Issue 6156: Kernel::Classifier missing "attribute" (uml2-superstructure-ftf) Source: NIST (Dr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov) Nature: Revision Severity: Significant Summary: Kernel::Classifier lists the feature "attribute", and gives semantics and notation, that isn't shown in the abstract syntax for Kernel::Classifier. There isn't an "attribute" in the MDL file. Kernel::Classes abstract syntax refers to "attribute" in the subsetting of ownedAttribute. Resolution: see above Revised Text: Actions taken: August 30, 2003: received issue March 8, 2005: closed issue Discussion: In the Superstructure, the notation section for Classifiers will be re-written to indicate that the standard allows the use of notation of the rectangle for any kind of Classifier, at the discretion of the users. Ommissions from the text and the diagram will be corrected. In the Infrastructure, to keep it in line with the superstructure, the Associations subsection will be corrected by the addition of the slash to properly indicate the derived status of Classifier.attribute. Background For reference:: Section 7.8.1 of the FAS, on page 62 (as printed) lists attribute as the first association of Classifier. Note that a slash is missing. The diagram Figure 22 for the abstract syntax for Kernell::Classifier is shown next, and the issue is correct, the Association to Property, a metaassociation in which the Property has the rolename ‘attribute’ is missing. Changes to the Superstructure metamodel and figures: UML 2.0 Superstructure FTF Disposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: 6156 Document {Report document number} Page 159 Add a directed association from Classifier to Property, rolenamed ‘attribute’ prefixed with ‘/’ to indicate derived, in Figure 22, so it matches in this respect, with Figure 33. . Changes to the text of both Superstructure and Infrastructure: Prefix the slash character to ‘attribute’ to indicate derived status in the following text from the Associations heading under Classifier sections /attribute : Property [*] The current FAS Superstructure text concerning Attribute notation begins as follows: Changes to the Notation section of Superstructure This paragraph shall have the following inserted at the very beginning: Classifier is an abstract model element, and so properly speaking has no notation. It is nevertheless convenient to define in one place a default notation available for any concrete subclass of Classifier for which this notation is suitable. End of Annotations:===== Name: Conrad Bock Company: NIST mailFrom: conrad.bock@nist.gov Nature: Revision Severity: Significant Subject: Kernel::Classifier missing "attribute" Kernel::Classifier lists the feature "attribute", and gives semantics and notation, that isn't shown in the abstract syntax for Kernel::Classifier. There isn't an "attribute" in the MDL file. Kernel::Classes abstract syntax refers to "attribute" in the subsetting Reply-To: Joaquin Miller X-Sender: jm-omg@sbcglobal.net@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 10:58:05 -0700 To: UML Superstructure FTF , MOF UML Infrastructure FTF From: Joaquin Miller Subject: ,cl, Issue 6156 Re: Proposed Classifier Attribute resolutions for Ballot 18 I have a question, raised by issue 6156; i'll express it as several questions: What is 'owned' in the rolename, 'ownedAttribute' intended to convey? Which are the attributes that are not owned? What other kinds of attributes are there? Cordially, Joaquin Reply-To: Joaquin Miller X-Sender: jm-omg@sbcglobal.net@pop.sbcglobal.yahoo.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 13:31:53 -0700 To: UML Superstructure FTF , MOF UML Infrastructure FTF From: Joaquin Miller Subject: ,cl, Issue 6156 RE: Proposed Classifier Attribute resolutions for Ballot 18 Issue 6156 was filed due to my mistaking the separate diagrams in the Classes chapter for separate packages. Since they're in the same package, /attribute is just a derived union for the subtypes, which is why it doesn't show up in the MDL file. I think this can be closed with no change. There might be some problems with closing this no change: 4. The association Classifier.attribute does not show on figure 22. 