Issue 3513: OCL: Usage of qualifiers (ocl2-rtf) Source: OpenModeling (Mr. Jos Warmer, jos.warmer(at)openmodeling.nl) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Qualifiers, written in brackets after the path name of a feature call, can express two different things. - qualifying use: A qualifier is used to give the qualifing value of a qualified association (chapter 7.5.7). - navigational use: A qualifier is used to refine the navigation to association classes. While this navigational use is necessary only with recursive associations, it is legal for every navigation to an association class (chapter 7.5.5). There is no way to distinguish these two sorts of qualifiers. There are even expressions where both uses of the qualifiers would be necessary at once, but this problem is restricted to such models that contain a recursive, qualified association that has an association class. Example where navigational and qualifing use cannot be distinguished: There are two classes "Bank" and "Person", with a association between them qualified by the account number (an Integer). The association end at the class Person is named "customers". An additional class "Company" has an attribute "customers" of type Integer. Now consider the subexpression "bank.person[customers]" in the context of Company. "bank" clearly is a navigational expression. But "customers" could either mean the attribute of Company, since Company is the context of the expression (that is qualifying use as defined in 7.5.7); or "customer" could mean the name of the association end (navigational use as defined in 7.5.5). In the first case, the result type would be Person, in the second case Set(Person). Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: March 29, 2000: received issue December 2, 2004: Transferred to OCL 2.0 FTF Discussion: Discussion: This is an OCL 1 issue transferred to the OCL 2 FTF. Deferred for timing constraints. End of Annotations:===== X-Sender: jwarmer@pop3.NL.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 12:20:05 +0200 To: issues@omg.org From: Jos Warmer Subject: UML issue Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-UIDL: Qo*!!042e9; To: Cc: "Jos Warmer" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 May 2005 17:34:43.0877 (UTC) FILETIME=[0B454D50:01C55C99] Hi all, Below my comments and questions regarding some other issues that could be solved during second ballot. I will appreciate any contribution to solve this set of issues. 1) Issue 3513: Usage of qualifiers. This is an OCL1 issue that seems already be solved by OCL 2. Jos, since you are the author of this issue, could you check this and if possible send to me a resolution text? 2) Issue 4121 : Grammar for OCL. Internalization issue. Solved by OCL2 since is left intentionally undefined by the spec. 3) Issue 4451: Downcast OCL collection operators. My first impression is that the request is pertinent and can be easy solved by adding the missing operations to the Collection type in the standard library. Any opinion? Is there any volunteer to propose a resolution text? 4) Issue 5970: flatten I agree with Jos comments that two operations are needed (deepFlatten and flatten). Is there any volunteer for proposing the resolution text?. 5) Issue 5971: OrderedSet My feeling is that this issue has to be Deferred to the RTF because for timing reasons it will be very difficult to update in the FTF, in a consistent way, the semantics chapter. Unless someone's wants to take the issue ... 6) Issue 5973: what is a collection? Seems like the issue request for a mechanism to treat a user-defined class as a collection. Is there any opinion regarding the disposition for this issue? 7) Issue 6534: Up-and-down-casts with oclAsType() I don't understand the text of this issue. Has someone an idea what is the point here? (there is no 2.4.6 in the ptc document). 8) Issue 6535: Lack of operation specifications Unless someone is interrested to take this, I propose to defer it to the RTF (for timing reasons).. 9) Issue 6538: Exception of strict evaluation (implies) Unless someone is interrested to take this, I propose to defer it to the RTF (for timing reasons).. 10) Issue 6539: Exception of strict evaluation (forAll,exists) Unless someone is interrested to take this, I propose to defer it to the RTF (for timing reasons).. 11) Issue 6540: Exception of strict evaluation (queries) Unless someone is interrested to take this, I propose to defer it to the RTF (for timing reasons).. 12) Issue 6541: Exception of strict evaluation (=) Unless someone is interrested to take this, I propose to defer it to the RTF (for timing reasons).. Regards, Mariano The Netherlands internet: http://www.klasse.nl