Issue 18566: Incorrect text on state list notation interchange (uml25-ftf) Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov) Nature: Revision Severity: Minor Summary: Under Figure 14.12 (Submachine Sate that uses an exit point), there is a NOTE saying the graphical notation for state lists cannot be exchanged normatively, but the interchange model for this given in the paragraph under Figure B.14 (State Shapes), starting at the third sentence. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: March 17, 2013: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 17 Mar 2013 11:48:51 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAR0Zq90= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== ******************************************************************************* Name: Conrad Bock Employer: NIST mailFrom: conrad.bock@nist.gov Terms_Agreement: I agree Specification: Unified Modeling Language Section: 14.2.4 FormalNumber: ptc/2012-10-24 Version: 2.5 Beta 1 Doc_Year: 2012 Doc_Month: October Doc_Day: 01 Page: Title: Incorrect text on state list notation interchange Nature: Revision Severity: Minor CODE: 3TMw8 B1: Report Issue Description: Under Figure 14.12 (Submachine Sate that uses an exit point), there is a NOTE saying the graphical notation for state lists cannot be exchanged normatively, but the interchange model for this given in the paragraph under Figure B.14 (State Shapes), starting at the third sentence. DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=inVId4LRnnlClQPsREjGtpBLjCOcAyfo8hCN4X5N9Q4=; b=jhp0eSuTIT2f1oSSnYT2rR5z9D7xo8ZfDqDE9hO11F3lpQp7G0jwO2aH1Xf9k/k6SV QfhA2syBYvnS/VjYJcw0Zabh84eY3FiR5DiKVKboVb+SwE4eFzYt95TDHp+iqETU2aki 4kxR+EPdZeR/cJwr2eqhUOhy1IMbErLWfBZZdR9pOLwaoU6Yzw6JViYA1TPMdjvv2IZT lXlUJ6GkXbM5qXv7+PhJ+gsuMJCjYts2f0wvKbeyqsnOkpJUuuKLD7p/jMimFvR1Y+eT N0CJOdLsDBDsmdpwnE2xD7u8VdycqSTg1sXlcgyNSs1GCeOpk+FVkREHogtnXDZqlsdG +wOw== X-Received: by 10.60.3.103 with SMTP id b7mr6669230oeb.86.1363872103930; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 06:21:43 -0700 (PDT) Sender: bran.selic@gmail.com From: Bran Selic Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 09:21:03 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: D5VSp6agjxxM46xe5dzvnyeZ8iQ Subject: Re: issue 18566 -- UML 2.5 FTF issue To: Conrad Bock Cc: "uml25-ftf@omg.org" X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAh0YqvEdGavd X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Conrad, The problem with state lists stems form the fact that there is no metamodel element corresponding to a state list. Hence, even if the graphics can be interchanged, there is no equivalent in the model itself. Even if you try to algorithmically reconstruct a state list on the receiving end of an interchange by parsing the transitions and their triggers, there is no guarantee that this will match what the original used. Cheers...Bran On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Juergen Boldt wrote: From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 17 Mar 2013 11:48:51 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAR0Zq90= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== ******************************************************************************* Name: Conrad Bock Employer: NIST mailFrom: conrad.bock@nist.gov Terms_Agreement: I agree Specification: Unified Modeling Language Section: 14.2.4 FormalNumber: ptc/2012-10-24 Version: 2.5 Beta 1 Doc_Year: 2012 Doc_Month: October Doc_Day: 01 Page: Title: Incorrect text on state list notation interchange Nature: Revision Severity: Minor CODE: 3TMw8 B1: Report Issue Description: Under Figure 14.12 (Submachine Sate that uses an exit point), there is a NOTE saying the graphical notation for state lists cannot be exchanged normatively, but the interchange model for this given in the paragraph under Figure B.14 (State Shapes), starting at the third sentence. Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services 109 Highland Ave Needham, MA 02494 USA Tel: 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: 781 444 0320 www.omg.org [] From: "Bock, Conrad" To: "uml25-ftf@omg.org" Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:37:17 -0400 Subject: RE: issue 18566 -- UML 2.5 FTF issue Thread-Topic: issue 18566 -- UML 2.5 FTF issue Thread-Index: Ac4mNwkL7FVJw4a9Sn6JRQq2yFo9cAACe68Q 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: AAAAAR0Zq90= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Bran, > The problem with state lists stems form the fact that there is no metamodel > element corresponding to a state list. Hence, even if the graphics can be > interchanged, there is no equivalent in the model itself. > > Even if you try to algorithmically reconstruct a state list on the receiving > end of an interchange by parsing the transitions and their triggers, there is > no guarantee that this will match what the original used. The issue is about an incorrect statement in the spec regarding interchange of the graphics (it says there is no standard for it is). The issues isn't about what you replied to above. Conrad From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 17 Mar 2013 11:48:51 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAR0Zq90= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== ******************************************************************************* Name: Conrad Bock Employer: NIST mailFrom: conrad.bock@nist.gov Terms_Agreement: I agree Specification: Unified Modeling Language Section: 14.2.4 FormalNumber: ptc/2012-10-24 Version: 2.5 Beta 1 Doc_Year: 2012 Doc_Month: October Doc_Day: 01 Page: Title: Incorrect text on state list notation interchange Nature: Revision Severity: Minor CODE: 3TMw8 B1: Report Issue Description: Under Figure 14.12 (Submachine Sate that uses an exit point), there is a NOTE saying the graphical notation for state lists cannot be exchanged normatively, but the interchange model for this given in the paragraph under Figure B.14 (State Shapes), starting at the third sentence. Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services 109 Highland Ave Needham, MA 02494 USA Tel: 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: 781 444 0320 www.omg.org