Issue 4121: In 6.9 "Grammar for OCL" (Internationalization issues) (ocl2-ftf) Source: Fujitsu (Mr. Hiroshi Miyazaki, miyazaki.hir-02@jp.fujitsu.com RHD02651@nifty.ne.jp) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: > In 6.9 "Grammar for OCL", > According to the current BNF grammar, we cannot use > multi-byte characters in class nor attribute names, because > name and string are composed of alpha-numeric letters only. > I think the definition of OCL should be modified for us > to be able to use multi-byte characters. > I show a draft of modification which will be proposed by > ISO/Japan National Body.(This will be discussed in UML1.3 PAS > at the next OMG/ISO Orlando meeting) > > typeName :=charForNameTop charForName* > name :=charForNameTop charForName* > charForNameTop := /* Characters except inhibitedChar > and ["0"-"9"]; the available > characters shall be determined by > the tool implementers ultimately.*/ > charForName := /* Characters except inhibitedChar; the > available characters shall be determined > by the tool implementers ultimately.*/ > inhibitedChar := " "|"\"|"#"|"\'"|"("|")"|"*"|"+"|","|"-"| > "."|"/"|":"|";"|"<"|"="|">"|"@"|"["|"\\"| > "]"|"{"|"|"|"}" Resolution: Revised Text: Resolution: The OCL2 defines the production rule simpleNameCS ::= <String> where <String> is left undefined to allow to use multi-byte characters for internationalisation. Revised text: No text update is needed. Disposition: Resolved Actions taken: December 9, 2000: received issue December 2, 2004: Transferred to OCL 2.0 FTF November 1, 2005: closed issue Discussion: already a quick fix in 1.4, further defer to 2.0. Discussion: This is an OCL 1 issue transferred to the OCL 2 FTF. End of Annotations:===== Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 09:01:06 -0800 From: Cris Kobryn Subject: RE: About UML1.4 RTF - internationalization issues In-reply-to: <008001c055d1$f0ad7800$49b7530a@miyamiya.sdas.tokyo.se.fujitsu.co.jp> To: Hiroshi Miyazaki Cc: UML RTF Reply-to: ckobryn@acm.org Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Importance: Normal X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" X-UIDL: VJ*!!GQ!!!:dRd9Z%`!! > It has been a long time since I met you last time. > If I could contribute to the refinement of > UML1.4 internationalization, it would be my pleasure. > > This comment is a detail of UML1.3 internationalization > problem(,which I have told you at the UML2.0 RFP discussion). > I'm sorry to be late to make comments. (Is this too late?) Hiroshi, We welcome your thoughtful comments regarding internationalization issues. Although we're in the process of finalizing the technical content for UML 1.4, I believe that we can at least partially address the issues that you raise. Thanks for offering to help. > In 6.9 "Grammar for OCL", > According to the current BNF grammar, we cannot use > multi-byte characters in class nor attribute names, because > name and string are composed of alpha-numeric letters only. > I think the definition of OCL should be modified for us > to be able to use multi-byte characters. > I show a draft of modification which will be proposed by > ISO/Japan National Body.(This will be discussed in UML1.3 PAS > at the next OMG/ISO Orlando meeting) > > typeName :=charForNameTop charForName* > name :=charForNameTop charForName* > charForNameTop := /* Characters except inhibitedChar > and ["0"-"9"]; the available > characters shall be determined by > the tool implementers ultimately.*/ > charForName := /* Characters except inhibitedChar; the > available characters shall be determined > by the tool implementers ultimately.*/ > inhibitedChar := " "|"\"|"#"|"\'"|"("|")"|"*"|"+"|","|"-"| > "."|"/"|":"|";"|"<"|"="|">"|"@"|"["|"\\"| > "]"|"{"|"|"|"}" We will also consider this concrete proposal during our meeting next Tuesday morning. > I'm not a member of UML1.4 RTF. > May I attend to or make any comments on the UML1.4 RTF discussion? Of course, please always feel free to contribute your good ideas. If you haven't already joined the uml-rtf@omg.org mailing list, please do so. Also, please join us at the UML 1.4 RTF meeting in Orlando if you are able. Thanks, Cris Reply-To: Joaquin Miller X-Sender: joaquin%joaquin.net@secure.cnchost.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 16:50:44 -0700 To: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org, mu2i-ftf@omg.org From: Joaquin Miller Subject: Re: Ballot-2 DRAFT Bran wrote: Here is the draft of the second ballot for the vote commencing on Wednesday, Oct. 22. Please review this and send me any feedback about the ballot, proposed resolutions text, issues, etc. by Wednesday morning (Eastern time). Issue: 4121 The syntax rules for names should be specified in the UML infrastructure,* and followed in MOF, superstructure, OCL, and other related adopted technologies. Since the OCL spec uses BNF, BNF is needed there, which conforms to the naming rules; that's for the OCL FTF to do. The internationalization is for mu2i. So this should be referred to MOF+UML2infra and OCL FTFs. [ * I'd say specified in the MOF, but that is not the way we are doing things.] Subject: Preparing 2nd ballot: Discussion regarding some other issues Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 19:34:42 +0200 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Preparing 2nd ballot: Discussion regarding some other issues Thread-Index: AcVcmQqSPJdP6R9nRLWNyrXiTmRKBw== From: "BELAUNDE Mariano RD-MAPS-LAN" 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