Issue 6257: UML2 Super / SimpleTime package / missing multiplicities (uml2-superstructure-ftf) Source: Simula Research Laboratory (Mr. Bran Selic, selic(at)acm.org) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: The multiplicities for the various constraints are unspecified in the documentation and the metamodel: Specifically, the multiplicity of IntervalConstraint::specification, TimeConstraint::specification, and DurationConstraint::specification should be 1 Resolution: see above Revised Text: Actions taken: September 18, 2003: received issue March 8, 2005: closed issue Discussion: The identified multiplicities should be “1”. Note that the min and max constraints are redefinitions of min and max constraints that are given the multiplicities “1”. End of Annotations:===== ubject: UML2 Super / SimpleTime package / missing multiplicities X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.2CF1 June 9, 2003 From: Branislav Selic Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 18:23:02 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML05/25/M/IBM(Release 6.0.2CF1|June 9, 2003) at 09/18/2003 18:23:04, Serialize complete at 09/18/2003 18:23:04 The multiplicities for the various constraints are unspecified in the documentation and the metamodel: Specifically, the multiplicity of IntervalConstraint::specification, TimeConstraint::specification, and DurationConstraint::specification should be 1 Bran Selic IBM Software Group -- Rational Software 770 Palladium Drive Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2V 1C8 ph. (613) 591-7915 fax (613) 599-3912 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.4.030702.0 Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 17:42:08 -0400 Subject: Re: Official Ballot 12 - issue 6257 From: James Odell To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id i3DLjNna013908 Dear all, While Thomas Weigert's resolution to issue number 6527, was well written, it does contain some problematic statements. For example, he states that "In either case, emergence has reasonably close connotations, and there is little danger that modelers are confused by the more specialized use of the term in chaos theory." I agree that emergence has close connotations to his usage. However, the term has nothing whatsoever to do with chaos theory; it has everything to do with Complexity Science. Emergence -- as used by Complexity Science -- is now seen in common literature as the New York Times, Business Week, and Time magazine. Therefore, I think it only appropriate that UML 2.0 NOT be out of line with this major area of research, which is also known as "the study of emergence." It WILL cause confusion -- as it already has. As such I recommend that this issue be deferred to another ballot so that the issue can be well researched. The pity is that if only one word were inserted to p.369, it would be consistent with the prevalent use of the current notion of emergence. Instead, it should read: łNevertheless, an emergent behavior *can* result from the executing behaviors of the participant objects.˛ All the best, Jim O.From: "Thomas Weigert" To: "James Odell" , Subject: RE: Official Ballot 12 - issue 6257 Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 22:02:02 -0500 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal Jim, while I still don't share your fear about confusion that the term "emergence" may bring, if your fears are allayed by changing the proposed resolution to the sentence you quote below (without the "*" symbols) I would gladly substitute that sentence for the one originally proposed. All the best, Th. P.S. Any other terminology that you would deem less troublesome would be a possible solution also. I had originally used "supervenience" but that was felt to be too technical. > -----Original Message----- > From: James Odell [mailto:email@jamesodell.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 4:42 PM > To: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org > Subject: Re: Official Ballot 12 - issue 6257 > > > > As such I recommend that this issue be deferred to another ballot so that > the issue can be well researched. The pity is that if only one word were > inserted to p.369, it would be consistent with the prevalent use of the > current notion of emergence. Instead, it should read: łNevertheless, an > emergent behavior *can* result from the executing behaviors of the > participant objects.