Issue 5731: Rule 6 of the Method element isn't formulated well (uml2-superstructure-ftf) Source: (, ) Nature: Revision Severity: Significant Summary: Rule 6 of the Method element isn't formulated well. It’s better to write so: “self.owner.allMethods->select( me | me.operation = self.operation).size = 1”. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: October 31, 2002: received issue March 9, 2005: closed issue Discussion: In UML 2.0, Method is modeled differently than in 1.x, so this issue is no longer applicable. Disposition: Closed, no change End of Annotations:===== From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 31 Oct 2002 07:50:06 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Nikolai Andreev Company: St. Petersburg State Technical University mailFrom: NAndreev@acm.org Notification: Yse. Specification: OMG Unified Modeling Language Specification Section: 2.5.3 FormalNumber: 01-09-67 Version: 1.4 RevisionDate: September 2001 Page: 2-62 Nature: Revision Severity: Significant HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windosw. NT 5.1) Description Rule 6 of the Method element isn't formulated well. It It Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 12:23:03 +0100 From: Guus Ramackers Organization: Oracle User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en, en-us To: Branislav Selic CC: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org, Barbara Price , Pete.Rivett@adaptive.com, "Bast, Wim" Subject: Re: Latest version of the Super FTF report (with proposed issue resolutions) Bran, Looks good. Well spotted re 5731. Ideally this should be posted on the superstructure website when it will be published for the group (instead of mailing). Thanks, Guus Branislav Selic wrote: Attached, please find a copy of the latest version of the FTF report. The changes reflect the agreed on handling of the resolutions from the "retired issues" proposal that was discussed during last Wednesday's telecon. We will commence an official vote to close these issues on Wednesday, October 1. (I apologize for not using change bars in the document, but there seems to be a problem in Word when this feature is used in conjunction with very large tables of contents. Hence, I decided to retain the table of contents, since it provides a convenient hyperlink to each individual issue. We may want to revisit this in the future.) There is a total of 44 issues that are to be retired (NB: the origial spreadsheet had only 43 items, but in updating this document, I discovered that we had somehow left out issue 5731, which also needs to be retired). Since the FTF report does not recognize categories such as "rejected", and "no longer applicable", all of these issues have been classified simply as "closed, no change" -- which is an official OMG term. They begin on page 241 of the report. For each of these issues, I have included a resolution text that explains why the problem can be closed. Please read this text since that is what we will be voting on. Regards, Bran Selic IBM Software Group -- Rational Software 770 Palladium Drive Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2V 1C8 ph. (613) 591-7915 fax (613) 599-3912 e-mail: bselic@ca.ibm.com -- _____________________________________________________________ Guus Ramackers Product Manager UML and Web Services Tools Oracle JDeveloper Tools group 520 Oracle Parkway, TVP Reading RG6 1RA, UK work: +44-(0)1189-245101 e-mail: guus.ramackers@oracle.com fax: +44-(0)1189-245148 Reply-To: Joaquin Miller X-Sender: joaquin%joaquin.net@pop3.joaquin.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 13:21:14 -0700 To: Juergen Boldt From: Joaquin Miller Subject: Fwd: issues 4455 and 5731 Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 09:21:58 -0700 To: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org From: Joaquin Miller Subject: issues 4455 and 5731 Guus wrote: Looks good. Well spotted re 5731. Regarding 5731: please see also 4455. There, we read "The concept of Method no longer exists as a metaclass in UML 2.0 ..." But 5731 tells us "In UML 2.0, Method is modeled differently than in 1.x ..." There is at least an editorial error there, if only in the capitalization of 'method' in 5731. I suggest, for both: Method is no longer a metaclass in UML 2.0 ... ............................................. If that is indeed the case, we have some OCL to fix, for example at 5.3.31 ReadSelfAction. And may have some text to fix, for example, at 5.3.1 AcceptCallAction. I'll leave it to the action not-a-language folks to file issues with proposed resolutions. There may also be problems in UML 2 Activity, for example at 6.4 Activity Constraints Operations I'll leave those to the Activity authors. And the EJB experts will want to look at Appendix C ... I hope folks don't mind being so careful with words as my comment above: "There is at least an editorial error there, if only in the capitalization of 'method' in the disposition of 5731." Cordially, Joaquin PGP Fingerprint: CA23 6BCA ACAB 6006 E3C3 0E79 2122 94B4 E5FD 42C3 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.]