Issue 17588: Clarification on the aim of Collaborations (uml25-ftf) Source: THALES (Mr. Hugues Vincent, hugues.vincent(at)thalesgroup.com) Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor Summary: Title: Clarification on the aim of Collaborations Where: section 11.7 Nature of Issue: Clarification Severity of Issue: Minor Full Description of the Issue: "It (purpose of Collaborations) is intended as a means for capturing standard design patterns": could you please elaborate on this because this is not trivial. An example would also be welcomed. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: September 13, 2012: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== s is issue # 17588 Title: Clarification on the aim of Collaborations Where: section 11.7 Nature of Issue: Clarification Severity of Issue: Minor Full Description of the Issue: "It (purpose of Collaborations) is intended as a means for capturing standard design patterns": could you please elaborate on this because this is not trivial. An example would also be welcomed. DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:sender:from:date:x-google-sender-auth :message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=/Zms1gC843kMsyyjkX0Y+mwiUuvb/KsC2HgBpRHvuYc=; b=iHA4FaiI17YTj0G3gMuE1ANAkg2tUOqAkMd7ZKZDhoz1QP8ss7yEdXBPej7i9PQdNQ aPZaXPx/b0zBhxfFWC2q5cUBUIpsE2hHjDkhbI6LOzBmEqSF0ldUUeMEqTsKM4AKiCT8 u3iZtPOZMAD072x2xp2lmMNz42bBxpxfnQIhlN9jAeo3Qy8RSiXSMiRz7iENUeFXZv9r w8NRBkPP3nQuJphxnFQ8WNh8ARAIrwac7LZ9Md2A76AlPCF48MXzNgvVa80Z7y3u5Ksh AX4qNTgSwP1hVa0nA3P05psicaVghGI+tDSCLsqAUquz0FhZXQqrZvm107GD18HgqDPM kDUg== X-Received: by 10.58.210.162 with SMTP id mv2mr1992580vec.11.1367947844372; Tue, 07 May 2013 10:30:44 -0700 (PDT) Sender: bran.selic@gmail.com From: Bran Selic Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 13:30:04 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: IBHm14L8QoHGElbhLjImM94gQOw Subject: Resolution to 17588 To: "uml25-ftf@omg.org" X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAR15Gpo= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== The use of collaborations to specify design patterns was indeed one of the primary motivators behind the concept (although Tryggve did not use the term "design pattern" because it had not yet entered the parlance). Unfortunately, this possibility is not all that well known among practitioners who sometimes try to use rather clumsy class-based methods of defining what are, in essence, instance based patterns. In any case, I do not think it is a good idea to remove this sentence, since it does provide some useful suggestions on how collaborations can be used. Perhaps a more constructive solution is to provide the caveats about it not being the only means for describing patterns and also that patterns can be described by other means -- along the lines of what the resolution text already says. Cheers...Bran From: Steve Cook To: Bran Selic , "uml25-ftf@omg.org" Subject: RE: Resolution to 17588 Thread-Topic: Resolution to 17588 Thread-Index: AQHOS0jzGxvL9uRM5kSb/CEdeTGfsZj6EU8A Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 18:57:35 +0000 Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.166.18.102] X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.37;CTRY:US;IPV:CAL;IPV:NLI;EFV:NLI;SFV:NSPM;SFS:(199002)(189002)(54316002)(512954002)(69226001)(79102001)(31966008)(74662001)(74502001)(47446002)(81342001)(33656001)(71186001)(46102001)(16406001)(49866001)(74876001)(81542001)(15202345002)(63696002)(16236675002)(55846006)(80022001)(65816001)(77982001)(74706001)(59766001)(74366001)(47976001)(50986001)(51856001)(56816002)(56776001)(76482001)(20776003)(4396001)(54356001)(53806001)(6806003)(47736001);DIR:OUT;SFP:;SCL:1;SRVR:BN1AFFO11HUB020;H:TK5EX14HUBC106.redmond.corp.microsoft.com;RD:InfoDomainNonexistent;A:1;MX:1;LANG:en; X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com X-Forefront-PRVS: 0839D067E7 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAR15Gpo= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Well, the sentence I wish to delete says this: .It is intended as a means for capturing standard design patterns.. I think there are two major problems with this: 1. It implies that Collaborations are not intended to be used for any purpose other than standard design patterns 2. It implies that there are no other means in UML intended to capture standard design patterns The use of the word .standard. is particularly problematical. We could replace it by something like .Collaborations are one way that UML may be used to capture design patterns.. I suppose I could live with that, although to me it is just redundant verbiage. I still prefer to delete it, because it is methodological and not normative. -- Steve From: bran.selic@gmail.com [mailto:bran.selic@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Bran Selic Sent: 07 May 2013 18:30 To: uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: Resolution to 17588 The use of collaborations to specify design patterns was indeed one of the primary motivators behind the concept (although Tryggve did not use the term "design pattern" because it had not yet entered the parlance). Unfortunately, this possibility is not all that well known among practitioners who sometimes try to use rather clumsy class-based methods of defining what are, in essence, instance based patterns. In any case, I do not think it is a good idea to remove this sentence, since it does provide some useful suggestions on how collaborations can be used. Perhaps a more constructive solution is to provide the caveats about it not being the only means for describing patterns and also