Issue 5273: Initial state for composite states - OCL example and missing constraint (uml2-superstructure-ftf) Source: Adaptive (Mr. Pete Rivett, pete.rivett(at)adaptive.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: This issue was triggered by what seemed to be an ill-formed state machine example which revealed a deeper lack of rigor in the spec. The example state machine in section 6.5.10 (illustrating oclInState) does not have an initial pseudostate within the 'Off' state. Section 3.80.2 indicates that this is mandatory: "A transition drawn to a composite state boundary indicates a transition to the composite state. This is equivalent to a transition to the initial pseudostate within the composite state region. The initial pseudostate must be present." [Aside: There's also typo in the list of valid OCL expressions in 6.5.10: object.oclInState(Off:NoPower) should have a double colon: object.oclInState(Off::NoPower)]. If indeed it is mandatory to have an initial state where there is a transition to a composite state (this does seem sensible for predictability), this should be reflected in a constraint within the abstract Syntax (section 2.12) to the effect that a CompositeState with 'incoming' Transitions must contain an initial PseudoState. For example 2.12.4.3 contains the following which implies an initial pseudostate, though uses the ill-defined 'default transition' as well as 'initial transition': "Entering a non-concurrent composite state Upon entering a composite state, the following cases are differentiated: • Default entry: Graphically, this is indicated by an incoming transition that terminates on the outside edge of the composite state. In this case, the default transition is taken. If there is a guard on the transition it must be enabled (true). (A disabled initial transition is an ill-defined execution state and its handling is not defined.) The entry action of the state is executed before the action associated with the initial transition." Proposed Resolution ------------------- 1. Change example in 6.5.10 to add an initial pseudostate within the 'Off' composite with a transition to 'Standby'. 2. Correct typo in 6.5.10 valid expressions: object.oclInState(Off:NoPower) should have a double colon: object.oclInState(Off::NoPower) 3. Add the following constraint to section 2.12.3.1 [7] A composite state with an incoming transition must have an initial state. self.incoming->notEmpty() implies self.subvertex->select (v | v.oclIsKindOf(Pseudostate))->select(p : Pseudostate | p.kind = #initial)->size = 1 4. Alter the section in 2.12.4.3 to read as follows: "Entering a non-concurrent composite state Upon entering a composite state, the following cases are differentiated: • Default entry: Graphically, this is indicated by an incoming transition that terminates on the outside edge of the composite state. In this case, there must be an initial state and the initial transition is taken. If there is a guard on the transition it must be enabled (true). (A disabled initial transition is an ill-defined execution state and its handling is not defined.) The entry action of the state is executed before the action associated with the initial transition." Resolution: see above, resolved Revised Text: Actions taken: May 9, 2002: received issue March 8, 2005: closed issue Discussion: It is not always necessary for a composite state to have an initial pseudostate – this is implied in several places in the spec (e.g., pg. 470 and 478). However, what has not been clarified well in the spec is what happens when a transition terminates on the border of a composite state that does not have an initial pseudostate. So, the following changes need to be made: ?? On page 478, 5th paragraph (not counting titles), after the following sentence: Each region of a composite state may have an initial pseudostate and a final state. A transition to the enclosing state represents a transition to the initial pseudostate in each region. Add the following subsection: Semantic variation point (default entry rule) If a transition terminates on an enclosing state and the enclosed regions do not have an initial pseudostate, the interpretation of this situation is a semantic variation point. In some interpretations, this is considered an ill-formed model. That is, in those cases, the initial pseudostate is mandatory. An alternative interpretation allows this situation and it means that, when such a transition is taken, the state machine stays in the composite state without entering any of the regions or their substates. ?? On page 481, replace the phrase: the current active “state” is actually represented by a set of trees of states starting with the top-most states of the root regions down to individual simple states at the leaves. With the following phrase: the current active “state” is actually represented by a set of trees of states starting with the top-most states of the root regions down to innermost active state. ?? On page 481, replace the following sentence: In this case the default transition is taken. with the following sentence: