Issue 18184: confusing wording and terminology for TransitionKind in the section “Transition kinds relative to source”. (uml25-ftf) Source: Simula Research Laboratory (Mr. Bran Selic, selic(at)acm.org) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: A "local" transition is a group transition that emanates from a composite state (i.e., it is a group transition representing transitions form any contained substate of the composite source state) and terminates on an internal subvertex (the target vertex). This is OK and quite useful. However, the wording is confusing as is the terminology. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: October 19, 2012: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: Steve Cook To: Bran Selic , Ed Seidewitz , "issues@omg.org" CC: "uml25-ftf@omg.org" Subject: RE: Local transitions Thread-Topic: Local transitions Thread-Index: Ac2uC4qcfl5AlfNXTt21KEt4L17vXgAAa88AAAB6KYAAAA/+0A== Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 15:39:11 +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:(24454001)(377454001)(550184003)(20776001)(47736001)(8716001)(49866001)(31966008)(47976001)(51856001)(44976002)(74502001)(4396001)(3846001)(50986001)(15202345001)(5343635001)(47446002)(16406001)(4196001)(74662001)(16696001)(42186003)(1076001)(512954001)(16826001)(33656001)(46102001)(5343655001)(53806001)(316001)(3556001)(3746001);DIR:OUT;LANG:en; X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com X-Forefront-PRVS: 0639027A9E Thanks Bran . this must be an issue I think. UML2.5 FTF issue: confusing wording and terminology for TransitionKind in the section .Transition kinds relative to source.. From: bran.selic@gmail.com [mailto:bran.selic@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Bran Selic Sent: 19 October 2012 16:34 To: Ed Seidewitz Cc: Steve Cook; uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: Local transitions A "local" transition is a group transition that emanates from a composite state (i.e., it is a group transition representing transitions form any contained substate of the composite source state) and terminates on an internal subvertex (the target vertex). This is OK and quite useful. However, the wording is confusing as is the terminology. Bran On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Ed Seidewitz wrote: Steve -- The constraint Transition::state_is_internal says .A Transition with kind internal must have a State as its source, and its source and target must be equal. (emphasis added). So, I think the text you quoted below is simply incorrect. -- Ed From: Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 11:12 AM To: Bran Selic (selic@acm.org) Cc: uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: Local transitions Bran In the current draft it says the following: The semantics of a Transition depend on its relationship to its source Vertex. Three different possibilities are defined, depending on the value of the Transition.s kind attribute: . kind = local is the opposite of external, meaning that the Transition does not exit its containing State (and, hence, the exit Behavior of the containing State will not be executed). However, for local Transitions the target Vertex must be different from its source Vertex. This doesn.t make sense to me. Does .not exit its containing State. refer (as it says in the preamble) to its relationship to its source vertex? If so, the phrase .for local Transitions the target Vertex must be different from its source Vertex. appears to be directly contradictory. -- Steve