Issue 5005: A_context_raisedSignal (uml2-superstructure-ftf) Source: Adaptive (Mr. Gene Mutschler, gene.mutschler(at)adaptive.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: The association in question is not named in the UML 1.4 interchange model. The name "A_context_raisedSignal", is an artificial one that was created by the program that created the DTD. It was using an algorithm recommended by the MOF RTF for naming unnamed associations. However, it would seem to be wise policy for this association to have a name. This would remove any dependency on the vagaries of various MOF tools. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: March 19, 2002: received issue March 9, 2005: closed issue Discussion: The XMI for UML 2.0 is different from 1.x and fully automatically generated, so this issue is no longer applicable. Disposition: Closed, no change End of Annotations:===== From: "Mutschler, Gene O" To: Juergen Boldt Subject: RE: [xmi-rtf] UML 1.4 issue: DTD specification for A_context_rais edSi gnal not really a UML issue Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:26:27 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-UIDL: p1ld9]VU!!*3+e9-Mkd9 Now that I think about it, I DO have an issue for the UML 1.4 RTF. The association in question is not named in the UML 1.4 interchange model. The name "A_context_raisedSignal", is an artificial one that was created by the program that created the DTD. It was using an algorithm recommended by the MOF RTF for naming unnamed associations. However, it would seem to be wise policy for this association to have a name. This would remove any dependency on the vagaries of various MOF tools. SHould I submit this issue as a separate message, or will this suffice? Dr. Gene Mutschler Unisys Corp. Mission Viejo, CA + 1 949 380 6617 > -----Original Message----- > From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] > Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 6:29 AM > To: Mutschler, Gene O > Subject: RE: [xmi-rtf] UML 1.4 issue: DTD specification for > A_context_rais edSi gnal not really a UML issue > > > ok..Thanks Gene > > -Juergen > > > At 04:28 PM 3/18/2002 -0600, you wrote: > >No, this issue will be addressed as part of the resolution > for XMI issue > >3942, which complains about DTD elements for unreferenced > associations. > > > >Dr. Gene Mutschler > >Unisys Corp. > >Mission Viejo, CA > >+ 1 949 380 6617 > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] > > > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 2:17 PM > > > To: Mutschler, Gene O > > > Subject: Re: [xmi-rtf] UML 1.4 issue: DTD specification for > > > A_context_raisedSi gnal not really a UML issue > > > > > > > > > Gene, > > > > > > > > > so there is no need to log an issue with the xmi RTF either? > > > Just for > > > clarification... > > > > > > -Juergen > > > > > > At 02:41 PM 3/18/2002 -0600, you wrote: > > > > > > >In regard to the issue I brought up at last week's > teleconference, > > > >concerning the UML 1.4 DTD's specification of the > > > unreferenced association > > > >between a Signal and a Structural Feature (see ad/01-02-16): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (UML:BehavioralFeature)?> > > > > > > > > > > > UML:A_context_raisedSignal.context | > > > > UML:A_context_raisedSignal.raisedSignal)*> > > > > %XMI.link.att; > > > > context IDREFS #IMPLIED > <------------------------------- here > > > > raisedSignal IDREFS #IMPLIED> > > > <-------------------------- and here > > > > > > > >I looked at the XMI 1.1 rules for creating ATTLISTs for the > > > the ends of an > > > >unreferenced association (Rule 11) and found that they are > > > actually silent > > > >on whether IDREF or IDREFS should be used. It appears that > > > the issue here > > > >is with XMI more than it is with UML. I note that the error > > > also exists in > > > >the XMI 1.2 spec. > > > > > > > >The producer of the DTD probably assumed the same rule for > > > creating the > > > >ATTLIST for an association end as for an association (Rule > > > 6i), which uses > > > >IDREFS in all cases. > > > > > > > >Therefore, I'm not going to raise a UML RTF issue for this, > > > and I will > > > >include the use of "IDREF" instead of "IDREFS" in my > > > revisions for this DTD > > > >element that I was previously assigned to do. I'll also put > > > in language > > > >stating that if one end is done as an IDREF, the other end > > > must also be done > > > >as an IDREF. i.e. you can't have one end as an element and > > > the other as an > > > >attribute. > > > > > > > >Dr. Gene Mutschler > > > >Unisys Corp. > > > >Mission Viejo, CA > > > >+ 1 949 380 6617 > > > > > > ================================================================ > > > > > > Juergen Boldt > > > Director, Member Services > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > ================================================================ > > > > > ================================================================ > > Juergen Boldt > Director, Member Services > > 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 > > > > ================================================================ >