In this case the default entry rule is applied (see “Semantic variation point (default entry)” on page 478) End of Annotations:===== From: "Pete Rivett" To: Cc: Subject: UML 1.4 issue: Initial state for composite states - OCL example and missing constraint Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 08:31:39 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal This issue was triggered by what seemed to be an ill-formed state machine example which revealed a deeper lack of rigor in the spec. The example state machine in section 6.5.10 (illustrating oclInState) does not have an initial pseudostate within the 'Off' state. Section 3.80.2 indicates that this is mandatory: "A transition drawn to a composite state boundary indicates a transition to the composite state. This is equivalent to a transition to the initial pseudostate within the composite state region. The initial pseudostate must be present." [Aside: There's also typo in the list of valid OCL expressions in 6.5.10: object.oclInState(Off:NoPower) should have a double colon: object.oclInState(Off::NoPower)]. If indeed it is mandatory to have an initial state where there is a transition to a composite state (this does seem sensible for predictability), this should be reflected in a constraint within the abstract Syntax (section 2.12) to the effect that a CompositeState with 'incoming' Transitions must contain an initial PseudoState. For example 2.12.4.3 contains the following which implies an initial pseudostate, though uses the ill-defined 'default transition' as well as 'initial transition': "Entering a non-concurrent composite state Upon entering a composite state, the following cases are differentiated: that terminates on the outside edge of the composite state. In this case, the default transition is taken. If there is a guard on the transition it must be enabled (true). (A disabled initial transition is an ill-defined execution state and its handling is not defined.) The entry action of the state is executed before the action associated with the initial transition." Proposed Resolution ------------------- 1. Change example in 6.5.10 to add an initial pseudostate within the 'Off' composite with a transition to 'Standby'. 2. Correct typo in 6.5.10 valid expressions: object.oclInState(Off:NoPower) should have a double colon: object.oclInState(Off::NoPower) 3. Add the following constraint to section 2.12.3.1 [7] A composite state with an incoming transition must have an initial state. self.incoming->notEmpty() implies self.subvertex->select (v | v.oclIsKindOf(Pseudostate))->select(p : Pseudostate | p.kind = #initial)->size = 1 4. Alter the section in 2.12.4.3 to read as follows: "Entering a non-concurrent composite state Upon entering a composite state, the following cases are differentiated: terminates on the outside edge of the composite state. In this case, there must be an initial state and the initial transition is taken. If there is a guard on the transition it must be enabled (true). (A disabled initial transition is an ill-defined execution state and its handling is not defined.) The entry action of the state is executed before the action associated with the initial transition." Pete Rivett (pete.rivett@adaptive.com) Chief Technology Officer, Adaptive Ltd Dean Park House, 8-10 Dean Park Crescent, Bournemouth, BH1 1HL, UK Tel: +44 (0)1202 449419 Fax: +44 (0)1202 449448 http://www.adaptive.com The information contained in this email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the addressee(s). The e-mail may be legally privileged or prohibited from disclosure and unauthorised use. If you are not the named addressee you may not use, copy or disclose this information to any other person. If you received this message in error please notify the sender immediately. Any views or opinions presented here may be solely those of the originator and do not necessarily reflect those of the Company. From: "Selic, Bran" To: "'Pete Rivett'" , issues@omg.org Cc: uml-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: UML 1.4 issue: Initial state for composite states - OCL examp le and missing constraint Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 08:59:07 -0400 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Trying to shed light on the matter raised by Pete: > This issue was triggered by what seemed to be an ill-formed > state machine > example which revealed a deeper lack of rigor in the spec. So what else is new? ;-) > The example state machine in section 6.5.10 (illustrating > oclInState) does > not have an initial pseudostate within the 'Off' state. Section > 3.80.2 > indicates that this is mandatory: > "A transition drawn to a composite state boundary indicates a > transition to > the > composite state. This is equivalent to a transition to the initial > pseudostate within the > composite state region. The initial pseudostate must be present." This is not actually correct and is the first thing that should be corrected. Although it is generally not advisable, it is possible for a composite state not to have an initial state. (In