Issue 5825: Ch 3: p 56: paragraph "For example, a protocol "X" (uml-edoc-ftf) Source: (, ) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: 8. Ch 3: p 56: paragraph "For example, a protocol "X"…. a simple diagram will clarify Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: January 13, 2003: received issue Discussion: Resolution: Defer Rationale: It is to early in the document to introduce diagrams as the notation has not been introduced End of Annotations:===== This is issue # 5825 Ch 3: p 56: paragraph "For example, a protocol "X" 8. Ch 3: p 56: paragraph "For example, a protocol "X". a simple diagram will clarify Issue 5825: Ch 3: p 56: paragraph "For example, a protocol "X" (uml-edoc-ftf) Click here for this issue's archive. Source: Kinetium (Mr. Desmond D'Souza, .dsouza@kinetium.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: 8. Ch 3: p 56: paragraph "For example, a protocol "X". a simple diagram will clarify Resolution: Defer It is to early in the document to introduce diagrams as the notation has not been introduced. Revised Text: Actions taken: January 13, 2003: received issue From: Cory Casanave To: "'Pete Rivett'" , Keith Duddy Cc: uml-edoc-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: Ballot number 4 (with attachment) Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 11:13:36 -0400 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) re: > >Issue 5824: NO (it removes the classes but does not add the "2 associations to two distinguished ports" - and these will need to be properly documented not just added to the diagram) [cbc] I don't see any need for additional relationships. The protocol does not specify any roles to have relationships with, distinguishing ports would not be correct as these are not roles but interactions between roles. What I had in mind with these is the capability to "name the sides" of the protocol, a concept that matches ebXML. Never having implemented the concept I am OK to remove it. Since it is optional (0.1) it is mostly harmless so I have no strong feelings either way. Has anybody used these? re: > >Issue 5825: ABSTAIN (I don't really understand the resolution - if it's saying a diagram is inappropriate there then the category should be Reject not Defer). [cbc] It is valid that some clarification and work should be done here, thus ut is a valid issue even if the suggested resolution is not valid. I think we should call you "feet to the fire Pete"! -Cory > -----Original Message----- > From: Pete Rivett [SMTP:Pete.Rivett@adaptive.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 11:57 PM > To: Keith Duddy > Cc: uml-edoc-ftf@omg.org > Subject: RE: Ballot number 4 (with attachment) > > Here are my votes: > > > >Issue 5823: YES > > >Issue 5824: NO (it removes the classes but does not add the "2 > associations to two distinguished ports" - and these will need to be > properly documented not just added to the diagram) > > >Issue 5825: ABSTAIN (I don't really understand the resolution - if > it's saying a diagram is inappropriate there then the category should be > Reject not Defer). > > >Issue 5826: YES > > >Issue 5827: YES > > >Issue 5828: YES > > >Issue 5829: YES > > >Issue 5830: YES > > >Issue 5831: YES > > Pete Rivett (pete.rivett@adaptive.com) > Consulting Architect, Adaptive Inc. > 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 > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Keith Duddy [mailto:dud@dstc.edu.au] > > Sent: 17 April 2003 05:43 > > Cc: uml-edoc-ftf@omg.org > > Subject: Ballot number 4 (with attachment) > > > > > > > > oops - forgot the attachment... here it is. > > > > >Can you please vote within 2 weeks (ballot closes 1 May 2003) on the > > >resolutions to proposed to the following issues: > > > > > > --------------- > > > Voting Form (4) > > > --------------- > > >(Mark each Issue with YES, NO or ABSTAIN based on > > resolutions proposed > > >in attached document) > > > > > >Issue 5823: > > >Issue 5824: > > >Issue 5825: > > >Issue 5826: > > >Issue 5827: > > >Issue 5828: > > >Issue 5829: > > >Issue 5830: > > >Issue 5831: > > > > > > > > >|< > > >-- > > >[[[[========================================================= > > ========]] > > >]] > > >Keith Duddy : dud at dstc.edu.au : > > http://www.dstc.edu.au/AU/staff/dud > > > CRC for > > Enterprise Distributed Systems Technology (DSTC) > > > General Purpose South, University of Queensland, 4072, Australia > > > ph: +61 7 336 5 4310 :: fx: +61 7 336 5 4311 > > > DSTC is the Australian W3C Office > > >[[[[[[[[[[[[================================================= > > ]]]]]]]]]]]] > > > __..--^^ DSTC Hosts ^^--..__ > > > > > > EDOC 2003 Conference : http://edocconference.org > > >7th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object > > Computing Conference > > > Brisbane : Sept 16-19, 2003 > > >[[[[========================================================= > > ========]] > > >]] > > > > > > > > > > |< > > -- > > [[[[========================================================== > > =======]]]] > > Keith Duddy : dud at dstc.edu.au : > > http://www.dstc.edu.au/AU/staff/dud > > CRC for Enterprise > > Distributed Systems Technology (DSTC) > > General Purpose South, University of Queensland, 4072, Australia > > ph: +61 7 336 5 4310 :: fx: +61 7 336 5 4311 > > DSTC is the Australian W3C Office > > [[[[[[[[[[[[=================================================] > > ]]]]]]]]]]] > > __..--^^ DSTC Hosts ^^--..__ > > > > EDOC 2003 Conference : http://edocconference.org > > 7th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object > > Computing Conference > > Brisbane : Sept 16-19, 2003 > > [[[[========================================================== > > =======]]]] > > > > > > The information contained in this email and any attached files is > 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.