Issue 4681: Section 8.3, page 33 (spem-ftf) Source: France Telecom R&D (Mr. Mariano Belaunde, mariano.belaunde@orange-ftgroup.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: "It may refer addtional...assistants...as additional input parameters..." Too complex. Why not an explicit "assist" relationship in the metamodel between a ProcessRole and an Activity? This will ease implementation of the SPEM metamodel. NOTA: No changes in the UML profile is implied with this change, Resolution: Accept Revised Text: Change figure 7-1 as follows: Delete the clause "by including these as additional input parameters to the Activity" in the second bullet under 7.3 Activity and Step: Associations. On page 11-7 add a new paragraph after the paragraph describing Activity::step, as follows: Activity::assistant. This is not represented directly in the profile. Instead, those ProcessRoles that represent assistants to the activity are included as additional input parameters to the Activity. 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 8.3, page 33 "It may refer addtional...assistants...as additional input parameters..." Too complex. Why not an explicit "assist" relationship in the metamodel between a ProcessRole and an Activity? This will ease implementation of the SPEM metamodel. NOTA: No changes in the UML profile is implied with this change,