Issue 5269: UML 1.4 - Partition relates to nothing (uml2-superstructure-ftf) Source: Model Driven Solutions (Mr. Steve Cook, steve-c(at)modeldriven.org) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: UML 1.4 has no association for showing what a Partition relates to. Typically this would be something representing a role in a process. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: May 7, 2002: received issue March 9, 2005: closed issue Discussion: Partition related to Element in UML 1.x and still does in UML 2. Disposition: Closed, no change End of Annotations:===== Subject: UML 1.4 - Partition relates to nothing. To: issues@omg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.7 March 21, 2001 From: "Steve J Cook" Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 12:01:00 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on d06ml005/06/M/IBM(Release 5.0.9a |January 7, 2002) at 07/05/2002 12:02:26 UML 1.4 has no association for showing what a Partition relates to. Reply-To: Joaquin Miller X-Sender: joaquin%joaquin.net@secure.cnchost.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:38:31 -0800 To: UML Superstructure FTF From: Joaquin Miller Subject: ,av, Issue 5269: vote no X-Change Technologies urges a no vote on the proposed resolution for Issue 5269 The issues raised is that there is "no association for showing what a Partition relates to." The discussion says "Partition related to Element in UML 1.x and still does in UML 2." The proposed resolution is: no change. It's true there is an association from Partition to Element. -- The drawing permits any element. -- The text under Associations tells us the element is "An element constraining behaviors invoked by nodes in the partition." That does not help. (Or maybe it does. I can't figure out what it wants to mean.) -- Constraints [3], [4], and [5] put some limits on the element in very special cases. --The text under Semantics prescribes some rules for the use of partitions. These rules cover only a few of the kinds of elements. No clue as to what the model would mean using other elements. Otherwise the partition can (quote) "represent" (unquote) any element. That's wrong. Vote no. Cordially, Joaquin PGP Fingerprint: CA23 6BCA ACAB 6006 E3C3 0E79 2122 94B4 E5FD 42C3 Typically this would be something representing a role in a process. Reply-To: From: "Conrad Bock" To: "Joaquin Miller" , "UML Superstructure FTF" Subject: RE: ,av, Issue 5269: vote no Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:09:41 -0500 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal Hi Joaquin, > The issues raised is that there is "no association for showing what a > Partition relates to." The discussion says "Partition related to > Element in UML 1.x and still does in UML 2." The proposed resolution > is: no change. > > It's true there is an association from Partition to Element. Yes, and that's all the issue asks for. The other material below is a separate set of issues that can't be read into 5269. You should file them. Conrad > -- The drawing permits any element. > -- The text under Associations tells us the element is "An element > constraining behaviors invoked by nodes in the partition." That > does not > help. (Or maybe it does. I can't figure out what it wants to mean.) > -- Constraints [3], [4], and [5] put some limits on the element in very > special cases. > --The text under Semantics prescribes some rules for the use of > partitions. These rules cover only a few of the kinds of elements. No > clue as to what the model would mean using other elements. > > Otherwise the partition can (quote) "represent" (unquote) any element. > > That's wrong. Vote no.