that patterns can be described by other means -- along the lines of what the resolution text already says. Cheers...Bran From: "Bock, Conrad" To: "uml25-ftf@omg.org" Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 12:05:25 -0400 Subject: RE: Resolution to 17588 Thread-Topic: Resolution to 17588 Thread-Index: AQHOS0jzGxvL9uRM5kSb/CEdeTGfsZj6EU8AgAYZJJA= Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Steve, > We could replace it by something like "Collaborations are one way that UML > may be used to capture design patterns". I suppose I could live with that, > although to me it is just redundant verbiage. I still prefer to delete it, > because it is methodological and not normative. I'd agree, except we have the occasional methodological statements in the spec, and this one seems harmless. > Well, the sentence I wish to delete says this: "It is intended as a means > for capturing standard design patterns". > > I think there are two major problems with this: > 1. It implies that Collaborations are not intended to be used for any > purpose other than standard design patterns > > 2. It implies that there are no other means in UML intended to capture > standard design patterns The above are "closed" readings, but could there are "open" readings that don't have the implications above. Intending one thing doesn't imply other things aren't intended, and that one thing is a means doesn't imply other things aren't means. In general I think open readings have alot less problems, and conform to the literal reading. > The use of the word "standard" is particularly problematical. Agree about this. I like your rewording at the beginning. Conrad From: "Bock, Conrad" To: "uml25-ftf@omg.org" Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 12:07:52 -0400 Subject: RE: Resolution to 17588 Thread-Topic: Resolution to 17588 Thread-Index: AQHOS0jzGxvL9uRM5kSb/CEdeTGfsZj6EU8AgAYZJJA= Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Steve, > We could replace it by something like "Collaborations are one way that UML > may be used to capture design patterns". I suppose I could live with that, > although to me it is just redundant verbiage. I still prefer to delete it, > because it is methodological and not normative. I'd agree, except we have the occasional methodological statements in the spec, and this one seems harmless. > Well, the sentence I wish to delete says this: "It is intended as a means > for capturing standard design patterns". > > I think there are two major problems with this: > 1. It implies that Collaborations are not intended to be used for any > purpose other than standard design patterns > > 2. It implies that there are no other means in UML intended to capture > standard design patterns The above are "closed" readings, but could there are "open" readings that don't have the implications above. Intending one thing doesn't imply other things aren't intended, and that one thing is a means doesn't imply other things aren't means. In general I think open readings have alot less problems, and conform to the literal reading. > The use of the word "standard" is particularly problematical. Agree about this. > We could replace it by something like "Collaborations are one way that UML may be used to capture design patterns". This is better than the current wording in the spec. It removes "standard" and any claim about intention. Conrad From: "BERNARD, Yves" To: "Bock, Conrad" , "uml25-ftf@omg.org" Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 12:07:15 +0200 Subject: RE: Resolution to 17588 Thread-Topic: Resolution to 17588 Thread-Index: AQHOS0jzGxvL9uRM5kSb/CEdeTGfsZj6EU8AgAYZJJCAAsGu8A== Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: fr-FR, en-US X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id r4DA7gGn019237 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== I agree with the new wording proposed by Steve too, but the final ballot does not include it. Is there any update planned? Thanks, Yves -----Original Message----- From: Bock, Conrad [mailto:conrad.bock@nist.gov] Sent: samedi 11 mai 2013 18:08 To: uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: Resolution to 17588 Steve, > We could replace it by something like "Collaborations are one way that UML > may be used to capture design patterns". I suppose I could live with that, > although to me it is just redundant verbiage. I still prefer to delete it, > because it is methodological and not normative. I'd agree, except we have the occasional methodological statements in the spec, and this one seems harmless. > Well, the sentence I wish to delete says this: "It is intended as a means > for capturing standard design patterns". > > I think there are two major problems with this: > 1. It implies that Collaborations are not intended to be used for any > purpose other than standard design patterns > > 2. It implies that there are no other means in UML intended to capture > standard design patterns The above are "closed" readings, but could there are "open" readings that don't have the implications above. Intending one thing doesn't imply other things aren't intended, and that one thing is a means doesn't imply other things aren't means. In general I think open readings have alot less problems, and conform to the literal reading. > The use of the word "standard" is particularly problematical. Agree about this. > We could replace it by something like "Collaborations are one way that UML may be used to capture design patterns". This is better than the current wording in the spec. It removes "standard" and any claim about intention. 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.