fact, you can actually end up being in a composite state without being in any of its contained states!). Therefore, the example in section 6.5.10 is not ill-formed. However, it is not a very good example, since it means that none of its inner states can ever be reached. But, even this is not necessarily wrong: this is the kind of thing one could do in an abstract class with the intent that the missing transitions to the inner states will be added in a subclass. Nonetheless, I would fix this example to make it less confusing by showing the transition from the On state going directly to the Standby state (for example). Bran OMG Issue No: 5273 Title: Initial state for composite states - OCL example and missing constraint Source: Adaptive Ltd. (Mr. Pete Rivett, pete.rivett@adaptive.com) Summary: This issue was triggered by what seemed to be an ill-formed state machine example which revealed a deeper lack of rigor in the spec. The example state machine in section 6.5.10 (illustrating oclInState) does not have an initial pseudostate within the 'Off' state. Section 3.80.2 indicates that this is mandatory: "A transition drawn to a composite state boundary indicates a transition to the composite state. This is equivalent to a transition to the initial pseudostate within the composite state region. The initial pseudostate must be present." [Aside: There's also typo in the list of valid OCL expressions in 6.5.10: object.oclInState(Off:NoPower) should have a double colon: object.oclInState(Off::NoPower)]. If indeed it is mandatory to have an initial state where there is a transition to a composite state (this does seem sensible for predictability), this should be reflected in a constraint within the abstract Syntax (section 2.12) to the effect that a CompositeState with 'incoming' Transitions must contain an initial PseudoState. For example 2.12.4.3 contains the following which implies an initial pseudostate, though uses the ill-defined 'default transition' as well as 'initial transition': "Entering a non-concurrent composite state Upon entering a composite state, the following cases are differentiated: . Default entry: Graphically, this is indicated by an incoming transition that terminates on the outside edge of the composite state. In this case, the default transition is taken. If there is a guard on the transition it must be enabled (true). (A disabled initial transition is an ill-defined execution state and its handling is not defined.) The entry action of the state is executed before the action associated with the initial transition." Proposed Resolution ------------------- 1. Change example in 6.5.10 to add an initial pseudostate within the 'Off' composite with a transition to 'Standby'. 2. Correct typo in 6.5.10 valid expressions: object.oclInState(Off:NoPower) should have a double colon: object.oclInState(Off::NoPower) 3. Add the following constraint to section 2.12.3.1 [7] A composite state with an incoming transition must have an initial state. self.incoming->notEmpty() implies self.subvertex->select (v | v.oclIsKindOf(Pseudostate))->select(p : Pseudostate | p.kind = #initial)->size = 1 4. Alter the section in 2.12.4.3 to read as follows: "Entering a non-concurrent composite state Upon entering a composite state, the following cases are differentiated: . Default entry: Graphically, this is indicated by an incoming transition that terminates on the outside edge of the composite state. In this case, there must be an initial state and the initial transition is taken. If there is a guard on the transition it must be enabled (true). (A disabled initial transition is an ill-defined execution state and its handling is not defined.) The entry action of the state is executed before the action associated with the initial transition." Discussion: {IF APPLICABLE - Summary of how the issue was proposed to be resolved and/or why it wasn't} Disposition: Unresolved Subject: Issue 5273 of Ballot 13 Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 07:55:53 -0400 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Issue 5273 of Ballot 13 Thread-Index: AcQxYd/cTfllVO9mQH2m5QPhxEi6IAAasLbA From: "Karl Frank" To: "Branislav Selic" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 May 2004 12:53:22.0481 (UTC) FILETIME=[C833B210:01C431D6] The proposed resolution for this is inadequate. The discussion states: A transition drawn to the boundary of such a state means that the transition ends on the composite state, but does not actually enter any sub-state. This is a valid situation. This point has been clarified in UML 2.0. Without citing where this is clarified in the UML 2 spec, this discussion is handwaving. I look forward to learning where it is clarified, and look forward to the resolution removing statements that are inconsistent with that clarification. There are many such, for example. The final adopted spec (page 478 as printed) states the following, (under "Composite State) which clearly implies that there will be an intial pseudostate in each region. "A transition to the enclosing state represents a transition to the