Issue 5745: Inconsistency regarding guards on forks (uml2-superstructure-ftf) Source: Adaptive (Mr. Pete Rivett, pete.rivett(at)adaptive.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: This applies to UML 1.4.1. ad/02-06-05. There seems inconsistency as to whether forks can have guards. The notation, section 3.9.4, states: "In Activity Diagrams, transitions outgoing from forks may have guards. This means the region initiated by a fork transition might not start, and therefore is not required to complete at the corresponding join. The usual notation and mapping for guards may be used on the transition outgoing from a fork." However this seems contradicted by Section 2.12.2.7, PseudoState, which states: "fork vertices serve to split an incoming transition into two or more transitions terminating on orthogonal target vertices. The segments outgoing from a fork vertex must not have guards." Is this a real inconsistency or do activity diagrams really override the constraint on Pseudostates in State Machines? Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: November 1, 2002: received issue March 9, 2005: closed issue Discussion: Since activities are no longer a specialization of state machines in UML 2.0, this issue is no longer relevant. Disposition: Closed, no change End of Annotations:===== Subject: Inconsistency regarding guards on forks Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 16:57:45 -0000 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Inconsistency regarding guards on forks Thread-Index: AcKAQbwUP6maU0V6Tbe7bpdvoeufcAAiD6eQ From: "Pete Rivett" To: Cc: This applies to UML 1.4.1. ad/02-06-05. There seems inconsistency as to whether forks can have guards. The notation, section 3.9.4, states: "In Activity Diagrams, transitions outgoing from forks may have guards. This means the region initiated by a fork transition might not start, and therefore is not required to complete at the corresponding join. The usual notation and mapping for guards may be used on the transition outgoing from a fork." However this seems contradicted by Section 2.12.2.7, PseudoState, which states: "fork vertices serve to split an incoming transition into two or more transitions terminating on orthogonal target vertices. The segments outgoing from a fork vertex must not have guards." Is this a real inconsistency or do activity diagrams really override the constraint on Pseudostates in State Machines? Regards Pete 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. Reply-To: From: "Conrad Bock" To: "Pete Rivett" Cc: Subject: RE: Inconsistency regarding guards on forks Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 13:14:38 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.21 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) Hi Pete, > This applies to UML 1.4.1. ad/02-06-05. There seems inconsistency as to whether forks can have guards. The mapping from activities to state machines is on page 2-186 (ad/01-09-67). There is some looseness in the relation of AG to SM in 1.4. For example, AG's allow unstructured graphs, as long as they can be mapped to structured ones as required by the underlying state machine semantics. Conrad