Issue 18411: Semantics of Message argument mapping in Interactions (uml25-ftf) Source: Fraunhofer FOKUS (Mr. Marc-Florian Wendland, marc-florian.wendland(at)fokus.fraunhofer.de) Nature: Revision Severity: Summary: The spec is inconsistent regarding the correspondence of Message arguments and its in/inout parameter. In Section 17.4.3 it says: “The arguments of the Message correspond to the in and inout ownedParameters of the Operation, in the order of the ownedParameters.” This is also specified in the formal OCL constraint in Section 17.12, subsection Message, subsubsection Constraints However, in Section 17.4.4 it says: “A request-message-label may only have input-arguments with in-parameter-names if the Message has a signature. In this case, the input-arguments are matched by name to the in and inout ownedParameters of an Operation or the attributes of a Signal.” I assume that the OCL is correct and the Notation section would need clarification?! Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: February 1, 2013: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: "Wendland, Marc-Florian" To: "uml25-ftf@omg.org" Subject: Semantics of Message argument mapping in Interactions Thread-Topic: Semantics of Message argument mapping in Interactions Thread-Index: Ac4A0XB0U1D8PEUsRF+qMOXhLpLywQ== Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 23:23:17 +0000 Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.147.78.77] x-kse-antivirus-interceptor-info: scan successful x-kse-antivirus-info: Clean X-cloud-security-sender: marc-florian.wendland@fokus.fraunhofer.de X-cloud-security-recipient: uml25-ftf@omg.org X-cloud-security-Virusscan: CLEAN X-cloud-security-disclaimer: This E-Mail was scanned by E-Mailservice on mx-gate11-haj2 with B93C5794001 X-cloud-security: scantime:.3704 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org Hi all, The spec is inconsistent regarding the correspondence of Message arguments and its in/inout parameter. In Section 17.4.3 it says: .The arguments of the Message correspond to the in and inout ownedParameters of the Operation, in the order of the ownedParameters.. This is also specified in the formal OCL constraint in Section 17.12, subsection Message, subsubsection Constraints However, in Section 17.4.4 it says: .A request-message-label may only have input-arguments with in-parameter-names if the Message has a signature. In this case, the input-arguments are matched by name to the in and inout ownedParameters of an Operation or the attributes of a Signal.. I assume that the OCL is correct and the Notation section would need clarification?! Regards, Marc-Florian From: Ed Seidewitz To: Tom Rutt , "Wendland, Marc-Florian" CC: "uml25-ftf@omg.org" Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 12:24:33 -0500 Subject: RE: Semantics of Message argument mapping in Interactions Thread-Topic: Semantics of Message argument mapping in Interactions Thread-Index: Ac4DwtorYhvgza/lTI+GylM1PH8JXQAAaq/A Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US X-Mailprotector-Decision: deliver X-Mailprotector-Connection: TLSv1|[10.1.50.225]|10.1.50.225|outbound.mailprotector.net|0.0|0.0|0|||0|0|0|0 X-Mailprotector-Results: null_ptr subject_50_chars clean X-Mailprotector-Score: 60 X-Mailprotector-IP-Analysis: 0, 10.1.50.225, Ugly c=0.785568 p=-0.961858 Source White X-Mailprotector-Scan-Diagnostics: 0-0-0-16297-c X-Mailprotector-ID: 7aec5d19-2a0c-4313-a79e-31a2deace3a5 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org Actually, I don.t think there is an inconsistency here, though a clarification might be in order. 17.4.3 is about the matching of Message arguments to Operation parameters in the abstract syntax, and that is always by order, as given in the OCL. 17.4.4, on the other hand, is about mapping the notation to the abstract syntax. If the input-arguments have in-parameter-names, then the notation for the arguments is matched to the Operation parameters by name, but the Message arguments in the abstract syntax are still matched by order. For example, given an operation .op(x: Integer, y: Integer)., request message label .op(y=1, x=2). has the arguments in the opposite order to the parameters, but uses in-parameter-names to indicated which arguments go with which parameters. The actual Message in the abstract syntax representation, however, will have argument ValueSpecifications in the order .2., .1., consistent with the ordering of the parameters. So, as I said, there is no inconsistency. Perhaps there is room for clarification, but this notation section is already somewhat complicated, so we would need to be very sure that the clarification really makes things cleared, not just more complicated! -- Ed From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 12:02 PM To: Wendland, Marc-Florian Cc: uml25-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: Semantics of Message argument mapping in Interactions On 2/1/2013 6:23 PM, Wendland, Marc-Florian wrote: Hi all, The spec is inconsistent regarding the correspondence of Message arguments and its in/inout parameter. Marc-Florian Could you please file this as a new issue against the interactions chapter. Tom Rutt In Section 17.4.3 it says: .The arguments of the Message correspond to the in and inout ownedParameters of the Operation, in the order of the ownedParameters.. This is also specified in the formal OCL constraint in Section 17.12, subsection Message, subsubsection Constraints However, in Section 17.4.4 it says: .A request-message-label may only have input-arguments with in-parameter-names if the Message has a signature. In this case, the input-arguments are matched by name to the in and inout ownedParameters of an Operation or the attributes of a Signal.. I assume that the OCL is correct and the Notation section would need clarification?! Regards, Marc-Florian -- ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133