intial pseudostate in each region." This implies that the initial pseudostate is mandatory. At the least, the resolution should include rewriting out such apparent contraditions, and stating simply that the initial pseudostate is optional. - Karl -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Branislav Selic [mailto:bselic@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, 03 May, 2004 6:54 PM To: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: Ballot 13 : resend in case you did not receive it I sent out ballot 13 on Friday morning, but some people have told me that they have not received it yet. So, here it is again. Cheers, Bran To: "Karl Frank" Cc: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: Issue 5273 of Ballot 13 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.2CF1 June 9, 2003 From: Branislav Selic Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 08:34:19 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML01/25/M/IBM(Release 6.0.2CF1|June 9, 2003) at 05/05/2004 08:34:22, Serialize complete at 05/05/2004 08:34:22 Karl, There are at least 3 places where it is clearly stated that a composite state does not have to have an initial transition (pg. 470, 476, and 478). However, you are correct in saying that the semantics of a transition terminating on the composite state are not explained in the spec. I recall that we had discussed it and agreed on the meaning -- but it seems that conclusion never found its way into the text. These clarifications should be added in at least two places: for composite states and also for submachine states. So, I agree with you and withdraw the proposed resolution to issue 5273 from the ballot, so that these statements can be added. Apologies to all. Thanks, Bran "Karl Frank" 05/04/2004 07:55 AM To Branislav Selic/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA, cc Subject Issue 5273 of Ballot 13 The proposed resolution for this is inadequate. The discussion states: A transition drawn to the boundary of such a state means that the transition ends on the composite state, but does not actually enter any sub-state. This is a valid situation. This point has been clarified in UML 2.0. Without citing where this is clarified in the UML 2 spec, this discussion is handwaving. I look forward to learning where it is clarified, and look forward to the resolution removing statements that are inconsistent with that clarification. There are many such, for example. The final adopted spec (page 478 as printed) states the following, (under "Composite State) which clearly implies that there will be an intial pseudostate in each region. "A transition to the enclosing state represents a transition to the intial pseudostate in each region." This implies that the initial pseudostate is mandatory. At the least, the resolution should include rewriting out such apparent contraditions, and stating simply that the initial pseudostate is optional. - Karl -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Branislav Selic [mailto:bselic@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, 03 May, 2004 6:54 PM To: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: Ballot 13 : resend in case you did not receive it I sent out ballot 13 on Friday morning, but some people have told me that they have not received it yet. So, here it is again. Cheers, Bran To: "Karl Frank" Cc: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: Resolution to issue 5273 withdrawn from ballot 13 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.2CF1 June 9, 2003 From: Branislav Selic Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 10:06:45 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML01/25/M/IBM(Release 6.0.2CF1|June 9, 2003) at 05/05/2004 10:06:46, Serialize complete at 05/05/2004 10:06:46 Karl, The text already says what your proposal says, so I don't see that it fixes anything. The problem is that the text needs to state explicitly what happens if there is no initial state in a composite state and a transition terminates on it. That needs to be clarified, and it needs to be done for both the composite state and the submachine state cases. In principle, I want to avoid pulling and re-inserting proposals from a ballot -- people will no longer know what they are voting for (or have voted for). I will resubmit the resolution for ballot 14. Thanks, Bran "Karl Frank" 05/05/2004 09:55 AM To Branislav Selic/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA, cc Subject RE: Resolution to issue 5273 withdrawn from ballot 13 Bran, can we put it back with a simple change, which I propose below? Resolution: Change the text for Composite State on page 468 (as FAS is printed), which now reads: Each region of a composite state may have an initial pseudostate and a final state. A transition to the enclosing state represents a transition to the initial pseudostate in each region. New Text: Each region of a composite state may optionally have an intial pseudostate and/or a final psuedostate. For composite states with regions containing initial pseudostates, a transition to the composite state represents a transition to that initial pseudostate. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Branislav Selic [mailto:bselic@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, 05 May, 2004 8:42 AM To: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: Resolution to issue 5273 withdrawn from ballot 13 This is just to warn those who did not follow the recent discussion that the resolution to issue 5273 has been withdrawn from ballot 13. It related to a state machine issue and needs further clarification. From: "Eran Gery" To: "'Branislav Selic'" Cc: Subject: RE: Draft of ballot 14 Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 17:18:34 +0300 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Bran The point is that I basically agree with Pete's proposal/point. In your resolution you say It is not always necessary for a composite state to have an initial pseudostate . this is stated clearly in several places in the spec (e.g., pg. 470 and 478). This is true, and Pete is saying it is necessary in case you have an incoming transition, not in all cases. You are essentially saying it is NEVER necessary. I object to the clarification you add implies execution semantics which is not implied anywhere else in the spec. "If the region does not have an initial pseudostate, the transition simply terminates on the composite state enclosing the region, without entering any substates of the composite state. Even if I am willing to accept this as a semantic variation point (at most), we need to properly look in the text as I recall the execution semantics text states that runtime state configuration must always go all the way down to the leaf (atomic) states. So I see 2 choices: 1. Accept Pete's proposal 2. Define what you propose as a semantic variation point In any case we'll need more time for this. Thanks Eran -----Original Message----- From: Branislav Selic [mailto:bselic@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 4:40 PM To: Eran Gery Cc: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: Draft of ballot 14 Eran, I can remove this, but there is no change at all implied by this fix. This is just a clarification. I most definitely recall the discussion that you, Birger, and I had on this topic and also that we had agreed on it. I recall it so well because I explicitly raised the issue so that we were clear on it. Are you perhaps msireading the resolution? How would you formulate it? Bran "Eran Gery" 05/14/2004 09:32 AM To Branislav Selic/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc Subject RE: Draft of ballot 14 Bran Please remove 5273 from ballot 14. I'd like to have more discussion on this. To me this makes a fundamental change in the execution of statemachines (statecharts). This is to me a highly controversial thing. Thanks Eran -----Original Message----- From: Branislav Selic [mailto:bselic@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 12:47 AM To: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Cc: mu2i-ftf@omg.org; ocl2-ftf@omg.org Subject: Draft of ballot 14 There was a lot of discussion on certain issues and I am not sure I caught all of them since my e-mail connections have been very sporadic. So, please review the proposed issues resolutions in this draft ballot and tell me if you agree. The previously proposed resolutions that I have pulled from the ballot to date are: 6077 - due to objections by Jim R 6465 and 6975 because they are dependent on the resolution of 6077 6146 - due to objections by Conrad Remember that the ballot will go out on Friday. So, please send me your input by tomorrow at the latest (I'm travelling on Friday and will have to post the ballot a bit earlier than usual). Thanks, Bran Selic IBM Distinguished Engineer IBM Rational Software 770 Palladium Drive Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2V 1C8 ph.: (613) 591-7915 fax: (613) 599-3912 e-mail: bselic@ca.ibm.com From: "Eran Gery" To: "'Branislav Selic'" Cc: Subject: RE: Draft of ballot 14 Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 19:28:03 +0300 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Bran This is taken from the spec (Page 481). Except during transition execution, the following invariants always apply to state configurations: . If a composite state is active and not orthogonal, exactly one of its substates is active. This is clearly in contradiction with what you proposed. So as I said the current text relies on this invariant. Eran -----Original Message----- From: Branislav Selic [mailto:bselic@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 4:40 PM To: Eran Gery Cc: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: Draft of ballot 14 Eran, I can remove this, but there is no change at all implied by this fix. This is just a clarification. I most definitely recall the discussion that you, Birger, and I had on this topic and also that we had agreed on it. I recall it so well because I explicitly raised the issue so that we were clear on it. Are you perhaps msireading the resolution? How would you formulate it? Bran "Eran