3. It is not marked as derived in the text. 2. How it is derived is not specified. And the number one problem: 1. There is an unexplained difference between the infrastructure and the reuse of the infrastructure by the superstructure. Cordially, Joaquin To: Joaquin Miller Cc: MOF UML Infrastructure FTF , UML Superstructure FTF Subject: Re: ,cl, Issue 6156 RE: Proposed Classifier Attribute resolutions for Ballot 18 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.2CF1 June 9, 2003 From: Branislav Selic Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 17:29:45 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML01/25/M/IBM(Release 6.0.2CF2|July 23, 2003) at 07/06/2004 17:29:48, Serialize complete at 07/06/2004 17:29:48 Joaquin Miller wrote on 07/06/2004 04:31:53 PM: > 1. There is an unexplained difference between the infrastructure and the > reuse of the infrastructure by the superstructure. I believe that this is a bug. In the metamodel itself, "attribute" is derived (it has to be, it's a union). This is probably because whoever wrote te text used the wrong version of the metamodel. Thanks for spotting this. This should be fixed independently of any other issue. Thanks for spotting this, Joquin. Bran Subject: Proposed Classifier Attribute resolutions for Ballot 18 Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 09:29:05 -0700 X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Proposed Classifier Attribute resolutions for Ballot 18 Thread-Index: AcRhYEpFYuDWFJC3TZWPyef6e5HUtQCFQSVw From: "Karl Frank" To: "Branislav Selic" , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jul 2004 16:29:23.0262 (UTC) FILETIME=[65742DE0:01C46376] The two issues addressed in the attached are VERY BIG ISSUES and need the attention of other eyes. A difficulty in deciding whether the proposed resolution will cause problems is that there is no indication in the superstructure FAS as to WHY someone changed the metamodel of the Infrastructure, wrt attributes, so there is no record of what problem will be caused by fixing an inconsistency by reverting back to the infrastructure metamodel. There are 646 usages of "attribute" in the Superstructure FAS and I have exhausted my patience in trying to read them all, in an attempt to see what new problems the proposed resolution may cause. - Karl OMG Issue No: 6156 2 OMG Issue No: 6158 7 OMG Issue No: 6156 Title: Kernel::Classifier missing "attribute" Source: Kabira Technologies, Inc. (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock@nist.gov) Summary: Kernel::Classifier lists the feature "attribute", and gives semantics and notation, that isn't shown in the abstract syntax for Kernel::Classifier. There isn't an "attribute" in the MDL file. Kernel::Classes abstract syntax refers to "attribute" in the subsetting of ownedAttribute. Discussion: A big question is raised by this issue: whether attribute shall be placed in the metamodel as a role for Property in association with Classifier (section 7.8), an association role which is subsequently subsetted to define the ownedAttribute role for Property in association with Class, or only with Class.(section 7.11). The Infrastructure FAS makes it clear that there is no attribute as a role for Property in association with Classifier there is in the Infrastructure only an ownedAttribute role for Property in association with Class. The text for Classifier and for Class, and the abstract syntax diagrams Figures 22 and 33 tell a confusing story in the Superstructrue FAS. There seem to be survivals of competing theories remaining side-by-side in the Superstructure FAS, according to one, Classifiers in general have attributes, and according to the other theory, Classifiers in general have features, not attributes, and only Classes have attributes. The resolution proposed here will make the Superstructure FAS consistent by siding with the view (of the infrastructure) that Classifiers in general have features, not attributes, and only Classes have attributes, although these are officially named .ownedAttributes. and are roles for properties, not a distinct modeling element called .attribute.. Background The current FAS differentiates attribute and ownedAttribute, such that attribute is a role for a Property in a .peer to peer. directed binary association from Classifier to Property, while ownedAttribute is a role for a property in a composition association from Class to Property. To make matters more confusing, the FAS text for Class uses the term .attribute. (not .ownedAttribute.) frequently in describing and defining Class, but never uses this term in describing or defining Classifier. This is confusing because the Associations for Class are consistently named .ownedAttribute. For reference:: Section 7.8.1 of the FAS, on page 62 (as printed) lists attribute as the first association of Classifier: The diagram Figure 22 for the abstract syntax for Kernell::Classifier is shown next, and the issue is correct, the Association to Property, a metaassociation in which the Property has the rolename .attribute. is missing. Oddly the diagram Figure 30 for section 7.11 Classes does show the missing association to Property. This is odd because It is a bug if the mdl file is missing attribute, how could the diagram including attribute be produced? This