Issue 6437: targetScope on StructuralFeature and AssociationEnd (uml2-superstructure-ftf) Source: (Dr. Guus Ramackers, Guus.Ramackers(at)gmail.com) Nature: Revision Severity: Minor Summary: UMl 1.x supported targetScope on StructuralFeature and AssociationEnd. This does not seem to be present in UML 2.0 when looking at Property or elsewhere. For backward compatibility this should be reinstated or alternatively at least be a standard tag in Appndix B. Resolution: see below Revised Text: Insert a new section as follows: Changes from UML 1.x The property isStatic in UML 2 serves in place of the metaattribute ownerScope of Feature in UML 1. The enumerated data type ScopeKind with two values, instance and classifier, provided in UML 1 as the type for ownerScope, is no longer needed because isStatic is boolean. (2) Current Text: section 7.9.5 StructuralFeature on page 75 of FAS Revised Text: Insert a new section as follows: Changes from UML 1.x The metaatribute targetScope which characterized StructuralFeature and AssociationEnd in prior UML is no longer supported. (3) Current Text: section 7.11.2 Association, which ends on page 86 of FAS following Figure 36. Revised Text: Insert a new section to follow Figure 36, as follows: Changes from UML 1.x AssociationEnd was a metaclass in prior UML, now demoted to a member of Association. The metaatribute targetScope which characterized AssociationEnd in prior UML is no longer supported. Fundamental changes in the abstract syntax make it impossible to continue targetScope or replace it by a new metaattribute, or even a standard tag, there being no appropriate model element to tag. In UML 2, the type of the property determines the nature of the values represented by the members of an Association. Actions taken: November 5, 2003: received issue March 5, 2004: moved to the Superstructure FTF from Infrastructure March 8, 2005: closed issue Discussion: Both targetScope and ownerScope were in UML 1.4 and 1.5 of type ScopeKind, where ScopeKind is an enumeration of values: instance, classifier. The definition of ownerScope was: “denotes whether a feature belongs to individual instances or an entire classifier.” For targetScope of AssociationEnd, UML 1.4 says: “Specifies whether the target value is an instance or a classifier”. Neither targetScope nor ownerScope nor ScopeKind made it into UML 2 under those names, but of these three, the last two are supported under new names in new ways. ownerScope for Feature was replaced in UML 2 by the metaattribute isStatic. There ought to have been a “Changes from UML 1.x” section to explain this. The purpose of ScopeKind (which had two enumerated values) is served by using boolean. In contrast, targetScope for StructuralFeature and AssociationEnd was dropped altogether, as a complication that had insufficient usage or clarity to merit continuance, and thru the consolidation of attribute and association end by associations to Property. (In the view of some, the target of a property is sufficiently modeled in UML 2 by the Type of the property.) There ought to have been Changes sections for this also. Three different insertions are needed. (1) Current Text: section 7.9.2 Feature on page 73 of FAS End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 05 Nov 2003 09:47:52 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Guus Ramackers Company: Oracle mailFrom: guus.ramackers@oracle.com Notification: No Specification: UML2 Section: - FormalNumber: - Version: 2.0 RevisionDate: Aug 03 Page: - Nature: Revision Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) Description UMl 1.x supported targetScope on StructuralFeature and AssociationEnd. This does not seem to be present in UML 2.0 when looking at Property or elsewhere. For backward compatibility this should be reinstated or alternatively at least be a standard tag in Appndix B. Issue 6437: targetScope on StructuralFeature and AssociationEnd (uml2-superstructure-ftf) Source: Oracle (Dr. Guus Ramackers, guus.ramackers@oracle.com) Nature: Revision Severity: Minor Summary: UMl 1.x supported targetScope on StructuralFeature and AssociationEnd. This does not seem to be present in UML 2.0 when looking at Property or elsewhere. For backward compatibility this should be reinstated or alternatively at least be a standard tag in Appndix B. Discussion: The Feature model element in UML 2 has a boolean attribute isStatic which serves this purpose and is inherited by StructuralFeature. Resolution: Closed, no change. Revised Text: N/A Actions taken: November 5, 2003: received issue March 5, 2004: moved to the Superstructure FTF from Infrastructure Reply-To: From: "Conrad Bock" To: Subject: RE: Draft of ballot 13 Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:18:18 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Hi Karl, Just checking, have these been posted before? Ballot 13 starts tomorrow, I think. Other comments below. Conrad - Issue 6437: targetScope on StructuralFeature and AssociationEnd isStatic is the UML 2 version of ownerScope, rather than targetScope. - Issue 6442: Specification of parametric models This issue is mainly in item "b". Constraints and OCL in particular cannot be reused in the way behavior's can, ie, they aren't parameterized. If there is a way to have a generic constraint that is reused in multiple places (including other Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 18:23:34 +0100 From: Guus Ramackers Organization: Oracle User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en, en-us To: Karl Frank CC: Branislav Selic , uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: Draft of ballot 13 Karl, Re. 6437, I think the change should be documented under the standard heading "Changes from previous versions of UML". E.g. Add to section 7.9.2 a new sub heading "Changes from previous versions of UML"with the text paragraph: The property isStatic replaces the property targetScope from UML 1.x. In this way users looking for teh property can do a search on teh spec and get the resolution. Thanks, Guus Karl Frank wrote: Here are four issues from the Classes list that could be added to ballot 13. - Karl -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Branislav Selic [mailto:bselic@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, 28 April, 2004 11:09 AM To: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Cc: ocl2-ftf@omg.org; mu2i-ftf@omg.org Subject: Draft of ballot 13 The following is the current draft of ballot 13 -- there are currently 40 resolutions in it. Please review these carefully and send out a notification if you have any problems with any of the resolutions proposed. The ballot contains the submissions from Conrad, Thomas, and Bran (so far). If you have any resolutions that you want to add, the only ones that will be considered are the typo/no-brainer variety, which require minimal soak time, since the vote commences on Friday, April 30 at 6 pm. I have excuded the following issues from the submissions so far, but I expect at least some of them to be reinserted on the ballot (some of them required only minor tweaks): From Thomas' list: - 6078 - minor tweak required based on Bran's comment - 6146 - objections raised by both Conrad and Bran - 6154 - objections raised by both Conrad and Bran - 6251 - objections raised by both Conrad and Bran - 6355 - objections raised by Bran - 6458 - objections raised by Conrad - 6668 - objections raised by Conrad and Bran From Bran's list: - 6431 - objections raised by Thomas From Conrad's list: - no issues were removed, although I do have a question regarding 7166 on which Joaquin had some comments. So, please tell me if I should keep this one or not. Joaquin? Bran -- _____________________________________________________________ Guus Ramackers Product Manager UML and Web Services Tools Oracle JDeveloper Tools group 520 Oracle Parkway, TVP Reading RG6 1RA, UK work: +44-(0)1189-245101 e-mail: guus.ramackers@oracle.com fax: +44-(0)1189-245148 constraints), I'd be interested to hear. Deferral seems Issue 6437: targetScope on StructuralFeature and AssociationEnd Source: Oracle (Dr. Guus Ramackers, guus.ramackers@oracle.com) Nature: Revision Severity: Minor Summary: UMl 1.x supported targetScope on StructuralFeature and AssociationEnd. This does not seem to be present in UML 2.0 when looking at Property or elsewhere. For backward compatibility this should be reinstated or alternatively at least be a standard tag in Appndix B. Discussion: The Feature model element in UML 2 has a boolean attribute isStatic which serves this purpose and is inherited by StructuralFeature. It does not apply to AssociationEnd. This is a change from UML 1.x and it would be best to warn the reader (who may be familiar with the UML 1.x targetScope attribute. Resolution: Add to section 7.9.2 the sub heading Changes from UML 1.x with the text paragraph: The UML 2 property isStatic replaces the UML 1.x property targetScope. Reply-To: From: "Conrad Bock" To: Subject: RE: One more proposed resolution for ballot 14 from Karl Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 15:33:00 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Hi Karl, > [Bran] Issue 6437: I recall that Conrad had some comment about there > being a difference between "ownerScope" and "targetScope" -- is that > not an issue? > Neither The term ownerScope nor the phrase owner scope occurs in the > FAS Right, it's been renamed to isStatic in UML 2. But the proposed resolution says: The UML 2 property isStatic replaces the UML 1.x property targetScope. The issue asks for a backward compatibility resolution on targetScope, which isStatic doesn't address. Subject: RE: One more proposed resolution for ballot 14 from Karl Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 15:54:29 -0400 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: One more proposed resolution for ballot 14 from Karl Thread-Index: AcQ4WAZJQ6Axwy/uTBGPRVw4Jm/TtAAAih3Q From: "Karl Frank" To: , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 May 2004 19:54:31.0293 (UTC) FILETIME=[F0E46AD0:01C4385A] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id i4CJv1un032411 Hi Conrad: copying Guus because it was his issue initially. Yes, isStatic does not provide backward compatibility. The structural