Issue 3017: should we reference the recent HL7 SIGMPI harmonization with PIDS (pids-rtf2)
Source: Level Seven Visualizations (Mr. Jon Farmer, jon(at)level7vis.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary: We in SIGMPI have recently made some good strides in harmonizing HL7 and
PIDS by adding some missing events and updating the identifier management
language (id domains, profiles, traits).  We are even applying event names
that approximate the PIDS operation names where applicable in the new
events:

get person demographics
find candidates
get corresponding identifiers
allocate identifiers (Tim notes you can do that with a register_new_ids
supplying an empty profile, although personally I am disgusted by such a
practice because it commonly leads to dupes, and is only valid for
intentionally-to-be-reused IDs which is also philosophically questionable)

Resolution: 
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
October 14, 1999: received issue
Discussion: 

End of Annotations:=====
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.3 2/24/98
To: Guy Genilloud <guy.genilloud@ica.epfl.ch>
cc: uml-rtf@omg.org
Subject: Re: Question or issue regarding collaboration diagrams 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 15 Oct 1999 19:32:57 +0200."
             <4.2.0.58.19991015191401.00ae43d0@dimail.epfl.ch> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 13:52:12 +0200
From: Gunnar Overgaard <gunnaro@it.kth.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-UIDL: i/Q!!NUOe9T"?e9B&0!!

Guy Genilloud wrote:
> 
> I think that this example on page 3-127 is wrong or terribly
> misleading.  
>           [x < 0] 4: invert (x, color)    -- conditional Message
> 
> If I read right, condition-clause is supposed to follow the sequence
> number. 
> So the correct example would be: 
>           4 [x < 0] : invert (x, color)    -- conditional Message. 
> 
> To me, this is a guarded message
>           [x < 0] 4: invert (x, color)    -- guarded Message

You are right. According to the syntax on page 3-125 it is clear that
a guard 
precedes the sequence number, while a condition (a recurrence
expression) 
follows the sequence number. Thanks for pointing this out.


> This leads to additional questions: 
>    - why is guard condition not explicitly explained in the
>    standard?
It is explained in the state machine section, but you are quite right
>    that it 
should appear in the collaboration diagram section as well.

>    - if a message (say 2.2) is not executed because of a condition
clause, does
>      that imply that messages 2.3., 2.4, will not be executed
(unless an alternative
>      2.2 branch exists and is executed). 
If the condition is not fulfilled the branch is not executed, and the 
execution continutes with the statements after the branch. This
implies that 
2.3 and 2.4 will be executed but not 2.2.1.

Gunnar



X-Sender: genillou@dimail.epfl.ch
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999 14:53:14 +0200
To: Gunnar Overgaard <gunnaro@it.kth.se>
From: Guy Genilloud <guy.genilloud@ica.epfl.ch>
Subject: Re: Question or issue regarding collaboration diagrams 
Cc: uml-rtf@omg.org, juergen@omg.org
In-Reply-To: <199910191152.NAA00151@mail2.it.kth.se>
References: <Your message of "Fri, 15 Oct 1999 19:32:57 +0200."
<4.2.0.58.19991015191401.00ae43d0@dimail.epfl.ch>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="=====================_18087959==_.ALT"
X-UIDL: M6&!!/)Ee9Pg0!!1-Le9


( Juergen,
  You are in CC in case you want to make a UML issue out this email. 
   Or let me know... )

Gunnar,

Thanks for your answers (included below) -- they are really useful to
me. 

If you go ahead and fix the standard, you should clarify or complete
this 
paragraph (p. 3.125): 

<<Note that the Message corresponding to the numerically preceding
sequence number is
an implicit predecessor and need not be explicitly listed. All of the
sequence numbers
with the same prefix form a sequence. The numerical predecessor is the
one in which
the final term is one less. That is, number 3.1.4.5 is the predecessor
of 3.1.4.6.>> 

Indeed, there is an apparent (hopefully not real) contradiction with
your last answer
to me.  

Regards

Guy G. 

At 13:52 19.10.99 +0200, Gunnar Overgaard wrote:
Guy Genilloud wrote:
> 
> I think that this example on page 3-127 is wrong or terribly
misleading.  
>           [x < 0] 4: invert (x, color)    -- conditional Message
> 
> If I read right, condition-clause is supposed to follow the sequence
number. 
> So the correct example would be: 
>           4 [x < 0] : invert (x, color)    -- conditional Message. 
> 
> To me, this is a guarded message
>           [x < 0] 4: invert (x, color)    -- guarded Message

You are right. According to the syntax on page 3-125 it is clear that
a guard 
precedes the sequence number, while a condition (a recurrence
expression) 
follows the sequence number. Thanks for pointing this out.


> This leads to additional questions: 
>    - why is guard condition not explicitly explained in the
>    standard?
It is explained in the state machine section, but you are quite right
>    that it 
should appear in the collaboration diagram section as well.

>    - if a message (say 2.2) is not executed because of a condition
clause, does
>      that imply that messages 2.3., 2.4, will not be executed
(unless an alternative
>      2.2 branch exists and is executed). 
If the condition is not fulfilled the branch is not executed, and the 
execution continutes with the statements after the branch. This
implies that 
2.3 and 2.4 will be executed but not 2.2.1.

Gunnar