DTV Issue 16874 (resent with attachment) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I attach a revised version of the writeup of Issue 16874. This issue seems to have fallen into the cracks several months ago. I applied all the changes that were agreed upon, and deleted all the comments that discussed them. In the Resolution text, I created text to satisfy Mark's 3rd bullet below. I made one correction and minor wording/punctuation changes to change#1 (the new 5.1). I reworded change#3. I made an effort to clarify the 3rd bullet of change#5, because the term 'object' is overloaded when describing UML. In the 5th bullet, I made an effort to simplify the wording, per Mark's first bullet below. In change#6, with respect to Mark's second bullet below, I think it is essential that at least the text definitions of the DTV concepts be incorporated in the final UML model as ownedComments, whether automatically or by hand. Similarly, Synonyms should be incorporated as ownedComments if no other mechanism is available. The revised text says this. It is possible to stereotype ownedComment, but the proposed stereotypes are not currently in the package, and it is not clear that we will attempt to automate the conversion of SBVR supporting vocabulary elements to stereotyped ownedComments. The text does not mention any of that; it just says they are included. If we define such stereotypes and implement the conversions, then the SBVR stereotype package (new Annex J, per Issue 17129) will be modified, and the appropriate changes can be made to the text of 5.2. That is not a high-priority FTF concern. Is it soup yet? -Ed Mark H Linehan wrote: > Re 16874 "Clause 5.2 depicts the UML model as informative " - I think > this is almost ready to go. The latest email is from March 23, and > these notes from our March 26 discussion. Can we finish this one? > > * > o In point 5, simplify the note about the cardinality of > «verb concept role» associations > o In point 6 (putting definitions, etc into ownedComments): > + Drop the entire point until we know whether and how > we can do this automatically > + Regarding the second part of point 6 ­ synonyms > could also be put in as ownedComments > + Consider stereotyping the ownedComments, if we have > them, and adding an XML structure for distinguishing > nouns, keywords, etc. > o Add to the Rationale section a comment saying that issue > 16714 says that we use the wrong OCL syntax for quoting > symbols. We will address that point when we get to that issue. > > > -------------------------------- > Mark H. Linehan > STSM, IBM Research > -- 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 "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST, and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." [attachment "DTV Issue 16874 - Clause 5.2 depicts the UML model as informative-d3.doc" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] -- 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 "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST, and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." -- 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 "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST, and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." To: date-time-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: DTV Issue 16874 (resent with attachment) X-KeepSent: 2AE922F4:ED8772BB-85257A6C:005F4F18; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.3 September 15, 2011 From: Mark H Linehan Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 13:22:30 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01MC604/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.3FP2IF1|July 25, 2012) at 09/01/2012 13:22:32, Serialize complete at 09/01/2012 13:22:32 X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 12090117-6078-0000-0000-00000EEAC92B So why not say that the UML model has some of the Definitions, Notes, Synonyms, etc. I read the original model as promising that we put all the Definitions, etc. in the UML model. And that's not true, especially because we have no way of keeping them in sync. -------------------------------- Mark H. Linehan STSM, IBM Research From: Ed Barkmeyer To: Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, Cc: "date-time-ftf@omg.org" Date: 08/31/2012 02:41 PM Subject: Re: DTV Issue 16874 (resent with attachment) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark H Linehan wrote: > My responses like this. > > -------------------------------- > Mark H. Linehan > STSM, IBM Research > > > > From: Ed Barkmeyer > To: Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, > Cc: "date-time-ftf@omg.org" > Date: 08/31/2012 02:07 PM > Subject: Re: DTV Issue 16874 (resent with attachment) > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > Mark H Linehan wrote: > Ed, I think that we should drop the following unless we know that we > have the time to implement these points. And I don't think that we do: > > · Definitions, notes, and examples that are attached to entries > in the Date-Time Vocabulary are included in the UML model as > ownedComments attached to the corresponding UML model elements (class, > association, association end). > > > Would you prefer a bullet that says: Definitions, Notes, Examples are > not included in the UML model? > One of those two bullets should be