Issue 4731: UML 1.4: Transition containment problem (uml2-superstructure-ftf)
Source:  (, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary: According to the UML 1.4 standard, a Transition [UML 1.4, pp. 2-147] is
contained either as an "internalTransition" in a State, as a "transition" in
a StateMachine, or as an "ownedElement" [UML 1.4, pp. 2-13] in a Model,
Package, Artifact, Node or ClassifierRole (other containers excluded because
of restrictions they make on the "ownedElement" containment in their
wellformedness rules). The latter containment does not seem to make a lot of
sense.

The question is: is the containment of a Transition as an "ownedElement"
intended? If so, please explain the meaning of e.g. a Transition contained
directly in an otherwise empty Package.

If not, it should be stated unambiguously so in the wellformedness rules for
Transition, e.g.:

	self.namespace = null

Resolution: 
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
December 5, 2001: received issue
March 9, 2005: closed issue
Discussion: 
This issue is resolved in UML2.0. All the containment structure is explicit, transitions are
owned explicitly by regions. Therefore the containment issue mentioned above is no
longer relevant.
Disposition: Closed, no change
End of Annotations:=====
From: Thomas Schaumburg <thomas.schaumburg@hiq.dk>
To: "'issues@omg.org'" <issues@omg.org>
Subject: UML 1.4: Transition containment problem
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 15:24:03 +0100 
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	      charset="iso-8859-1"
X-UIDL: C'@!!jS%e9(^I!!Lbed9

According to the UML 1.4 standard, a Transition [UML 1.4, pp. 2-147]
is
contained either as an "internalTransition" in a State, as a
"transition" in
a StateMachine, or as an "ownedElement" [UML 1.4, pp. 2-13] in a
Model,
Package, Artifact, Node or ClassifierRole (other containers excluded
because
of restrictions they make on the "ownedElement" containment in their
wellformedness rules). The latter containment does not seem to make a
lot of
sense.

The question is: is the containment of a Transition as an
"ownedElement"
intended? If so, please explain the meaning of e.g. a Transition
contained
directly in an otherwise empty Package.

If not, it should be stated unambiguously so in the wellformedness
rules for
Transition, e.g.:

	    self.namespace = null

                       Brgds




OMG Issue 4731
Title: Transition containment problem
Summary:
According to the UML 1.4 standard, a Transition [UML 1.4, pp. 2-147]is
contained either as an "internalTransition" in a State, as a "transition" in
a StateMachine, or as an "ownedElement" [UML 1.4, pp. 2-13] in a
Model, Package, Artifact, Node or ClassifierRole (other containers excluded
Because of restrictions they make on the "ownedElement" containment in their
wellformedness rules). The latter containment does not seem to make a
lot of sense.

The question is: is the containment of a Transition as an "ownedElement"
intended? If so, please explain the meaning of e.g. a Transition
contained directly in an otherwise empty Package.

If not, it should be stated unambiguously so in the wellformedness
rules for Transition, e.g.:

	    self.namespace = null
Discussion:
This issue is resolved in UML2.0. All the containment structure is explicit, transitions are owned explicitly by regions. Therefore the containment issue mentioned above is no longer relevant.
Disposition: Closed, No change.
                             Thomas Schaumburg