Issue 17248: Section 9.3.1.7 (sysml-rtf) Source: No Magic, Inc. (Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius, nerijus(at)nomagic.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: 9.3.1.7. The keyword “full” before a property name indicates the property is stereotyped by ProxyPort . Copy/paste bug? <<full>> is for FullPorts. What is the type of FullPort? Spec says nothing. What are possible owned properties of the InterfaceBlock? Values, FlowProperties? other? In 9.1 InterfaceBlock it is not flow nor value. Resolution: Defer Postponed to the next RTF Revised Text: Actions taken: March 20, 2012: received issue January 3, 2017: Deferred April 6, 2017: closed issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== s is issue # 17248 From: Nerijus Jankevicius Section 9.3.1.7 9.3.1.7. The keyword .full. before a property name indicates the property is stereotyped by ProxyPort . Copy/paste bug? <> is for FullPorts. From: "Bock, Conrad" To: "sysml-rtf@omg.org" Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 10:53:14 -0500 Subject: RE: SysML RTF 1.4, Ballot 3, Issue # 17248 Thread-Topic: SysML RTF 1.4, Ballot 3, Issue # 17248 Thread-Index: Ac3JkYviBPXi8IWlSYGSwrsLl/Iusw== Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Sandy, (and Roger) > In the Revised Text section of this issue it states "There is no restriction > on the type of a full port". I think this should be changed to say "Full > Ports can be typed with Blocks or Interface Blocks". > I thought it was necessary to exclude data types or value types. Could be. The issue filed was just asking for clarification, and the current spec has no restriction. However, since the revised text is making explicit what perhaps might be accidently implicit, I think it would be good to pull this issue for discussion. For example, can a ports in general, including proxies, be typed by data/value types? If they can, why not full ports? I can see it being related to the discussion of 17307 (part terminology). Conrad From: "BERNARD, Yves" To: "Bock, Conrad" , "sysml-rtf@omg.org" Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 17:01:05 +0100 Subject: RE: SysML RTF 1.4, Ballot 3, Issue # 17248 Thread-Topic: SysML RTF 1.4, Ballot 3, Issue # 17248 Thread-Index: Ac3JkYviBPXi8IWlSYGSwrsLl/IuswAAW+9Q Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: fr-FR, en-US X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id qANG1V4H027823 Conrad, It is worth to recall that Proxy ports are already constrained to be typed by InterfaceBlocks only. Allowing ports to be typed by a datatype would get us back to the atomic (flow) port concept we decided to discard in v1.3, arguing that they were no more than a syntactical shortcut. Yves -----Original Message----- From: Bock, Conrad [mailto:conrad.bock@nist.gov] Sent: vendredi 23 novembre 2012 16:53 To: sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: SysML RTF 1.4, Ballot 3, Issue # 17248 Sandy, (and Roger) > In the Revised Text section of this issue it states "There is no restriction > on the type of a full port". I think this should be changed to say "Full > Ports can be typed with Blocks or Interface Blocks". > I thought it was necessary to exclude data types or value types. Could be. The issue filed was just asking for clarification, and the current spec has no restriction. However, since the revised text is making explicit what perhaps might be accidently implicit, I think it would be good to pull this issue for discussion. For example, can a ports in general, including proxies, be typed by data/value types? If they can, why not full ports? I can see it being related to the discussion of 17307 (part terminology). 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: "sysml-rtf@omg.org" Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 11:17:31 -0500 Subject: RE: SysML RTF 1.4, Ballot 3, Issue # 17248 Thread-Topic: SysML RTF 1.4, Ballot 3, Issue # 17248 Thread-Index: Ac3JkYviBPXi8IWlSYGSwrsLl/IuswAAW+9QAABlHlA= Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Yves, (and Roger) > It is worth to recall that Proxy ports are already constrained to be > typed by InterfaceBlocks only. Allowing ports to be typed by a > datatype would get us back to the atomic (flow) port concept we > decided to discard in v1.3, arguing that they were no more than a > syntactical shortcut. That's true, and I personally don't mind revising as you and Sandy suggested. But it requires more edits than just to a chapter introduction as the current resolution does. Rather than do that at the last minute, I'd still suggest pulling the issue. Conrad From: "Watson, John" To: "conrad.bock@nist.gov" , "sysml-rtf@omg.org" CC: "Watson, John" Subject: RE: SysML RTF telecon, Nov 20, notes Thread-Topic: SysML RTF telecon, Nov 20, notes Thread-Index: Ac3HPJ8pkqV9kdAxQ3GZ7UH1/NJHAgAGN6Vw Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 19:53:18 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [158.186.156.93] X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.9.8185,1.0.431,0.0.0000 definitions=2012-11-20_04:2012-11-20,2012-11-20,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id qAKJsGf8031071 Conrad, Sorry I couldn't make the meeting today but I did have a question on issue # 17248. In the Revised Text section of this issue it states "There is no restriction on the type of a full port". I think this should be changed to say "Full Ports can be typed with Blocks or Interface Blocks". I thought it was necessary to exclude data types or value types. John ======================== John C. Watson PMES, CE&T System Modeling CoE Lead Lockheed Martin MS2 199 Borton Landing Road MS 137-106 Moorestown, NJ 08057 Office: 856-722-2783 Links To: CE&T MBSD Integrated Website System Modeling CoE Homepage INCOSE MBSE Initiative Wiki -----Original Message----- From: Bock, Conrad [mailto:conrad.bock@nist.gov] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 11:33 AM To: sysml-rtf@omg.org Subject: EXTERNAL: SysML RTF telecon, Nov 20, notes Ballot 3ers, Some notes from the discussion today below. Conrad 17258 (new one), add text identifying UML capability used. Nicolas' related issue will come up in association constraint WG. 17549 (ControlOperator stereotype), Nicolas to file related issue. 17307 (part terminology) Constraint properties are parts? Value properties are parts? Part as BOM? Pull for later discussion. 17254 (Full port) pull and file second question as separate issue.