˛ > > User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.4.030702.0 Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 09:23:12 -0400 Subject: Re: Official Ballot 12 - issue 6257 From: James Odell To: Thomas Weigert , X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id i3EDQcna018325 Thomas, Thank you for the kind offer. Yes, I would withdraw my request to delay issue 6257 if you added "can" (without the asterisk or quotes, of course :-). I agree with your concern about the term "supervenience." It is a bit --shall we say-- non-typical. However both terms would still require adding the "can" to the sentence. Supervenience means "occuring unexpectedly". I do not believe that is is *necessarily* the case that there be unexpected results; it *can* occur, but not necessarily. So, with the "can", I *can* be happy. :-) Does that makes sense? All the best, Jim On 4/13/04 11:02 PM, "Thomas Weigert" indited: > Jim, > > while I still don't share your fear about confusion that the term > "emergence" may bring, if your fears are allayed by changing the proposed > resolution to the sentence you quote below (without the "*" symbols) I would > gladly substitute that sentence for the one originally proposed. > > All the best, Th. > > P.S. Any other terminology that you would deem less troublesome would be a > possible solution also. I had originally used "supervenience" but that was > felt to be too technical. > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: James Odell [mailto:email@jamesodell.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 4:42 PM >> To: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org >> Subject: Re: Official Ballot 12 - issue 6257 >> >> >> >> As such I recommend that this issue be deferred to another ballot so that >> the issue can be well researched. The pity is that if only one word were >> inserted to p.369, it would be consistent with the prevalent use of the >> current notion of emergence. Instead, it should read: łNevertheless, an >> emergent behavior *can* result from the executing behaviors of the >> participant objects.˛ >> >> > From: "Thomas Weigert" To: "James Odell" , Subject: RE: Official Ballot 12 - issue 6257 Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 08:48:00 -0500 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal The unexpected in "supervenience" does not mean surprising, it means that what occurs cannot be inferred. The typical example would be "the mind is supervenient on the body". There really is no such thing as a mind, but if you just were to look at the atoms in your body, you would not be able to deduce what a person is thinking. But either way, let's add the word "can" and resolve the issue... Th. > -----Original Message----- > From: James Odell [mailto:email@jamesodell.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 8:23 AM > To: Thomas Weigert; uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org > Subject: Re: Official Ballot 12 - issue 6257 > > > Thomas, > > Thank you for the kind offer. Yes, I would withdraw my request to delay > issue 6257 if you added "can" (without the asterisk or quotes, of course > :-). > > I agree with your concern about the term "supervenience." It is a bit > --shall we say-- non-typical. However both terms would still require > adding the "can" to the sentence. Supervenience means "occuring > unexpectedly". I do not believe that is is *necessarily* the case that > there be unexpected results; it *can* occur, but not necessarily. > So, with > the "can", I *can* be happy. :-) > > Does that makes sense? > > > All the best, > > Jim > > > On 4/13/04 11:02 PM, "Thomas Weigert" indited: > > > Jim, > > > > while I still don't share your fear about confusion that the term > > "emergence" may bring, if your fears are allayed by changing > the proposed > > resolution to the sentence you quote below (without the "*" > symbols) I would > > gladly substitute that sentence for the one originally proposed. > > > > All the best, Th. > > > > P.S. Any other terminology that you would deem less troublesome > would be a > > possible solution also. I had originally used "supervenience" > but that was > > felt to be too technical. > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: James Odell [mailto:email@jamesodell.com] > >> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 4:42 PM > >> To: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org > >> Subject: Re: Official Ballot 12 - issue 6257 > >> > >> > >> > >> As such I recommend that this issue be deferred to another > ballot so that > >> the issue can be well researched. The pity is that if only > one word were > >> inserted to p.369, it would be consistent with the prevalent use of the > >> current notion of emergence. Instead, it should read: > łNevertheless, an > >> emergent behavior *can* result from the executing behaviors of the > >> participant objects.