Issue 17883: Alterative Scopes? (uml25-ftf) Source: Soluta.net (Dr. Adriano Comai, acomai(at)soluta.net) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Minor Summary: Title: Alterative Scopes? current text: “Inherited static StructuralFeatures shall have one of two alternative semantics, within a given execution scope: 1. The value of the StructuralFeature is always the same for any inheriting Classifier as its value for the owning Classifier. 2. The StructuralFeature has a separate and independent value for its owning Classifier and for each Classifier that inherits it.” [AC] This is not clear to me. Which one of the semantics apply in a certain execution scope? Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: September 26, 2012: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== s is issue # 17883 Problem: 9.014 Severity: Minor Nature: clarification Location: p 117 Title: Alterative Scopes? current text: .Inherited static StructuralFeatures shall have one of two alternative semantics, within a given execution scope: 1. The value of the StructuralFeature is always the same for any inheriting Classifier as its value for the owning Classifier. 2. The StructuralFeature has a separate and independent value for its owning Classifier and for each Classifier that inherits it.. [AC] This is not clear to me. Which one of the semantics apply in a certain execution scope? Source: Adriano Comai X-CM-Score: 0.00 X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=Df3JXIRW c=1 sm=1 a=eW53zEZrsyElcQ0NK1QpqA==:17 a=x4mveiYJ1mQA:10 a=yaLo9X7SpAAA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=YYzpnO7rAAAA:8 a=PtoFoBip2csA:10 a=w3UinLp_5B_JTc3zyjkA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=eW53zEZrsyElcQ0NK1QpqA==:117 Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 11:37:56 +0000 From: Ed Willink User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2 To: "uml25-ftf@omg.org" Subject: [UML 2.5 FTF] ballot2 review: #17883 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org Hi Java, C++ / Ruby, Smalltalk are introduced as examples of the alternative semantics. UML uses OCL so the static semantics of OCL should be defined for UML to be sound. The OCL static semantics are undefined at present, but since many implementers back up their OCL with Java, I think it is safe for UML to impose Java-like static semantics on OCL by just adding OCL to the list of example languages. [The only static Property in OCL at present is OclAny::oclLocale for which it seems unlikely that that distinct per-classifier internationalization would be helpful.] Regards Ed Willink From: Steve Cook To: Ed Willink , "uml25-ftf@omg.org" Subject: RE: [UML 2.5 FTF] ballot2 review: #17883 Thread-Topic: [UML 2.5 FTF] ballot2 review: #17883 Thread-Index: AQHOCqgIze75WLfsPk2M916YJwOmQZh5P2Kg Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 11:59:43 +0000 Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.166.18.104] X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.37;CTRY:US;IPV:CAL;IPV:NLI;EFV:NLI;SFV:NSPM;SFS:(189002)(199002)(13464002)(46406002)(16406001)(44976002)(46102001)(33656001)(74662001)(49866001)(5343655001)(56816002)(51856001)(65816001)(79102001)(80022001)(4396001)(31966008)(50986001)(55846006)(54356001)(76482001)(47776003)(59766001)(23726001)(63696002)(54316002)(56776001)(77982001)(47976001)(53806001)(50466001)(47446002)(74502001)(20776003)(47736001);DIR:OUT;SFP:;SCL:1;SRVR:BY2FFO11HUB021;H:TK5EX14HUBC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com;RD:InfoDomainNonexistent;MX:1;A:1;LANG:en; X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com X-Forefront-PRVS: 0757EEBDCA X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id r1EC1dWI009776 Ed If it is the case as you say that OCL has no semantics defined for static I cannot see how it is appropriate for UML to give it as an example of static semantics. Putting OCL in a list of examples is not an appropriate way for UML to modify the OCL specification, even if we wanted to do that, which we don't. Thanks -- Steve -----Original Message----- From: Ed Willink [mailto:ed@willink.me.uk] Sent: 14 February 2013 11:38 To: uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: [UML 2.5 FTF] ballot2 review: #17883 Hi Java, C++ / Ruby, Smalltalk are introduced as examples of the alternative semantics. UML uses OCL so the static semantics of OCL should be defined for UML to be sound. The OCL static semantics are undefined at present, but since many implementers back up their OCL with Java, I think it is safe for UML to impose Java-like static semantics on OCL by just adding OCL to the list of example languages. [The only static Property in OCL at present is OclAny::oclLocale for which it seems unlikely that that distinct per-classifier internationalization would be helpful.] Regards Ed Willink X-CM-Score: 0.00 X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=Df3JXIRW c=1 sm=1 a=eW53zEZrsyElcQ0NK1QpqA==:17 a=x4mveiYJ1mQA:10 