diagram Figure 30 showing attribute, is reproduced below. To make it legible, here is a blowup of Figure 30: . It seems odd that attribute is used in the very definition of Class and yet the concept of attribute and its notation is introduced and discussed extensively, not under Class, but under Classifier, To suggest that attribute might better belongs with Class (as it does in the infrastructure), we note the following from superstructure section 7.11.3 Changes to the metamodel and figures: Remove the directed association from Classifier to Property, rolenamed .attribute. from Figure 33. Remove the notation .subsets attribute. from the composition from Class to Property with rolename .ownedAttribute. and replace it with .subsets feature.. Move figures 23 and 24 to section 7.11.3 Changes to the text: Remove the following text from the Associations heading under section 7.8.1 attribute : Property [*] Move the text concerning Attribute Notation from the Classifiers section to the Class section. The text concerning Attribute notation is as follows: Move the Style guidelines and examples for Attributes from the Classifiers section to the Classes section. The Style guidelines and examples for Attributes are as follows: Disposition: Resolved To: "Karl Frank" Cc: "Branislav Selic" , mu2i-ftf@omg.org, uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: Proposed Classifier Attribute resolutions for Ballot 18 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.1CF1 March 04, 2003 From: Kenneth Hussey Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 13:51:04 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML06/25/M/IBM(Release 6.0.2CF1|June 9, 2003) at 07/06/2004 13:50:47, Serialize complete at 07/06/2004 13:50:47 Karl, Please note that Class is not the only metaclass that defines a property (i.e. ownedAttribute) that subsets Classifier::attribute; the others are Artifact, Collaboration, DataType, Interface, Signal, and StructuredClassifier. Indeed, it seems to me that the general concept of attributes was intended to apply not only to classes, but to other classifiers in Superstructure, so I'm not sure it's safe to remove the Classifier::attribute derived union after all... Cheers, Kenn Hussey Eclipse UML2 Project Lead Rational Software, IBM Software Group 770 Palladium Drive Kanata, Ontario, K2V 1C8 T: (613) 599-3980 F: (613) 599-3912 "Karl Frank" 07/06/2004 12:29 PM To Branislav Selic/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA, , cc Subject Proposed Classifier Attribute resolutions for Ballot 18 The two issues addressed in the attached are VERY BIG ISSUES and need the attention of other eyes. A difficulty in deciding whether the proposed resolution will cause problems is that there is no indication in the superstructure FAS as to WHY someone changed the metamodel of the Infrastructure, wrt attributes, so there is no record of what problem will be caused by fixing an inconsistency by reverting back to the infrastructure metamodel. There are 646 usages of "attribute" in the Superstructure FAS and I have exhausted my patience in trying to read them all, in an attempt to see what new problems the proposed resolution may cause. - Karl[attachment "Issues_6156_6158_for_ballot18.doc" deleted by Kenneth Hussey/Ottawa/IBM] Subject: RE: Proposed Classifier Attribute resolutions for Ballot 18 Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 10:58:27 -0700 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Proposed Classifier Attribute resolutions for Ballot 18 Thread-Index: AcRjgYK6lSEjpMtXT8ubsftozbDPtgAAJ0xg From: "Karl Frank" To: "Kenneth Hussey" Cc: "Branislav Selic" , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jul 2004 17:58:34.0850 (UTC) FILETIME=[DB3FB420:01C46382] Thanks Ken, then should we 1. promote the ownedAttribute composition up the inheritance hierarchy to Classifier? so it is merely inherited by Class? 2. remove the text from the Class section which DEFINES class as a classifier that has Attributes 3. what about the notation section which now appears only in the Classifier section (and yet only has examples of CLASSES!) - Karl -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Hussey [mailto:khussey@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, 06 July, 2004 1:51 PM To: Karl Frank Cc: Branislav Selic; mu2i-ftf@omg.org; uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: Proposed Classifier Attribute resolutions for Ballot 18 Karl, Please note that Class is not the only metaclass that defines a property (i.e. ownedAttribute) that subsets Classifier::attribute; the others are Artifact, Collaboration, DataType, Interface, Signal, and StructuredClassifier. Indeed, it seems to me that the general concept of attributes was intended