Issue 19364: UML 2.6 Issue --- SignalEvent Triggers (uml2-rtf) Source: Change Vision (Mr. Michael Jesse Chonoles, mjchonoles(at)yahoo.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: On p 345 under the details of Transition it says: SignalEvent triggers and CallEvent triggers are not distinguishable by syntax and must be discriminated by their declaration elsewhere. However, on the next page under Signal receipt signal it says: The Signal receipt symbol is shown as a five-pointed polygon that looks like a rectangle with a triangular notch in one of its sides (either one). It maps to the trigger of the Transition and does not map to an Action of the Activity that specifies the effect Behavior. The names of the Signals of the Trigger as well as any guard are contained within the symbol as follows: <trigger> [‘,’ <trigger>]* [‘[‘ <guard> ‘]’] Where <trigger> is specified as described in sub clause 13.3.4 with the restriction that only Signal and change Event types are allowed. The trigger symbol is always first in the path of symbols and a compound transition can only have at most one such symbol. This means, that when the Signal Receipt symbol is used, and the trigger syntax is <name>[‘(‘[<assignment-specification>]’])’] is unambiguously a SignalEvent trigger and not a CallEvent trigger Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: April 25, 2014: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== hoo-SMTP: BHehp.2swBCs4PqecFo6LCqjUcnFjw4- X-Rocket-Received: from mjchonolesHP (mjchonoles@71.225.93.40 with plain [63.250.193.228]) by smtp113.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Apr 2014 20:17:52 -0700 PDT From: "Michael Chonoles" To: , Cc: "'Jon Siegel'" Subject: UML 2.6 Issue --- SignalEvent Triggers Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 23:17:41 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: Ac9g/T0juzsQYINkRUGV2kdN/RfghQ== X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org On p 345 under the details of Transition it says: SignalEvent triggers and CallEvent triggers are not distinguishable by syntax and must be discriminated by their declaration elsewhere. However, on the next page under Signal receipt signal it says: The Signal receipt symbol is shown as a five-pointed polygon that looks like a rectangle with a triangular notch in one of its sides (either one). It maps to the trigger of the Transition and does not map to an Action of the Activity that specifies the effect Behavior. The names of the Signals of the Trigger as well as any guard are contained within the symbol as follows: [β€˜,’ ]* [β€˜[β€˜ β€˜]’] Where is specified as described in sub clause 13.3.4 with the restriction that only Signal and change Event types are allowed. The trigger symbol is always first in the path of symbols and a compound transition can only have at most one such symbol. This means, that when the Signal Receipt symbol is used, and the trigger syntax is [β€˜(β€˜[]’])’] is unambiguously a SignalEvent trigger and not a CallEvent trigger. Michael Michael Jesse Chonoles OMG Analysis & Design Task Force Co-Chair Representing: Change-Vision Makers of the Astah line of modeling tools Telephones: Work 610 644-8404 Cell: 267-315-2410 Home 610 644-8404 Fax: 215-790-2976 Co-author: UML 2 For Dummies mjchonoles@yahoo.com Michael@ChonolesConsulting.Com From: Axel Scheithauer To: Michael Chonoles , "issues@omg.org" , "uml2-rtf@omg.org" CC: "'Jon Siegel'" Subject: AW: UML 2.6 Issue --- SignalEvent Triggers Thread-Topic: UML 2.6 Issue --- SignalEvent Triggers Thread-Index: Ac9g/T0juzsQYINkRUGV2kdN/RfghQBwOMTg Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 09:06:31 +0000 Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.0.26] X-XWALL-BCKS: auto X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org Hi Micheal, what would you suggest to change? There are two alternative ways to show triggers, one of them is only allowed for signal and change events. If you use the first option, SignalEvents and CallEvents are not distinguishable. Since the sentence you cite is in the paragraph on the first option, I think it is correct. The next sentence starts with β€œAs an alternative…” describing how to make them distinguishable. I don’t know what to add to make it clearer. -- Axel Von: Michael Chonoles [mailto:mjchonoles@yahoo.com] Gesendet: Samstag, 26. April 2014 05:18 An: issues@omg.org; uml2-rtf@omg.org Cc: 'Jon Siegel' Betreff: UML 2.6 Issue --- SignalEvent Triggers On p 345 under the details of Transition it says: SignalEvent triggers and CallEvent triggers are not distinguishable by syntax and must be discriminated by their declaration elsewhere. However, on the next page under Signal receipt signal it says: The Signal receipt symbol is shown as a five-pointed polygon that looks like a rectangle with a triangular notch in one of its sides (either one). It maps to the trigger of the Transition and does not map to an Action of the Activity that specifies the effect Behavior. The names of the Signals of the Trigger as well as any guard are contained within the symbol as follows: [β€˜,’ ]* [β€˜[β€˜ β€˜]’] Where is specified as described in sub clause 13.3.4 with the restriction that only Signal and change Event types are allowed. The trigger symbol is always first in the path of symbols and a compound transition can only have at most one such symbol. This means, that when the Signal Receipt symbol is used, and the trigger syntax is [β€˜(β€˜[]’])’] is unambiguously a SignalEvent trigger and not a CallEvent trigger. Michael Michael Jesse Chonoles OMG Analysis & Design Task Force Co-Chair Representing: Change-Vision Makers of the Astah line of modeling tools Telephones: Work 610 644-8404 Cell: 267-315-2410 Home 610 644-8404 Fax: 215-790-2976 Co-author: UML 2 For Dummies mjchonoles@yahoo.com Michael@ChonolesConsulting.Com