Issue 6229: UML 2 Super/pg. 471/choice pseudostate notation (uml2-superstructure-ftf) Source: Simula Research Laboratory (Mr. Bran Selic, selic(at)acm.org) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: pg. 471: PseudoState/Semanctics Choice – The text says the symbol is a diamond but the figure 374 on pg. 473 shows a circle. Probably an error in the figure but make them consistent. In UML1 it is a diamond so a circle would be a bad idea Resolution: see above Revised Text: Actions taken: September 7, 2003: received issue March 8, 2005: closed issue Discussion: Figure will be modified to show a diamond and not a circle as follows: id [<10] [>=10] [id <10] [id >=10] Figure 374 - Choice Pseudo State End of Annotations:===== To: issues@omg.org Subject: UML 2 Super/pg. 471/choice pseudostate notation X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.11 July 24, 2002 From: Branislav Selic Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2003 10:06:23 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML05/25/M/IBM(Release 6.0.2CF1|June 9, 2003) at 09/07/2003 10:06:25, Serialize complete at 09/07/2003 10:06:25 pg. 471: PseudoState/Semanctics Choice Þ¶ The text says the symbol is a diamond but the figure 374 on pg. 473 shows a circle. Probably an error in the figure but make them consistent. In UML1 it is a diamond so a circle would be a bad idea Bran Selic IBM Software Group -- Rational Software 770 Palladium Drive Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2V 1C8 ph. (613) 591-7915 fax (613) 599-3912 OMG Issue 6229 Title: choice pseudostate notation Source: International Business Machines (Mr. Bran Selic, mailto:%20bselic@ca.ibm.com) Summary: pg. 471: PseudoState/Semanctics Choice . The text says the symbol is a diamond but the figure 374 on pg. 473 shows a circle. Probably an error in the figure but make them consistent. In UML1 it is a diamond so a circle would be a bad idea Discussion: Figure will be modified to show a diamond and not a circle. Disposition: resolved To: Eran Gery Cc: Guus Ramackers , UML Superstructure FTF Subject: Re: SM resolutions for ballot 5 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.2CF1 June 9, 2003 From: Branislav Selic Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 14:10:37 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML05/25/M/IBM(Release 6.0.2CF1|June 9, 2003) at 01/18/2004 14:10:41, Serialize complete at 01/18/2004 14:10:41 Thanks, Eran. (BTW, please use my new e-mail address and get rid of the old Rational one: it is no longer valid. The new one is in this e-mail.) I have some feedback now, but may have some more later as I review the proposed resolutions in more detail later: Issue 6229: Can you please provide the proposed diagram in your resolution text. I am really sorry to be so fussy, but, according to the formal OMG rules, we vote on the EXACT text (and graphics) and not a description of it -- the same goes for graphics. I may make an exception of metamodel changes in some cases, but even those should, in principle, be explicit. Issue 6256: I guess this has to be completed with the activities changes. So, until Conrad provides the appropriate changes, I do not think this is closed. Also, are there not text changes accompanying this: in the description of the associations of the corresponding metaclasses. Those too should be included in the resolution text. Until those changes are in there, I cannot consider this solution adequate. Issue 6381: It would be nice if we had agreement from Alan Moore (who raised the issue) before we submitted this one for a vote. Issue 6395: The problem with this resolution is that (a) it creates backward compatibility problems (at least for Rose RT users) and (b) I do not agree that changing the trigger is tantamount to changing a feature definition. In most cases, it changes the way that an event is handled in a given state -- it does not remove the operation. I would like more discussion on this resolution. To repeat, I apologize for being such a stickler to precise formats, but I think that this is the only way that we can ensure that there are no misunderstandings about what goes into the final text of the revised submission. I plan to enforce this discipline consistently throughout the process. Thanks, Bran Selic Distinguished Engineer IBM Rational Software 770 Palladium Drive Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2V 1C8 ph. (613) 591-7915 fax (613) 599-3912 e-mail: bselic@ca.ibm.com Eran Gery 01/18/2004 01:25 PM To: UML Superstructure FTF cc: Guus Ramackers , "Bran Selic (E-mail)" Subject: SM resolutions for ballot 5 Attached 11 proposed resolution for Statemachines. Most are trivial, few less... Thanks, Eran #### SM-proposals-ballot5.doc has been removed from this note on January 18, 2004 by Branislav Selic From: Eran Gery To: Branislav Selic Cc: Guus Ramackers , UML Superstructure FTF Subject: RE: SM resolutions for ballot 5 Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 11:28:02 +0200 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) Bran See inline. -----Original Message----- From: Branislav Selic [mailto:bselic@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Sun, January 18, 2004 9:11 PM To: Eran Gery Cc: Guus Ramackers; UML Superstructure FTF Subject: Re: SM resolutions for ballot 5 Thanks, Eran. (BTW, please use my new e-mail address and get rid of the old Rational one: it is no longer valid. The new one is in this e-mail.) I have some feedback now, but may have some more later as I review the proposed resolutions in more detail later: Issue 6229: Can you please provide the proposed diagram in your resolution text. I am really sorry to be so fussy, but, according to the formal OMG rules, we vote on the EXACT text (and graphics) and not a description of it -- the same goes for graphics. I may make an exception of metamodel changes in some cases, but even those should, in principle, be explicit. [EG] I will fix that for the ballot. The question I have is whether in order to get feedback we can send out drafts that outline the resolutions, and the have the final thing in the ballot. Also in terms of process it is more efficient, as if the FTF pushes back on a resolution outline there's no point to spend the time and do all this fine tuning. Issue 6256: I guess this has to be completed with the activities changes. So, until Conrad provides the appropriate changes, I do not think this is closed. Also, are there not text changes accompanying this: in the description of the associations of the corresponding metaclasses. Those too should be included in the resolution text. Until those changes are in there, I cannot consider this solution adequate. [EG] OK - So I will remoe it from the ballot. Issue 6381: It would be nice if we had agreement from Alan Moore (who raised the issue) before we submitted this one for a vote. [EG] I believe I have well addressed Alan's request for clarification. Also, I do not see anything controvercial here. Nevertheless I will solicit his feedback on the proposal. Issue 6395: The problem with this resolution is that (a) it creates backward compatibility problems (at least for Rose RT users) and (b) I do not agree that changing the trigger is tantamount to changing a feature definition. In most cases, it changes the way that an event is handled in a given state -- it does not remove the operation. I would like more discussion on this resolution. [EG] I will remove it from ballot5 then. By definition it can't be a backward compatibility issue as inheritance was not specified in UML 1. So compatibility should not be part of the debate. To repeat, I apologize for being such a stickler to precise formats, but I think that this is the only way that we can ensure that there are no misunderstandings about what goes into the final text of the revised submission. I plan to enforce this discipline consistently throughout the process. Thanks, Bran Selic Distinguished Engineer IBM Rational Software 770 Palladium Drive Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2V 1C8 ph. (613) 591-7915 fax (613) 599-3912 e-mail: bselic@ca.ibm.com Eran Gery 01/18/2004 01:25 PM To: UML Superstructure FTF cc: Guus Ramackers , "Bran Selic (E-mail)" Subject: SM resolutions for ballot 5 Attached 11 proposed resolution for Statemachines. Most are trivial, few less... Thanks, Eran #### SM-proposals-ballot5.doc has been removed from this note on January 18, 2004 by Branislav Selic e-mail: bselic@ca.ibm.com