to apply not only to classes, but to other classifiers in Superstructure, so I'm not sure it's safe to remove the Classifier::attribute derived union after all... Cheers, Kenn Hussey Eclipse UML2 Project Lead Rational Software, IBM Software Group 770 Palladium Drive Kanata, Ontario, K2V 1C8 T: (613) 599-3980 F: (613) 599-3912 "Karl Frank" 07/06/2004 12:29 PM To Branislav Selic/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA, , cc Subject Proposed Classifier Attribute resolutions for Ballot 18 The two issues addressed in the attached are VERY BIG ISSUES and need the attention of other eyes. A difficulty in deciding whether the proposed resolution will cause problems is that there is no indication in the superstructure FAS as to WHY someone changed the metamodel of the Infrastructure, wrt attributes, so there is no record of what problem will be caused by fixing an inconsistency by reverting back to the infrastructure metamodel. There are 646 usages of "attribute" in the Superstructure FAS and I have exhausted my patience in trying to read them all, in an attempt to see what new problems the proposed resolution may cause. - Karl[attachment "Issues_6156_6158_for_ballot18.doc" deleted by Kenneth Hussey/Ottawa/IBM] To: "Karl Frank" Cc: "Branislav Selic" , "Kenneth Hussey" , mu2i-ftf@omg.org, uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: Proposed Classifier Attribute resolutions for Ballot 18 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.2CF2 July 23, 2003 From: Jim Amsden Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 14:31:37 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM119/03/M/IBM(Release 6.51HF262 | May 19, 2004) at 07/06/2004 12:31:39, Serialize complete at 07/06/2004 12:31:39 See below. "Karl Frank" 07/06/2004 01:58 PM To "Kenneth Hussey" cc "Branislav Selic" , , Subject RE: Proposed Classifier Attribute resolutions for Ballot 18 Thanks Ken, then should we 1. promote the ownedAttribute composition up the inheritance hierarchy to Classifier? so it is merely inherited by Class? no because it already subsets derived union Classifier::attribute. What's missing is Class::ownedAttribute (and perhaps other "attributes" needs to subset Classivier::feature too? 2. remove the text from the Class section which DEFINES class as a classifier that has Attributes This is using the more specific idea of attribute, something that defines an identifiable characteristic of a class that is included in its state. The class actually has Properties which are contributed to the Classifier::attribute derived union. Other metaclasses may have a different idea about what its attributes mean. 3. what about the notation section which now appears only in the Classifier section (and yet only has examples of CLASSES!) Examples of other "attributes" are included in their specific sections. It wouldn't hurt to add another example in the Classifier section just to indicate there are other kinds of attributes contributed by other metaclasses. - Karl -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Hussey [mailto:khussey@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, 06 July, 2004 1:51 PM To: Karl Frank Cc: Branislav Selic; mu2i-ftf@omg.org; uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: Proposed Classifier Attribute resolutions for Ballot 18 Karl, Please note that Class is not the only metaclass that defines a property (i.e. ownedAttribute) that subsets Classifier::attribute; the others are Artifact, Collaboration, DataType, Interface, Signal, and StructuredClassifier. Indeed, it seems to me that the general concept of attributes was intended to apply not only to classes, but to other classifiers in Superstructure, so I'm not sure it's safe to remove the Classifier::attribute derived union after all... Cheers, Kenn Hussey Eclipse UML2 Project Lead Rational Software, IBM Software Group 770 Palladium Drive Kanata, Ontario, K2V 1C8 T: (613) 599-3980 F: (613) 599-3912 "Karl Frank" 07/06/2004 12:29 PM To Branislav Selic/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA, , cc Subject Proposed Classifier Attribute resolutions for Ballot 18 The two issues addressed in the attached are VERY BIG ISSUES and need the attention of other eyes. A difficulty in deciding whether the proposed resolution will cause problems is that there is no indication in the superstructure FAS as to WHY someone changed the metamodel of the Infrastructure, wrt attributes, so there is no record of what problem will be caused by fixing an inconsistency by reverting back to the infrastructure metamodel. There are 646 usages of "attribute" in the Superstructure FAS and I have exhausted my patience in trying to read them all, in an attempt to see what new problems the proposed resolution