a=4PNMsZnTKYkA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=YYzpnO7rAAAA:8 a=QhnfQU8c5KwA:10 a=KHpXyVWLAAAA:8 a=oCcaPWc0AAAA:8 a=im9O7dxmmmG2q_OgRpwA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=WP4_USCxRkkA:10 a=eW53zEZrsyElcQ0NK1QpqA==:117 Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 12:13:30 +0000 From: Ed Willink User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2 To: "uml25-ftf@omg.org" Subject: Re: [UML 2.5 FTF] ballot2 review: #17883 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org Hi Steve Cross-imposition is certainly undesirable but: If a Profile adds a static Property to a Class, I feel the resulting semantics should be defined by UML. Regards Ed Willink On 14/02/2013 11:59, Steve Cook wrote: Ed If it is the case as you say that OCL has no semantics defined for static I cannot see how it is appropriate for UML to give it as an example of static semantics. Putting OCL in a list of examples is not an appropriate way for UML to modify the OCL specification, even if we wanted to do that, which we don't. Thanks -- Steve -----Original Message----- From: Ed Willink [mailto:ed@willink.me.uk] Sent: 14 February 2013 11:38 To: uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: [UML 2.5 FTF] ballot2 review: #17883 Hi Java, C++ / Ruby, Smalltalk are introduced as examples of the alternative semantics. UML uses OCL so the static semantics of OCL should be defined for UML to be sound. The OCL static semantics are undefined at present, but since many implementers back up their OCL with Java, I think it is safe for UML to impose Java-like static semantics on OCL by just adding OCL to the list of example languages. [The only static Property in OCL at present is OclAny::oclLocale for which it seems unlikely that that distinct per-classifier internationalization would be helpful.] Regards Ed Willink ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2639/6101 - Release Date: 02/13/13 From: Steve Cook To: Ed Willink , "uml25-ftf@omg.org" Subject: RE: [UML 2.5 FTF] ballot2 review: #17883 Thread-Topic: [UML 2.5 FTF] ballot2 review: #17883 Thread-Index: AQHOCqgIze75WLfsPk2M916YJwOmQZh5P2KggAAEtACAACM4MA== Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 14:21:22 +0000 Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.166.18.104] X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.37;CTRY:US;IPV:CAL;IPV:NLI;EFV:NLI;SFV:NSPM;SFS:(52044001)(51704002)(24454001)(189002)(199002)(479174001)(13464002)(16406001)(79102001)(77982001)(59766001)(65816001)(74662001)(55846006)(33656001)(20776003)(23726001)(80022001)(5343635001)(5343655001)(46102001)(63696002)(50986001)(76482001)(46406002)(53806001)(49866001)(44976002)(50466001)(56816002)(31966008)(47736001)(51856001)(56776001)(74502001)(47446002)(54356001)(47976001)(4396001)(47776003)(54316002)(15974865001);DIR:OUT;SFP:;SCL:1;SRVR:BY2FFO11HUB020;H:TK5EX14MLTC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com;RD:InfoDomainNonexistent;MX:1;A:1;LANG:en; X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com X-Forefront-PRVS: 0757EEBDCA X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id r1EEM9cx027673 Ed I think you just completely changed the subject. If you think there are any new issues to be raised against UML, please feel free to raise them in the usual way. -- Steve -----Original Message----- From: Ed Willink [mailto:ed@willink.me.uk] Sent: 14 February 2013 12:14 To: uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: [UML 2.5 FTF] ballot2 review: #17883 Hi Steve Cross-imposition is certainly undesirable but: If a Profile adds a static Property to a Class, I feel the resulting semantics should be defined by UML. Regards Ed Willink On 14/02/2013 11:59, Steve Cook wrote: > Ed > > If it is the case as you say that OCL has no semantics defined for static I cannot see how it is appropriate for UML to give it as an example of static semantics. Putting OCL in a list of examples is not an appropriate way for UML to modify the OCL specification, even if we wanted to do that, which we don't. > > Thanks > -- Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ed Willink [mailto:ed@willink.me.uk] > Sent: 14 February 2013 11:38 > To: uml25-ftf@omg.org > Subject: [UML 2.5 FTF] ballot2 review: #17883 > > Hi > > Java, C++ / Ruby, Smalltalk are introduced as examples of the alternative semantics. > > UML uses OCL so the static semantics of OCL should be defined for UML to be sound. > > The OCL static semantics are undefined at present, but since many implementers back up their OCL with Java, I think it is safe for UML to impose Java-like static semantics on OCL by just adding OCL to the list of example languages. > > [The only static Property in OCL at present is OclAny::oclLocale for > which it seems unlikely that that distinct per-classifier > internationalization would be helpful.] > > Regards > > Ed Willink > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2639/6101 - Release Date: > 02/13/13 > >