Issue 6254: LWCCM issue - Section 1.5.3 Exclusion (lwccm-ftf) Source: Objective Interface Systems (Mr. Victor Giddings, victor.giddings(at)mail.ois.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: On page 11: The Normative Impact "Disable get_connections, get_all_receptacles, get_named_receptacles operations in the Receptacles interface" does not match the Document Impact: "Section 1.5.3: remove". Removal of section 1.5.3 removes the Receptacles interface in it entirety, including the description of the generic connect and disconnect operations, which are referred to by comment in the previous item. The Document Impact needs to be narrowed. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: September 16, 2003: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== ender: giddiv@postel X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 18:22:49 -0400 To: issues@omg.org From: Victor Giddings Subject: LWCCM issue - Section 1.5.3 Exclusion Cc: lwccm-ftf@omg.org On page 11: The Normative Impact "Disable get_connections, get_all_receptacles, get_named_receptacles operations in the Receptacles interface" does not match the Document Impact: "Section 1.5.3: remove". Removal of section 1.5.3 removes the Receptacles interface in it entirety, including the description of the generic connect and disconnect operations, which are referred to by comment in the previous item. The Document Impact needs to be narrowed. Victor Giddings mailto:victor.giddings@ois.com Senior Product Engineer +1 703 295 6500 Subject: Proposed resolution for issue 6254 Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:49:36 -0500 Thread-Topic: Proposed resolution for issue 6254 Thread-Index: AcP76ULQ3uMgi2PaQ22hJ/YpNRZfAw== From: "Pilhofer, Frank" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id i1PLn5re007278 This issue is about the "document impact" of removing section 1.5.3 to address the "normative exclusion" of removing introspection and type-specific operations in the Receptacles interface. The generic connect and disconnect operations need to be retained in the Receptacles interface, therefore removing the entire interface is wrong. Proposed resolution: In section 10.3, in the "Document Impact" column of the 4th row, replace the text Section 1.5.3: remove with Section 1.5.3: remove these operations from the Receptacles interface. Also remove the ConnectionDescription and Subject: RE: Ballot 7 Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 08:54:55 -0400 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Ballot 7 Thread-Index: AcWa5nF2SJMJR4FXSXuTCngW5XvGqgBH4mzQ From: "Pete Rivett" To: "Branislav Selic" , X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at sentraliant.com Adaptive votes YES to all the issues except 6187, 6197, 6201, 6254 to which it votes NO and 6699, to which it ABSTAINS (sorry I was traveling when the draft went round). It seems premature to close 6187 and 6197. They should either be closed when the 'pending' Abstractions happens (there is still the need to do the merge even after that) or by cloning the constraints (which I think is what Jim has suggested). 6201 has the following problems: - the property being constrained is not multivalued so it seems inappropriate to return "Set{}" - the value should be set to null. While scalar values can be treated as sets, the converse does not apply. - in "let otherEnd = (association.memberEnd - self)->any() ", the usage of any() seems incorrect since it requires a boolean condition as a 'parameter' e.g. "any(true)" Note: a separate issue is neded to replace the use of 'navigable' in the English description of 'opposite'. The English description of the constraint requires the ends to be 'owned by a class' which is not captured in the OCL - though I'm not sure if this is the real intention (e.g. would 'opposite' apply to associations between Actor and UseCase.) 6254 does raise a valid specic problem for this specific redefinition; the isConsistentWith() operation which is required for a valid redefinition requires that the lowerbound of the redefined element is >= that of the redefinition. In this particular case that does not apply since the redefining element has lowerbound of 1 and the original has lowerbound of 0. The answer is to make the multiplicity of Extension.ownedEnd [0..1] and add a constraint that Extension.ownedEnd->notEmpty(). BTW when fixing this we should also take the opportunity to make this {redefines} explicit. 6699 does not have a justification for making Constraint::namespace navigable, when most other 'owner' properties are not navigable, so I don't see a reason for changing this but not the others (which I would not be averse to). 8720, 8769 should also have an equivalent change made to Infra as an editorial action. Pete Rivett (mailto:pete.rivett@adaptive.com) CTO, 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, August 05, 2005 10:19 PM To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Ballot 7 Attached is the official ballot 7. Voting starts at 6 pm EDT today (Friday, Aug. 5) and ends in 2 weeks at 6 pm EDT on Friday, August 19. Regards, Bran Objective Interface Systems Fax: +1 703 295 6501