may cause. - Karl[attachment "Issues_6156_6158_for_ballot18.doc" deleted by Kenneth Hussey/Ottawa/IBM] Reply-To: From: "Conrad Bock" To: , Subject: RE: Proposed Classifier Attribute resolutions for Ballot 18 Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 15:37:09 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Hi Karl, Issue 6156 was filed due to my mistaking the separate diagrams in the Classes chapter for separate packages. Since they're in the same package, /attribute is just a derived union for the subtypes, which is why it doesn't show up in the MDL file. I think this can be closed with no change. Subject: RE: Proposed Classifier Attribute resolutions for Ballot 18 Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 11:48:19 -0700 X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Proposed Classifier Attribute resolutions for Ballot 18 Thread-Index: AcRjgYK6lSEjpMtXT8ubsftozbDPtgA0JaKQ From: "Karl Frank" To: "Kenneth Hussey" , "Jim Amsden" , "Branislav Selic" , "Conrad Bock" Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jul 2004 18:48:33.0940 (UTC) FILETIME=[01424540:01C46453] With the help of Ken, Jim, and Conrad, what I thought was a big issue has become a very simple no-brainer. Please see the attached doc with two proposed resolutions. - Karl OMG Issue No: 6156 Title: Kernel::Classifier missing "attribute" Source: Kabira Technologies, Inc. (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock@nist.gov) Summary: Kernel::Classifier lists the feature "attribute", and gives semantics and notation, that isn't shown in the abstract syntax for Kernel::Classifier. There isn't an "attribute" in the MDL file. Kernel::Classes abstract syntax refers to "attribute" in the subsetting of ownedAttribute. Discussion: The notation section for Classifiers will be re-written to indicate that the standard allows the use of notation of the rectangle for any kind of Classifier, at the discretion of the users. Ommissions from the text and the diagram will be corrected. Background For reference:: Section 7.8.1 of the FAS, on page 62 (as printed) lists attribute as the first association of Classifier. Note that a slash is missing. The diagram Figure 22 for the abstract syntax for Kernell::Classifier is shown next, and the issue is correct, the Association to Property, a metaassociation in which the Property has the rolename .attribute. is missing. Figure 30 section 7.11 Classes (shown next) does show association to Property. Next is a blowup of Figure 30: This shows the /attribute missing from Figure 22. Changes to the metamodel and figures: Add a directed association from Classifier to Property, rolenamed .attribute. prefixed with ./. to indicate derived, to Figure 22, so it matches in this respect, with what is shown in the blowup from Figure 33. . Changes to the text: Prefix the slash character to .attribute. to indicate derived status in the following text from the Associations heading under section 7.8.1 /attribute : Property [*] The current FAS Superstructure text concerning Attribute notation begins as follows: This paragraph shall have the following inserted at the very beginning: Classifier is an abstract model element, and so properly speaking has no notation. It is nevertheless convenient to define in one place a default notation available for any concrete subclass of Classifier for which this notation is suitable. Disposition: Resolved Reply-To: From: "Desfray" To: "'Karl Frank'" , "'Kenneth Hussey'" , "'Jim Amsden'" , "'Branislav Selic'" , "'Conrad Bock'" Cc: Subject: RE: Proposed Classifier Attribute resolutions for Ballot 18 Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 13:21:00 +0200 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 0000000000C3B727BFC1BC11A4646E0283BD88A8A42AB300 For whose who where wondering "to whom the hell can belong a property or feature, else than a classifier", I beleive that the answer may be : PROPERTY (look at property) * qualifier : Property [*] An optional list of ordered qualifier attributes for the end. If the list is empty, then the Association is not qualified. Subsets Element::ownedElement. So a property can own a property which will be a qualifier. ==================================== Philippe Desfray VP for R&D - SOFTEAM Tel: (33) 01 53968400 Fax: (33) 01 53968401 144 Av. des champs Elysees 75008 PARIS www.softeam.com www.objecteering.com -----Message d'origine----- De : Karl Frank [mailto:Karl.Frank@borland.com] Envoye : mercredi 7 juillet 2004 20:48 A : Kenneth Hussey; Jim Amsden; Branislav Selic; Conrad Bock Cc : uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Objet : RE: Proposed Classifier Attribute resolutions for Ballot 18 With the help of Ken, Jim, and Conrad, what I thought was a big issue