Issue 5050: SA Profile issue (uml-scheduling-ftf)
Source:  (, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary: Activity diagrams are an interesting solution for the description of behaviors. This notation restricted (we cannot include loops and the fork join pseudo states must be used in cobegin-coend sequences) can represent the same types of responses used in some scheduling analysis methods [6,5,7,3]. They can be used to describe the behavior of Operations and this will describe the response associated to messages and stimulus. This is useful to describe sequences of actions that use different types of resources, and these actions could be executed in sequence, parallel or selection. If we have the sequence of a collaboration diagram DD1 ope1 -> DD1.1 ope2 -> DD1.2 ope3, and the operations are described with the activity diagrams like ((action1 || action2)  | action3) -> action4 (|| represents the parallel execution, | the selection, and actioni are action states that can be stereotyped as SAStep), we can substitute the operation message or stimuli by their activity diagram, and create an event response based on the combination of both types of behavior description. These notations are useful to represent complex behaviors of operations and messages and to optimize the evaluation of jitters

Resolution: 
Revised Text: 

Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
Discussion: 
Aim is sound, but problem with representing executions in Activity Graphs in UML. Consider activity graphs more fully in GRM. Given that we do not intend to incorporate any elements of UML 2.0 in to this revision this is outside the scope of the RTF but should be deferred to version 2.0.

End of Annotations:=====
This is issue # 5050

SA Profile issue

Activity diagrams are an interesting solution for the description of
behaviors. This notation restricted (we cannot include loops and the
fork join pseudo states must be used in cobegin-coend sequences) can
represent the same types of responses used in some scheduling analysis
methods [6,5,7,3]. They can be used to describe the behavior of
Operations and this will describe the response associated to messages
and stimulus. This is useful to describe sequences of actions that use
different types of resources, and these actions could be executed in
sequence, parallel or selection. If we have the sequence of a
collaboration diagram DD1 ope1 -> DD1.1 ope2 -> DD1.2 ope3, and the
operations are described with the activity diagrams like ((action1 ||
action2)  | action3) -> action4 (|| represents the parallel execution,
| the selection, and actioni are action states that can be stereotyped
as SAStep), we can substitute the operation message or stimuli by
their activity diagram, and create an event response based on the
combination of both types of behavior description. These notations are
useful to represent complex behaviors of operations and messages and
to optimize the evaluation of jitters


Discussion on the Disposition of SPT RTF Issues
Alan Moore (Thursday, August 21, 2003)

I have used similar scheme to Bran's.
Issues Assigned to Alan

Issue 5050
Given that we do not intend to incorporate any elements of UML 2.0 in to this revision this is outside the scope of the RTF
Recommendation: Defer to 2.0 profile