˛ > >> > >> > > > OMG Issue No: 6257 Title: UML2 Super / SimpleTime package / missing multiplicities Source: International Business Machines (Mr. Bran Selic, bselic@ca.ibm.com) Summary: The multiplicities for the various constraints are unspecified in the documentation and the metamodel: Specifically, the multiplicity of IntervalConstraint::specification, TimeConstraint::specification, and DurationConstraint::specification should be 1 Discussion: The identified multiplicities should be .1.. Note that the min and max constraints are redefinitions of min and max constraints that are given the multiplicities .1.. Disposition: Resolved e-mail: bselic@ca.ibm.com To: "Thomas Weigert" Cc: "Thomas Weigert" , uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: ,cs cb, Ballot 13 proposed resolutions X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.2CF1 June 9, 2003 From: Branislav Selic Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 16:57:33 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML05/25/M/IBM(Release 6.0.2CF1|June 9, 2003) at 04/22/2004 16:57:35, Serialize complete at 04/22/2004 16:57:35 Thomas, I have reviewed your proposed resolutions for ballot 13 and have the following comments and concerns: (1) Issue 6078: (a) from your explanation, it looks to me that the vertical bar -- indicating choice -- in the expression: ref interactionident | [strict] is incorrect and should be removed. (b) it seems that the information that the inline decomposition is strict is only kept in the notation and not in the model. Presumably, this information is somehow transferred into some interaction operator of some combined fragment of the part decomposition corresponding to the lifeline -- however, how this is done is not described. This needs to be clarified. (2) Issue 6146: I agree with your "closed, no change" disposition, but I think your explanation is missing at least one major point. I believe that the question primarily related to the fact that Collaboration is defined as a kind of BehavioredClassifier -- which is perfectly reasonable since we want to be able to associate Interactions with Collaborations. It would be useful if this was added to the resolution. (3) Issue 6154: The text in the Semantics part of TimeObservationAction says that this action, "...when executed, returns the current value of time in the context in which....". I suggest replacing the word "returns" in this text with the word "reads" or "registers". Otherwise, it seems to clash with the fact that this action, being a write action does not have return values. (An aside: I should have been paying attention to this when it was being done in the U2P. Why should this action be restricted to just write-once-attributes? Why not make it more general? This seems like a piece of an SDL profile that snuck in under the radar.) (4) Issue 6251: I sent you an OCL constraint that effectively said that all roles that are connected by a connector have to be in the same Classifier (namespace). This also resolves issue 6668. So, I suggest that you change this to "resolved" and add my constraint. (In fact, the fix I sent you also includes a nice illustration which is a bit easier to follow than your textual explanation, so I suggest you replace the resolution with the one I proposed.) (5) Issue 6257: It would really help me and others if in the future you could put a figure number for the diagram that you want to change -- it makes it a lot easier to review the resolution proposal and to make the change once it is adopted. (I assume you mean figure 318 in this case?) (6) Issue 6355: I don't think that "Duplicate" is the right resolution to this issue. What happened here is that the reader who read the spec missed the rather convoluted "trick" that is used to specify when a connector end is connected to a port. The trick is used to avoid a "PortReference" concept, by providing a link to a part that owns the port that is being connected when the connector terminates on a port of some part (i.e., if this link is nil, then the connector terminates on a port or part, otherwise, it terminates on the port of a part, and you know which it is based on which port the connector end is linked to). This is very subtle and will be confusing to many unless additional text is provided. (7) Issue 6668: See my comment for issue 6251. Cheers, Bran "Thomas Weigert" 04/21/2004 04:33 PM To "Thomas Weigert" , Branislav Selic/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA, cc Subject RE: ,cs cb, Ballot 13 proposed resolutions Please find attached an additional issue resolution (included in the pack sent earlier)... Th -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Weigert [mailto:thomas.weigert@motorola.com] Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 11:27 AM To: Branislav Selic; uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: ,cs cb, Ballot 13 proposed resolutions Please find attached the first installment of Ballot 13 proposals (I think that is the next ballot). OMG Issue No: 6257 Title: UML2 Super / SimpleTime package / missing multiplicities Source: International Business Machines (Mr. Bran Selic, bselic@ca.ibm.com) Summary: The multiplicities for the various constraints are unspecified in the documentation and the metamodel: Specifically, the multiplicity of IntervalConstraint::specification, TimeConstraint::specification, and DurationConstraint::specification should be 1 Discussion: The identified multiplicities should be .1.. Note that the min and max constraints are redefinitions of min and max constraints that are given the multiplicities .1.. Disposition: Resolved All the best, Th.[attachment "Comp struc + com beh issues 3rd v2 done.doc" deleted by Branislav Selic/Ottawa/IBM]