has become a very simple no-brainer. Please see the attached doc with two proposed resolutions. - Karl Subject: RE: First draft of Ballot 18 (full) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 07:25:06 -0400 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: First draft of Ballot 18 (full) Thread-Index: AcRkaDzVJAwcEo2yQJyo76a7goIVVQAbuYHw From: "Pete Rivett" To: "Branislav Selic" , , Issue 6156 partially applies to Infra, so as for 7056, should have an Infrastructure resolution section: although Infra does not have the equivalent of Figure 22, it does require the '/' added to the description of attribute and currently does not include anything at all about classifier notation (the Notation section is all about attributes) so should include not only the new para but the current first two paragraphs from Super.. Issue 7227: I have major problem with the following from the resolution "Deployment is a subclass of Dependency as that is the notation that it uses. This is based on the UML 1.x notation, and as such is best kept consistent. ": surely consistency with (UML 1.4) notation should not be the basis of the metamodel! Moreover the resolution is incorrect to use as justification "all dashed lines are Dependencies" - one exception that comes to mind is Imports. And precise consistency of mapping notation to metamodel is not something seen as vital in the past (there are several shapes which are not unambiguous, not to mention the overuse of text in guillemets and the famous inability to interpret an association with no navigability arrows). As author of the issue I made the point that Deployment is a relationship between Node and Artifact where neither is Dependent in any sense on the other. The fact that, as the resolution discusses, a Node may 'know about' what's deployed on it is irrelevant with respect to Dependency. More seriously, the point of the metamodel is not some generally handy way to interchange the models, but to provide some semantics/meaning: software may actually want to apply some processing to Dependencies (e.g. for impact analysis) for which this Deployment information is just not relevant. Pete Rivett (mailto:pete.rivett@adaptive.com) Chief Scientist, 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Branislav Selic [mailto:bselic@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 10:11 PM To: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org; mu2i-ftf@omg.org Subject: First draft of Ballot 18 (full) Attached, please find a draft of the issues resolutions proposed for Ballot 18. Bran Subject: RE: Ballot 18 (NB: 1 week to vote only!) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:26:27 -0400 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Ballot 18 (NB: 1 week to vote only!) Thread-Index: AcRl/jEOpC+9J4IJTOqW0gkqFotnSwEbV+5w From: "Pete Rivett" To: "Branislav Selic" , Cc: , X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at sentraliant.com Adaptive votes YES to all the proposed resolutions except 6156 to which it votes ABSTAIN. The reason for voting Abstain to 6156 are: - it does not update the notation section of Infra (I did point this out on the draft ballot) While the resolution is not wrong it will require a further issue to reconcile Infra. [Also it refers to "The current FAS Superstructure text concerning Attribute notation begins as follows" which is not a clear indication of where the notation is located and is not relevant to the issue nor the actual text then quoted] Pete Rivett (mailto:pete.rivett@adaptive.com) Chief Scientist, 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Branislav Selic [mailto:bselic@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 10:37 PM To: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Cc: mu2i-ftf@omg.org; ocl2-ftf@omg.org Subject: Ballot 18 (NB: 1 week to vote only!) As agreed by the FTF (I received no objections to the proposal), we have reduced the voting period to 1 week. THEREFORE, YOU MUST CAST YOUR VOTE ON BALLOT 18 BY E.O.B JULY 16! Procedural detail: if You miss two or more consecutive votes OVER A PERIOD OF AT LEAST TWO WEEKS you will be automatically taken off the FTF. With this new pace, two consecutive votes will take place in exactly two weeks, so please pay attention. If you have concerns about this, please give your proxy vote to someone on the FTF. Of course, this does put some extra pressure on everyone, but, our deadline is approaching fast and we must adjust our pace. Note that I have removed two issue resolutions that were included in some of the earlier draft ballots: 7394 and 7227 (because there were objections raised against them). Also, note that the package merge resolution is NOT included in this ballot. Regards, Bran Conrad of ownedAttribute