Issue 4670: Section 10.4 Precondition and Goal/Example (spem-ftf) Source: France Telecom R&D (Mr. Mariano Belaunde, mariano.belaunde@orange-ftgroup.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: The possible states of work products are referenced in pre-conditions and goal but there is no declaration of such potential states in the SPEM metamodel. Solution: add a "validStates" attribute in the "WorkProduct" class. Resolution: Accept. Introduce a subset of the UML 1.4 model of states into the SPEM Revised Text: Make the following changes. Chapter 2: Foundation. Add PseudoStateKind to the data types package: Add PseudoStateKind to the list of data types in the first paragraph of 2.1. Add Operation to the Backbone package, in chapter 2: In chapter 2 add a new package SPEM_Foundation::Actions: Add a new section 2.3 describing SPEM_Foundation::Actions, with the following text: "The SPEM_Foundation::Actions package is a subset of the UML 1.4 Common_Behavior package, and is shown in Figure 2.8. The elements in this package are defined as in UML 1.4 section 2.9." Add a new package SPEM_Foundation::State_Machines: Add a new section 2.4 describing SPEM_Foundation::State_Machines, with the following text: "The SPEM_Foundation::State_Machines package is a subset of the UML 1.4 State_Machines package, and is shown in Figure 2.9. The elements in this package are defined as in UML 1.4 section 2.12, with the exception that the context of a StateMachine is a composition, rather than a shared aggregation." Renumber the sections in chapter 2 and include the new sections in the table at the front of the chapter. Add the following UML 1.4 constraints to chapter 2: CompositeState 1 & 6, FinalState 1, PseudoState 1,3,5,7,8, StateMachine 2,3 & 4. Renumber constraints throughout the document. Change the UML cross-references to refer to the UML constraints by paragraph number. Chapter 4: show the new package dependencies. See issue 4673 for the resulting diagram. Chapter 7: change the model so that WorkDefinition inherits from Operation: Chapter 7: add the following bullet to section 7.1 "A WorkProduct may be associated (via the behavior association inherited from SPEM_Foundation::State_Machines) with a state machine that describes the states that the work product may be in, and the transitions allowed between those states." Change 7.2 to read "WorkDefinition is a kind of Operation" In Chapter 7 add the following constraints, and renumber later constraints accordingly: StateMachine [C39] Every StateMachine (but not ActivityGraph) has a WorkProduct as its context. context StateMachine inv: self oclIsTypeOf(StateMachine) implies self.context->nonEmpty() and self.context.oclIsKindOf(WorkProduct) [C40] Nesting for state machines and activity graphs is limited to one level. context StateMachine inv: self.top.subvertex->forall(sv | not sv.oclIsKindOf(CompositeState)) In the first paragraph of section 8.1 add the following text "StateMachines are owned by WorkProducts and own their internal states and transitions;" Actions taken: November 7, 2001: received issue October 23, 2002: closed issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== From: BELAUNDE Mariano FTRD/DTL/LAN To: spem-ftf@omg.org Subject: Issues to the SPEM document Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 12:43:16 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-UIDL: Nnl!!iMLe9;"'!!~>;!! Hi all, You will find below a list of issues regarding the current version of the SPEM specification. Regards, Mariano Belaunde France Telecom R&D ------------------------------------------------------ - Section 10.4 Precondition and Goal/Example The possible states of work products are referenced in pre-conditions and goal but there is no declaration of such potential states in the SPEM metamodel. Solution: add a "validStates" attribute in the "WorkProduct" class. From: "Pete Rivett" To: "'Steve J Cook'" Cc: Subject: RE: Call for vote and todos - issues on states and activities. Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 01:42:17 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal Some more questions - this time on 4670. A) At the teleconference to discuss my initial proposal I recall we decided that pk_choice was also not appropriate to SPEM (indeed I removed it from draft 2) - choice nodes are related to 'dynamic choices' which we didn't want: This is from UML 1.4 section 3.81.2: "Two or more guarded transitions emanating from the same junction point represent a static branch point. Normally, the guards are mutually exclusive. This is equivalent to a set of individual transitions, one for each path through the tree, whose guard condition is the "and" of all of the conditions along the path. Note that the semantics of static branches is that all the outgoing guards are evaluated before any transition is taken. Two or more guarded transitions emanating from a common dynamic choice point are used to model dynamic choices. In this case, the guards of the outgoing transitions are evaluated at the time the choice point has been reached. The value of these guards may be a function of some calculations performed in the actions of the incoming transition (s). A dynamic choice point is represented by a small white circle (reminiscent of a small state icon)." ...so in summary that leaves us with only 4 values for PseudostateKind. This would also remove Constraint [8] from PseudostateKind. B) The new State_Machines diagram shows the association between ModelElement ans StateMachine as composite - in UML 1.4 it is just a (shared) aggregation. C) Back to 4673: In my proposal I included Partition linked to ActivityGraph and containing ModelElement (though in reality I only saw it being used for ProcessPerformer). Any reason to remove this - it seems quite valuable to me? Or is the idea that only use case diagrams can be used for this linking actities and roles? Pete Pete Rivett (pete.rivett@adaptive.com) Chief Technology Officer, Adaptive Ltd Dean Park House, 8-10 Dean Park Crescent, Bournemouth, BH1 1HL, UK Tel: +44 (0)1202 449419 Fax: +44 (0)1202 449448 http://www.adaptive.com Pete > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve J Cook [mailto:sj_cook@uk.ibm.com] > Sent: 08 May 2002 18:15 > To: spem-ftf@omg.org > Subject: Call for vote and todos. > > > This is to call a vote on the following list of issues. For > full details > please review the documents contained in > SPEM-FTF-20020508.zip to be found > at http://cgi.omg.org/pub/spem_ftf/ > > SPEM-FTF-20020508.doc is a version of the final report that proposes > specific resolutions to these issues. > spemCD20020508.pdf is a version of the convenience document > that shows how > the spec will appear after these resolutions have been applied. > SPEM-20020508.mdl is a corresponding version of the Rose model. > > Please review these documents to decide your vote. > > Voting yes to "accept" means that you agree with the changes > proposed in > the document (which may not be the same as those proposed in > the issue). > > Your vote must be completed before midnight UK time on > Wednesday 15th May. > > 4670 States of work products. Accept Y/N > 4673 Activity Graphs in metamodel. Accept Y/N > 4674 More examples. Accept Y/N > 4679 Explain finish-start and finish-finish. Accept Y/N > 4686 CallAction and behavior. Accept Y/N > 4788 Simplify preface. Accept Y/N > 4829 Make profile icons available. Accept Y/N > 4887 Capturing distinct kinds of WorkProduct. Accept Y/N > 4889 Pre-defined stereotypes in use case diagrams. Accept Y/N > 4890 Restriction on the use of Guidance. Reject Y/N > 4980 Goals and preconditions. Accept Y/N > 5087 Decomposition of WorkDefinition. Accept Y/N > 5218 Precedes dependencies. Accept Y/N > 5220 Transformation to a UML profile. Reject Y/N > 5221 Standardization. Reject Y/N > > > Assuming that these changes all go through, this represents > the end of our > work in dealing with issues. Two issues remain unresolved: > 4832 and 4888. > > Here is a list of actions that needs to be complete before > our next call on > 28th May: > > Pete to introduce explicit references for MOF, and to > generate the DTD and > the MOF XMI. > Mariano to create a document with the example diagrams and > associated HUTN. > Philippe K to create a zip file with icons in various formats. > > Thanks, Steve > > > Steve Cook > IBM Distinguished Engineer, Member of IBM Academy > AIM Strategy and Architecture > Office +44 1932 754017 (internal 384017) > Mobile +44 7802 155856 (internal 271096) > Home office +44 1279 465796 > > The information contained in this email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the addressee(s). The e-mail may be legally privileged or prohibited from disclosure and unauthorised use. If you are not the named addressee you may not use, copy or disclose this information to any other person. If you received this message in error please notify the sender immediately. Any views or opinions presented here may be solely those of the originator and do not necessarily reflect those of the Company.