Gery" 05/14/2004 09:32 AM To Branislav Selic/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc Subject RE: Draft of ballot 14 Bran Please remove 5273 from ballot 14. I'd like to have more discussion on this. To me this makes a fundamental change in the execution of statemachines (statecharts). This is to me a highly controversial thing. Thanks Eran -----Original Message----- From: Branislav Selic [mailto:bselic@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 12:47 AM To: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Cc: mu2i-ftf@omg.org; ocl2-ftf@omg.org Subject: Draft of ballot 14 There was a lot of discussion on certain issues and I am not sure I caught all of them since my e-mail connections have been very sporadic. So, please review the proposed issues resolutions in this draft ballot and tell me if you agree. The previously proposed resolutions that I have pulled from the ballot to date are: 6077 - due to objections by Jim R 6465 and 6975 because they are dependent on the resolution of 6077 6146 - due to objections by Conrad Remember that the ballot will go out on Friday. So, please send me your input by tomorrow at the latest (I'm travelling on Friday and will have to post the ballot a bit earlier than usual). Thanks, Bran Selic IBM Distinguished Engineer IBM Rational Software 770 Palladium Drive Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2V 1C8 ph.: (613) 591-7915 fax: (613) 599-3912 e-mail: bselic@ca.ibm.com Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 18:46:19 +0200 From: Birger Møller-Pedersen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: Draft of ballot 14 X-MailScanner-Information: This message has been scanned for viruses/spam. Contact postmaster@uio.no if you have questions about this scanning X-UiO-MailScanner: No virus found X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-3.346, required 12, HTML_30_40 0.81, HTML_FONTCOLOR_BLUE 0.10, HTML_FONTCOLOR_UNKNOWN 0.10, HTML_MESSAGE 0.00, HTML_TAG_EXISTS_TBODY 0.10, HTML_TITLE_EMPTY 0.54, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL -5.00) I must say that I have a problem in understading what ' ... simply terminates on the composite state enclosing the region ...' in the proposed resolution means. What does it mean to terminate on a state? This is not the the terminnology used in the the rest of the text, and in fact you cannot be in a composite state without being in one of its substate. /birger Eran Gery wrote: Bran This is taken from the spec (Page 481). Except during transition execution, the following invariants always apply to state configurations: . If a composite state is active and not orthogonal, exactly one of its substates is active. This is clearly in contradiction with what you proposed. So as I said the current text relies on this invariant. Eran -----Original Message----- From: Branislav Selic [mailto:bselic@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 4:40 PM To: Eran Gery Cc: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: Draft of ballot 14 Eran, I can remove this, but there is no change at all implied by this fix. This is just a clarification. I most definitely recall the discussion that you, Birger, and I had on this topic and also that we had agreed on it. I recall it so well because I explicitly raised the issue so that we were clear on it. Are you perhaps msireading the resolution? How would you formulate it? Bran "Eran Gery" 05/14/2004 09:32 AM To Branislav Selic/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc Subject RE: Draft of ballot 14 Bran Please remove 5273 from ballot 14. I'd like to have more discussion on this. To me this makes a fundamental change in the execution of statemachines (statecharts). This is to me a highly controversial thing. Thanks Eran -----Original Message----- From: Branislav Selic [mailto:bselic@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 12:47 AM To: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Cc: mu2i-ftf@omg.org; ocl2-ftf@omg.org Subject: Draft of ballot 14 There was a lot of discussion on certain issues and I am not sure I caught all of them since my e-mail connections have been very sporadic. So, please review the proposed issues resolutions in this draft ballot and tell me if you agree. The previously proposed resolutions that I have pulled from the ballot to date are: 6077 - due to objections by Jim R 6465 and 6975 because they are dependent on the resolution of 6077 6146 - due to objections by Conrad Remember that the ballot will go out on Friday. So, please send me your input by tomorrow at the latest (I'm travelling on Friday and will have to post the ballot a bit earlier than usual). Thanks, Bran Selic IBM Distinguished Engineer IBM Rational Software 770 Palladium Drive Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2V 1C8 ph.: (613) 591-7915 fax: (613) 599-3912 e-mail: bselic@ca.ibm.com -- Birger Møller-Pedersen Department of Informatics, University of Oslo P.O. Box 1080 Blindern N-0316 Oslo, Norway Tel: +47 22 85 24 37 (office) Tel: +47 918 27 27 9 (mobile) http://folk.uio.no/birger Bran