Issue 19648: History pseudo states in protocol state machines (uml2-rtf)
Source: KnowGravity Inc. (Mr. Markus Schacher, markus.schacher(at)knowgravity.com)
Nature: Enhancement
Severity: Significant
Summary: I see no reason why UML prohibits history pseudo states in protocol state machines (constraint at the bottom of page 362). As I understand history states, they are merely a syntactical convenience that may be loss-lessly converted into a semantically equivalent state machine without history states. However, using history states usually greatly simplifies the specification of complex protocol state machines.
Resolution: 
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
October 29, 2014: received issue
Discussion: 

End of Annotations:=====

m: webmaster@omg.org
Date: 29 Oct 2014 06:50:25 -0500
To: <issues@omg.org>
Subject: Issue/Bug Report


*******************************************************************************
Name:            Markus Schacher
Employer:        KnowGravity Inc.
mailFrom:        markus Schacher
Terms_Agreement: I agree
Specification:   OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML)
Section:         14.5
FormalNumber:    ptc/2013-09-05
Version:         2.5
Doc_Year:        2013
Doc_Month:       September
Doc_Day:         01
Page:            362
Title:           History pseudo states in protocol state machines
Nature:          Enhancement
Severity:        Significant
CODE:            3TMw8
B1:              Report Issue
Remote Name:     62-2-161-170.static.cablecom.ch
Remote User:     
HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko
Time:            06:50 AM


Description:

I see no reason why UML prohibits history pseudo states in protocol state machines (constraint at the bottom of page 362). As I understand history states, they are merely a syntactical convenience that may be loss-lessly converted into a semantically equivalent state machine without history states. However, using history states usually greatly simplifies the specification of complex protocol state machines.