there. > > Yes. Or maybe say that some of them are included in the model, if > that is the case. > 5.2 is not about the state of the documentation. It is about the relationships between the models. Our intent is either to have copies of the Definitions in the UML model or not to. So what is the sense of the FTF? > If we want the UML model to be used, it should be internally > documented. It is already partly done. This is our intent, whether > we complete it by December or not. If not, the RTF can complete the > documentation of the UML model. I don't want to remove the > description of the pattern and the declared intent from clause 5, just > because the process is incomplete at the moment. > > I did not realize that you had done any of it. > I think I put in the Time Infrastructure definitions. I noticed that the Documentation was not empty when I opened some of the green boxes (the Infrastructure imports) in the recently worked diagrams. > And I am concerned that we have no mechanism to keep definitions etc > in the UML model in synch with the text in the spec. > So, there are the arguments, for and against. Undocumented UML is not good for users; two copies of Definitions have to be kept in sync by the RTF. Which does the FTF want? Now, the diagram-free vanilla UML 2.4 model is the normative UML, while the MDraw model, with diagrams et al. is just an informative convenience. So, I suppose I could delete all the ownedComments from the UML 2.4 model, along with all the extensions. And the informative document may or may not have all the Definitions or all the correct definitions, depending on how well it is maintained. -Ed > > -Ed > > Otherwise, this looks good. > -------------------------------- > Mark H. Linehan > STSM, IBM Research > > > > From: Edward Barkmeyer __ > > To: Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, > Cc: OMG DateTimeVoc FTF __ > > Date: 08/30/2012 05:26 PM > Subject: Re: DTV Issue 16874 (resent with attachment) > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > I attach a revised version of the writeup of Issue 16874. This issue > seems to have fallen into the cracks several months ago. > > I applied all the changes that were agreed upon, and deleted all the > comments that discussed them. > > In the Resolution text, I created text to satisfy Mark's 3rd bullet below. > I made one correction and minor wording/punctuation changes to change#1 > (the new 5.1). > I reworded change#3. > I made an effort to clarify the 3rd bullet of change#5, because the term > 'object' is overloaded when describing UML. > In the 5th bullet, I made an effort to simplify the wording, per Mark's > first bullet below. > > In change#6, with respect to Mark's second bullet below, I think it is > essential that at least the text definitions of the DTV concepts be > incorporated in the final UML model as ownedComments, whether > automatically or by hand. Similarly, Synonyms should be incorporated as > ownedComments if no other mechanism is available. The revised text says > this. > > It is possible to stereotype ownedComment, but the proposed stereotypes > are not currently in the package, and it is not clear that we will > attempt to automate the conversion of SBVR supporting vocabulary > elements to stereotyped ownedComments. The text does not mention any of > that; it just says they are included. If we define such stereotypes and > implement the conversions, then the SBVR stereotype package (new Annex > J, per Issue 17129) will be modified, and the appropriate changes can be > made to the text of 5.2. That is not a high-priority FTF concern. > > Is it soup yet? > > -Ed > > > > Mark H Linehan wrote: > > Re 16874 "Clause 5.2 depicts the UML model as informative " - I think > > this is almost ready to go. The latest email is from March 23, and > > these notes from our March 26 discussion. Can we finish this one? > > > > * > > o In point 5, simplify the note about the cardinality of > > «verb concept role» associations > > o In point 6 (putting definitions, etc into ownedComments): > > + Drop the entire point until we know whether and how > > we can do this automatically > > + Regarding the second part of point 6 . synonyms > > could also be put in as ownedComments > > + Consider stereotyping the ownedComments, if we have > > them, and adding an XML structure for distinguishing > > nouns, keywords, etc. > > o Add to the Rationale section a comment saying that issue > > 16714 says that we use the wrong OCL syntax for quoting > > symbols. We will address that point when we get to that > issue. > > > > > > -------------------------------- > > Mark H. Linehan > > STSM, IBM Research > > > > > -- > 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 > > "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST, > and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." > > [attachment "DTV Issue 16874 - Clause 5.2 depicts the UML model as > informative-d3.doc" deleted by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM] > > -- > 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 > > "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST, > and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." > -- 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 "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST, and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."