Issue 4800: Definitions in glossary don't conform to any standard for definitions (uml2-superstructure-ftf) Source: (, ) Nature: Revision Severity: Critical Summary: The definitions in the glossary are often incomplete, vague, and, most importantly, DO NOT CONFORM TO ANY STANDARD FOR DEFINITIONS. For those of us in IT who have studied concepts such as "language" and "word" and "definition" it is very disturbing to find people purporting to develop a new "language" who do know how to define words. Please get QUALIFIED help immediately. The work you are doing is too important to too many people. If you want OMG and UML to be taken seriously, do it right. People in the information business should understand that wrong information is much worse than no information. Do it right or just don't do it. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: January 2, 2002: received issue March 9, 2005: closed issue Discussion: This appears to be a discretionary issue and not very concrete or precise. For example, it does not say which elements of the glossary are problematic. There is, therefore, no reasonable way of resolving this issue. Furthermore, the glossary has changed significantly for UML 2.0 and the issue may no longer be applicable. Disposition: Closed, no change End of Annotations:===== From: webmaster@omg.org Message-Id: <200201021805.g02I5Dn29093@emerald.omg.org> Date: 02 Jan 2002 12:52:37 -0500 To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Issue/Bug Report Content-Type: Text/html; charset=windows-1252 X-UIDL: H_^!!4('!!VFid9>D+!! Name: Barry Palmer Company: Unemployed mailFrom: bepalmer@pinenet.com Notification: Yes Specification: OMG Unified Modeling Language Specification Section: B/Glossary FormalNumber: 01-09-67 Version: 1.4 RevisionDate: 9/1/2001 Page: 535 to 556 Nature: Revision Severity: Critical HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.5 [en] (Win95; I) Description The definitions in the glossary are often incomplete, vague, and, most importantly, DO NOT CONFORM TO ANY STANDARD FOR DEFINITIONS. For those of us in IT who have studied concepts such as "language" and "word" and "definition" it is very disturbing to find people purporting to develop a new "language" who do know how to define words. Please get QUALIFIED help immediately. The work you are doing is too important to too many people. If you want OMG and UML to be taken seriously, do it right. People in the information business should understand that wrong information is much worse than no information. Do it right or just don't do it. From: "Thomas Weigert" To: "Juergen Boldt" , Subject: RE: Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 13:18:16 -0600 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20020102133210.027aa100@emerald.omg.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-UIDL: gMd!!d$Y!!ZZ&!!`4+!! The author raises an legitimate issue that should be tracked as such. The RTF can decide how to handle this issue (e.g., reject it, provide a fix, etc.). All the best, Thomas. As an aside: As we all know, the UML language specification is of considerable lower quality than language specifications that are produced by standards development organizations. Hopefully, it eventually will reach the level of maturity and quality that is expected of a document of such importance.... > -----Original Message----- > From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] > Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 12:34 PM > Description > > The definitions in the glossary are often incomplete, vague, and, most > importantly, DO NOT CONFORM TO ANY STANDARD FOR DEFINITIONS. > > For those of us in IT who have studied concepts such as "language" and > "word" and "definition" it is very disturbing to find people > purporting to > develop a new "language" who do know how to define words. > > Please get QUALIFIED help immediately. The work you are doing is too > important to too many people. If you want OMG and UML to be taken > seriously, do it right. Reply-To: From: "Cris Kobryn" To: "Juergen Boldt" , Subject: RE: Questionable issue Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 12:12:29 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20020102133210.027aa100@emerald.omg.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-UIDL: (kYd9fV"!!3bbd9Zghd9 > > let me know if this should be handled as an issue ( to be honest, > I don't know) Since the criticism raised is "incomplete, vague, and, most importantly, [DOES] NOT CONFORM TO ANY STANDARD FOR [ISSUES}," I don't think that this should be handled as an issue. -- Cris > Name: Barry Palmer > Company: Unemployed > mailFrom: bepalmer@pinenet.com > Notification: Yes > Specification: OMG Unified Modeling Language Specification > Section: B/Glossary > FormalNumber: 01-09-67 > Version: 1.4 > RevisionDate: 9/1/2001 > Page: 535 to 556 > Nature: Revision > Severity: Critical > HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.5 [en] (Win95; I) > > > > Description > > The definitions in the glossary are often incomplete, vague, and, > most > importantly, DO NOT CONFORM TO ANY STANDARD FOR DEFINITIONS. > > For those of us in IT who have studied concepts such as "language" > and > "word" and "definition" it is very disturbing to find people > purporting to > develop a new "language" who do know how to define words. > > Please get QUALIFIED help immediately. The work you are doing is too > important to too many people. If you want OMG and UML to be taken > seriously, do it right. > > People in the information business should understand that wrong > information > is much worse than no information. Do it right or just don't do it. > ================================================================ > > Juergen Boldt > Senior Member of Technical Staff > > Object Management Group Tel. +1-781 444 0404 > ext. 132 > 250 First Avenue, Suite 201 Fax: +1-781 444 0320 > Needham, MA 02494, USA Email: juergen@omg.org > URL: www.omg.org > > > Reply-To: Joaquin Miller X-Sender: miller@joaquin.net@pop3.joaquin.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 12:56:34 -0700 To: UML 2 Superstructure FTF From: Joaquin Miller Subject: ,gi, Vote on Ballot 1--changed X-Change Technologies changes its vote on ballot 1 X-Change Technologies votes yes on all issues except 4800, 5267, 5268, and 5731. X-Change Technologies votes no on the resolution proposed for issue 4800. Reason: The issue is applicable to UML 2, and should not be resolved in this block vote. We would vote yes in a separate vote if the resolution was: "This does not say which elements of the glossary are problematic, nor provide a general approach to resolving the problems. The submitter is encouraged to submit an issue suggesting a general approach, with examples. The submitter is also encouraged to submit issues specific to particular terms or collections of terms. " X-Change Technologies votes no on the resolution proposed for issue 5267 and 5268. Reason: The resolution is wrong. Examples: constraint [15] of 9.3.8 PseudoState, constraint [1] of 9.3.14 Transition. We will not change our vote. [Thanks, Pete.] X-Change Technologies votes no on the resolution proposed for issue 5731. Reason: In the adopted UML 2, Method is not defined. We would vote yes if the resolution was "In UML 2.0, method is modeled differently than in 1.x, so this issue is no longer applicable," (dropping the capital em). [Thanks, Guus. (We're like, duuh.)] [We'll try to follow the ISO custom of giving a reason when we vote no, and a statement of conditions under which we would change our vote. Of course, folks can skip over that part.] :wq > ================================================================