Issue 4729: UML 1.4: State containment problem (uml2-superstructure-ftf)
Source:  (, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary: According to the UML 1.4 metamodel, a State can either be contained as a
"subvertex" in a CompositeState [UML 1.4, pp. 2-147], as the "top" state in
a StateMachine [UML 1.4, pp. 2-147], or as an "ownedElement" [UML 1.4, pp.
2-13] in a Model, Package, Artifact, Node or ClassifierRole (all other
concrete subclasses of Namespace restrict their owned elements to exclude
State). The latter containment does not seem to make a lot of sense.

Fortunately, the description of a StateMachine states that "This means that
a state machine owns its transitions and its top state. All remaining states
are transitively owned through the state containment hierarchy rooted in the
top state." [UML 1.4, pp. 2-153].

The question is: does this mean that a State is restricted to being
contained in a CompositeState or a StateMachine? If not, please explain the
meaning of e.g. a State contained directly in an otherwise empty Package?

If the mentioned restriction *is* intended, it should be stated
unambiguously so in the wellformedness rules for State:

Resolution: 
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
December 5, 2001: received issue
March 9, 2005: closed issue
Discussion: 
The state machine metamodel has been changed radically in UML 2.0 (e.g.,
CompositeState no longer exists as a separate metaclass), so this issue is no
longer applicable.
End of Annotations:=====
From: Thomas Schaumburg <thomas.schaumburg@hiq.dk>
To: "'issues@omg.org'" <issues@omg.org>
Subject: UML 1.4: State containment problem
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 15:20:25 +0100 
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	      charset="iso-8859-1"
X-UIDL: nDF!!4hX!!Y92e9iShd9

According to the UML 1.4 metamodel, a State can either be contained as
a
"subvertex" in a CompositeState [UML 1.4, pp. 2-147], as the "top"
state in
a StateMachine [UML 1.4, pp. 2-147], or as an "ownedElement" [UML 1.4,
pp.
2-13] in a Model, Package, Artifact, Node or ClassifierRole (all other
concrete subclasses of Namespace restrict their owned elements to
exclude
State). The latter containment does not seem to make a lot of sense.

Fortunately, the description of a StateMachine states that "This means
that
a state machine owns its transitions and its top state. All remaining
states
are transitively owned through the state containment hierarchy rooted
in the
top state." [UML 1.4, pp. 2-153].

The question is: does this mean that a State is restricted to being
contained in a CompositeState or a StateMachine? If not, please
explain the
meaning of e.g. a State contained directly in an otherwise empty
Package?

If the mentioned restriction *is* intended, it should be stated
unambiguously so in the wellformedness rules for State:

	      self.namespace = null

                    Brgds
                          Thomas Schaumburg