Issue 6248: UML super/Section 2/Compliance points (uml2-superstructure-ftf) Source: Model Driven Solutions (Mr. Ed Seidewitz, ed-s(at)modeldriven.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: The actual compliance levels as given on p. 1 ("no", "partial", "compliant", "interchange") are inadequate. For example, it is unclear what it means to "comply to the semantics", since semantics is generally stated in the proposal in terms of the system being modeled. Does a tool that simply provides a way to draw syntactically well-defined UML diagrams "comply to the semantics"? Furthermore, it is also unclear what it means to "comply to abstract syntax". What about a tool that presents the notation, but does not use the abstract syntax as its internal representation? Would such a tool only be able to claim "partial compliance", even if it provides 100% of the UML notation? If not, what is the criteria for compliance with abstract syntax? Even more problematic, XMI compliance is only required at the "interchange" level, which also requires compliance to abstract syntax, notation and semantics. This would seem to exclude any tool that processes XMI, but does not use the notation-for example, an execution engine that runs off XMI input or a tool that configures itself using an XMI-formatted UML model. There should be a way to claim XMI compliance without being a full modeling tool. In general, the compliance levels do not seem to be defined in a way that will be useful for the range of tools that may want to usefully claim UML compliance. Recommendation: The 2U proposal (ad/2003-01-08) contained a particularly good discussion of compliance in Section 0.8, separately addressing XMI, syntax and semantics compliance. The UML 2.0 specification as adopted should compliance discussion based on the 2U approach. Resolution: see above Revised Text: Actions taken: September 11, 2003: received issue March 8, 2005: closed issue Discussion: Replace section 2 (“Conformance”) with the text in the appended PDF file. C:\mydata\ documents\external\Standards\OMG\UML2.0\FTF\Issues\ComplianceLevels\Compliance.section.addin. End of Annotations:===== m: Edwin Seidewitz To: issues@omg.org Subject: UML super/Section 2/Compliance points Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 13:34:42 -0400 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) Description: The actual compliance levels as given on p. 1 ("no", "partial", "compliant", "interchange") are inadequate. For example, it is unclear what it means to "comply to the semantics", since semantics is generally stated in the proposal in terms of the system being modeled. Does a tool that simply provides a way to draw syntactically well-defined UML diagrams "comply to the semantics"? Furthermore, it is also unclear what it means to "comply to abstract syntax". What about a tool that presents the notation, but does not use the abstract syntax as its internal representation? Would such a tool only be able to claim "partial compliance", even if it provides 100% of the UML notation? If not, what is the criteria for compliance with abstract syntax? Even more problematic, XMI compliance is only required at the "interchange" level, which also requires compliance to abstract syntax, notation and semantics. This would seem to exclude any tool that processes XMI, but does not use the notation-for example, an execution engine that runs off XMI input or a tool that configures itself using an XMI-formatted UML model. There should be a way to claim XMI compliance without being a full modeling tool. In general, the compliance levels do not seem to be defined in a way that will be useful for the range of tools that may want to usefully claim UML compliance. Recommendation: The 2U proposal (ad/2003-01-08) contained a particularly good discussion of compliance in Section 0.8, separately addressing XMI, syntax and semantics compliance. The UML 2.0 specification as adopted should compliance discussion based on the 2U approach. From: Edwin Seidewitz To: "'Karl Frank'" Cc: UML Superstructure FTF Subject: RE: [issue 3126 AND issue 6248] was: A proposal on Compliance fro m UML users Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 18:30:31 -0500 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) Karl -- Issue 6248 (the one issue I actually managed to submit) relates directly to the points you make on the lack of clarity in the definition of compliance in the adopted spec. In the text of that issue, I make the recommendation using the compliance discussion in the 2U proposal (ad/2003-01-08) as a basis. I think the 2U proposal contained a particularly good discussion of compliance in Section 0.8, separately addressing XMI, syntax and semantics compliance. (I will try to put together a proposal of specific text for this next week -- but I am just about to head out for the weekend right now...) By the way, I think this is already in the compliance and package merge issues list as part of "defining the dimensions of compliance". To define these dimensions, the spec needs to give a clear definition of what "compliance" means for each dimension. -- Ed Subject: RE: [issue 3126 AND issue 6248] was: A proposal on Compliance from UML users Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 20:18:19 -0500 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [issue 3126 AND issue 6248] was: A proposal on Compliance from UML users Thread-Index: AcPBCAEj7Z/oZWeYQGyEWXD2Dh9kxwADcrOg From: "Karl Frank" To: "Edwin Seidewitz" Cc: "UML Superstructure FTF" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Dec 2003 01:18:20.0812 (UTC) FILETIME=[FEFFBCC0:01C3C116] Good to be able to discover commonalities to batch some of these more difficult issues instead of working on them in isolation. 3126 was assigned to Classes and hence me, 6248 was recognized from the start as General and hence is on Bran's list. Let's make sure we contintue to consider them together and search out the others that go with them. So the next question is, what other issues turn out, on analysis or on the face of them, to be issues on Dimensions of Compliance? The issue in the compliance and package merge priority list as "defining the dimensions of compliance" does cover these issues, but it is NOT the case that it was known that these issues 3126 and 6248 were under that heading. That heading was not derived from any particular reported issues, but was by consensus of the London joint meeting added to a list of problems the attendees were most concerned about. What I propose is that each team, but especially the General group, should sort out what issue NUMBERS fall under the heading "defining the dimensions of compliance" and add them to the list begun here, so we can consider them as a batch. 3126 6248 -----Original Message----- From: Edwin Seidewitz [mailto:eseidewitz@intelidata.com] Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 6:31 PM To: Karl Frank Cc: UML Superstructure FTF Subject: RE: [issue 3126 AND issue 6248] was: A proposal on Compliance from UML users Karl -- Issue 6248 (the one issue I actually managed to submit) relates directly to the points you make on the lack of clarity in the definition of compliance in the adopted spec. In the text of that issue, I make the recommendation using the compliance discussion in the 2U proposal (ad/2003-01-08) as a basis. I think the 2U proposal contained a particularly good discussion of compliance in Section 0.8, separately addressing XMI, syntax and semantics compliance. (I will try to put together a proposal of specific text for this next week -- but I am just about to head out for the weekend right now...) By the way, I think this is already in the compliance and package merge issues list as part of "defining the dimensions of compliance". To define these dimensions, the spec needs to give a clear definition of what "compliance" means for each dimension. -- Ed