Issue 6083: More examples (uml2-rtf) Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. James J. Odell, email(at)jamesodell.com) Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor Summary: The Interaction chapter contains a number of examples, but there have been requests for even more examples especially on the different kinds of combined fragments (Section 14.3.1) Resolution: Disposition: Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF Revised Text: Actions taken: August 29, 2003: received issue Discussion: This is indeed a reasonable request and additional examples would indeed be helpful. However, since it is not a critical issue or an inconsistency in the spec itself, the issue is deferred to an RTF. End of Annotations:===== From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 28 Aug 2003 02:57:10 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Oystein Haugen Company: Ericsson mailFrom: oystein.haugen@ericsson.com Notification: Yes Specification: UML 2.0 Superstructure Section: 14.3.1 FormalNumber: ptc/03-08-02 Version: 2.0 RevisionDate: August 2003 Page: 409+ Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0) Description More examples The Interaction chapter contains a number of examples, but there have been requests for even more examples especially on the different kinds of combined fragments (Section 14.3.1) Reply-To: From: "Conrad Bock" To: Subject: RE: Ballot 8 draft is available for review! Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:38:01 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcnquaCJCLRejHoGTj29HMYNJrjy2ACXF99AACLT+RAAE56ksAAb+QKwABIlHkA= X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-ID: n5GHc6UD025196 X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-MailScanner-From: conrad.bock@nist.gov X-MailScanner-Watermark: 1245778687.69542@jv3RIoM3zTZkVF7BYGgCKQ X-Spam-Status: No Steve, > Since you feel so strongly, let's withdraw 8026 from ballot > 8 and leave it deferred. Thanks. > You say the other scope questions are agreed. What about > 11815 and 6083? I have not seen agreement there, and they > are still on the ballot. Hadn't heard back but these were my comments: Issue 11815 (Interaction Overview Diagram), as the resolution says, is just a misunderstanding that the Interaction Overview Diagram is stored on the activity model. It could be either clarified in the spec, or if the spec is clear enough already, closed as usual. It isn't a scoping issue. Issue 6083 (More examples) asks for more examples in the Interactions chapter, which are certainly needed. Since these are just clarifications in an area that needs it, they aren't out of scope. If there isn't enough time, they can be deferred. Originally reported by Jim Odell.