changes in UML 2 with respect to association end make it impossible to achieve backward compatibilty with UML 1.x wrt targetScope. TargetScope in UML 1.x applied to BOTH structural features and association ends. No corresponding model element can be introduced into UML 2. Perhaps I should add that explanation to the discussion? - Karl -----Original Message----- From: Conrad Bock [mailto:conrad.bock@nist.gov] Sent: Wednesday, 12 May, 2004 3:33 PM To: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: One more proposed resolution for ballot 14 from Karl Hi Karl, > [Bran] Issue 6437: I recall that Conrad had some comment about there > being a difference between "ownerScope" and "targetScope" -- is that > not an issue? > Neither The term ownerScope nor the phrase owner scope occurs in the > FAS Right, it's been renamed to isStatic in UML 2. But the proposed resolution says: The UML 2 property isStatic replaces the UML 1.x property targetScope. The issue asks for a backward compatibility resolution on targetScope, which isStatic doesn't address. Reply-To: From: "Conrad Bock" To: Subject: RE: One more proposed resolution for ballot 14 from Karl Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 15:41:57 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Karl, > Yes, isStatic does not provide backward compatibility. The structural > changes in UML 2 with respect to association end make it impossible to > achieve backward compatibilty with UML 1.x wrt targetScope. TargetScope > in UML 1.x applied to BOTH structural features and association ends. No > corresponding model element can be introduced into UML 2. It could be added to property. I recall the U2P dropped target scope intentionally, as an underused feature. It supports instances that have attributes where the values are classes. To: Cc: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: One more proposed resolution for ballot 14 from Karl X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.2CF1 June 9, 2003 From: James E Rumbaugh Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 13:47:00 -0700 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM118/03/M/IBM(Release 6.0.2CF2HF259 | March 11, 2004) at 05/13/2004 14:48:08, Serialize complete at 05/13/2004 14:48:08 Target scope is one of those UML1 concepts that has disappeared from UML2, probably for the best, and should not be restored. It was an unsuccessful attempt to accommodate class-valued attributes, and I do not believe it was much used. People got source scope and target scope confused, and they could not remember which one matched static scope in C++/Java (it was source scope). It wasn't needed much and UML lacked related support features needed to utilize it properly. It was also unclear how to implement it. I think I invented it, and I would say, let it die in peace. One of the major failures of nerve of UML is that it does not allow the mixing of data and metadata in models and user programs. This limitation comes from the C++/Java mindest, and it is a shame, considering that languages such as Smalltalk showed that different levels can coexist in a language without conceptual or implementation problems. There is no reason UML needs to be restricted just because C++/Java are restricted. However, that shortcoming should eventually be addressed in a systematic way that tears down the M-level-walls, not in a half-hearted (well, actually a different part of the anatomy) way such as target scope that only applied in a restricted circumstance and didn't address the broader issues. But that's an issue for another RFP, not an FTF. - Jim Rumbaugh "Conrad Bock" 05/13/2004 12:41 PM Please respond to conrad.bock To cc Subject RE: One more proposed resolution for ballot 14 from Karl Karl, > Yes, isStatic does not provide backward compatibility. The structural > changes in UML 2 with respect to association end make it impossible to > achieve backward compatibilty with UML 1.x wrt targetScope. TargetScope > in UML 1.x applied to BOTH structural features and association ends. No > corresponding model element can be introduced into UML 2. It could be added to property. I recall the U2P dropped target scope intentionally, as an underused feature. It supports instances that have attributes where the values are classes. Conrad Reply-To: From: "Conrad Bock" To: Subject: RE: Draft of ballot 14 Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 17:09:21 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Hi Bran, Comments on draft ballot 14 below. Conrad > OMG Issue No: 6437 Title: targetScope on StructuralFeature and AssociationEnd Per the discussions with Karl, this is incorrect is resolving: The UML 2 property isStatic replaces the UML 1.x property targetScope. isStatic actually replaces ownerScope, not targetScope. The issue is asking about targetScope, not ownerScope. > OMG Issue No: 6442 Title: Specification of parametric models I'd suggest this be given to the OCL FTF. It asks for a reusable constraints that can use other constraints. It doesn't ask for a reproduction of notations, and other things mentioned in the discussion. To: Cc: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: Draft of ballot 14 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.2CF1 June 9, 2003 From: Branislav Selic Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 08:36:09 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML01/25/M/IBM(Release 6.0.2CF1|June 9, 2003) at 05/14/2004 08:36:10, Serialize complete at 05/14/2004 08:36:10 Thanks for the feedback, Conrad. My responses are included below: > > OMG Issue No: 6437 > Title: targetScope on StructuralFeature and AssociationEnd > > Per the discussions with Karl, this is incorrect is resolving: > > The UML 2 property isStatic replaces the UML 1.x property > targetScope. > > isStatic actually replaces ownerScope, not targetScope. The issue is > asking about targetScope, not ownerScope. OK. Given the new input from Jim R that came in related to this topic, it looks better if this resolution is withdrawn until the next ballot. > > > OMG Issue No: 6442 > Title: Specification of parametric models > > I'd suggest this be given to the OCL FTF. It asks for a reusable > constraints that can use other constraints. It doesn't ask for a > reproduction of notations, and other things mentioned in the > discussion. Well, my understanding of the parametric models in SysML is that it goes beyond just OCL. And, since Alan has not objected to it, I am going to keep this resolution proposal in the ballot. Cheers...Bran Subject: RE: Super FTF telecon on Wed. Aug. 18 - issue 6437 Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 22:39:20 -0400 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Super FTF telecon on Wed. Aug. 18 - issue 6437 Thread-Index: AcSEj3arftLItj3ySduRIgtMeO5IrQAA0g4wAA20qkA= From: "Pete Rivett" To: "Karl Frank" , "Branislav Selic" , , X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at sentraliant.com With respect to the resolution for 6437 this does not distinguish between targetScope (the subject of the issue) and ownerScope - two separate metaattributes on Feature at UML 1.x. As I understand it isStatic at UML 2 relates to ownerScope not targetScope. I must admit I do not understand well how the latter was intended to be used in UML 1.x (there are no examples): it's defined (on Structuralfeature) as follows: targetScope Specifies whether the targets are ordinary Instances or are Classifiers. Possibilities are: . instance - Each value contains a reference to an Instance of the target Classifier. This is the setting for a normal Attribute. . classifier - Each value contains a reference to the target Classifier itself. This represents a way to store meta-information. With MOF now sharing the UML metamodel I see no reason for a separate indicator for "meta-information": rather than targetScope=classifier one would define the association to the appropriate metaclass - as we have in fact already done for Profiles. So I agree the resolution should be Closed no change, but not in the way explained which relates to ownerScope only. I am interested if anyone has any examples of the real use of targetScope at UML 1.x and whether I have the right end of the stick: we should get confirmation (e.g. from Guus who raised the issue) before proceeding with this new closure. 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: Karl Frank [mailto:Karl.Frank@borland.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 8:54 PM To: Branislav Selic; uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org; mu2i-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: Super FTF telecon on Wed. Aug. 18 Eight proposals are attached. One, 6630, met with counterarguments in an earlier circulation. I am still convinced my proposal is in the best interest of UML modeling, so I am sending it out again with a little more argument to back it up. The obvious easy resolution is self-evident, just x-out the navigability from Supplier, but before I fall back to that easy answer, I want to try out my preferred solution first. Guus, one of your issues is in this batch, so you should look for it. 6616, humorously but accurately named "isRoot disappeared". Karl -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Branislav Selic [mailto:bselic@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 3:20 PM To: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org; mu2i-ftf@omg.org Subject: Super FTF telecon on Wed. Aug. 18 DATE: Wed. Aug. 18 TIME: 11 am EDT (usual time) DURATION: 35 minutes NUMBER: 866 842-3549 (toll free North America) 1+613 787-5018 (International) PASSCODE: 8455752# Please plan to attend this one, it is very important. Thanks...Bran Subject: RE: Super FTF telecon on Wed. Aug. 18 - issue 6437 Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 05:43:50 -0700 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Super FTF telecon on Wed. Aug. 18 - issue 6437 Thread-Index: AcSEj3arftLItj3ySduRIgtMeO5IrQAA0g4wAA20qkAAFVPbIA== From: "Karl Frank" To: "Pete Rivett" , "Branislav Selic" , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Aug 2004 12:43:50.0414 (UTC) FILETIME=[0302B2E0:01C48521] Pete: The issue in 6437 is merely asking for reinstatement of targetScope (or at least having it be a standard tag). The proposed resolution makes it clear that isStatic serves as the UML 2 substitute for targetScope , so there is no need to reinstate targetScope or have a tag to express it. The resolution _does_ distinguish targetScope and ownerScope, it mentions them both and adds a "change from UML 1" section that documents the disappearance of both. isStatic in UML 2 relates to targetScope in so far as the enumerated datatype of targetScope was in UML 1 defined as providing two values (corresponding to isStatic = true and isStatic = false) saying whether a feature was to characterize instances or characterize classifications. End of story. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pete Rivett [mailto:pete.rivett@adaptive.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 10:39 PM To: Karl Frank; Branislav Selic; uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org; mu2i-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: Super FTF telecon on Wed. Aug. 18 - issue 6437 With respect to the resolution for 6437 this does not distinguish between targetScope (the subject of the issue) and ownerScope - two separate metaattributes on Feature at UML 1.x. As I understand it isStatic at UML 2 relates to ownerScope not targetScope. I must admit I do not understand well how the latter was intended to be used in UML 1.x (there are no examples): it's defined (on Structuralfeature) as follows: targetScope Specifies whether the targets are ordinary Instances or are Classifiers. Possibilities are: . instance - Each value contains a reference to an Instance of the target Classifier. This is the setting for a normal Attribute. . classifier - Each value contains a reference to the target Classifier itself. This represents a way to store meta-information. With MOF now sharing the UML metamodel I see no reason for a separate indicator for "meta-information": rather than targetScope=classifier one would define the association to the appropriate metaclass - as we have in fact already done for Profiles. So I agree the resolution should be Closed no change, but not in the way explained which relates to ownerScope only. I am interested if anyone has any examples of the real use of targetScope at UML 1.x and whether I have the right end of the stick: we should get confirmation (e.g. from Guus who raised the issue) before proceeding with this new closure. 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: Karl Frank [mailto:Karl.Frank@borland.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 8:54 PM To: Branislav Selic; uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org; mu2i-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: Super FTF telecon on Wed. Aug. 18 Eight proposals are attached. One, 6630, met with counterarguments in an earlier circulation. I am still convinced my proposal is in the best interest of UML modeling, so I am sending it out again with a little more argument to back it up. The obvious easy resolution is self-evident, just x-out the navigability from Supplier, but before I fall back to that easy answer, I want to try out my preferred solution first. Guus, one of your issues is in this batch, so you should look for it. 6616, humorously but accurately named "isRoot disappeared". Karl -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Branislav Selic [mailto:bselic@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 3:20 PM To: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org; mu2i-ftf@omg.org Subject: Super FTF telecon on Wed. Aug. 18 DATE: Wed. Aug. 18 TIME: 11 am EDT (usual time) DURATION: 35 minutes NUMBER: 866 842-3549 (toll free North America) 1+613 787-5018 (International) PASSCODE: 8455752# Please plan to attend this one, it is very important. Subject: RE: Super FTF telecon on Wed. Aug. 18 Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 16:43:42 -0700 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Super FTF telecon on Wed. Aug. 18 Thread-Index: AcSEqTAaQMluTGe6QmefADO1NI9UZAAB1OVQ From: "Karl Frank" To: "Branislav Selic" Cc: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Aug 2004 23:43:43.0973 (UTC) FILETIME=[08329950:01C484B4] 1. 6212 It may be yet another defect if having a query named "isCoConsistentWith" is incompatible with queries of another name defined in another place "isConsistentWith()" . The prepended "co" is supposed to suggest "covariance" as opposed to "contra" in contravariance. Questions: -- argumentative in intent but meant in a collaborative way, my intent is to get a good spec out of this, not win arguments -- a) How can the "same" query be defined in more than one place?. You say "the query is defined in numerous places in the spec". The same query or queries of the same name? If the name is "isConsistentWith", how is that query inconsistent with one named "isCoConsistentWith" ? b) Isn't it a problem to have the word "consistent" used in a way contrary to its accepted meaning OUTSIDE the spec? For Operations, the definition as it stands in the spec is most certainly not what the words "is consistent with " mean. These words have a longer history by orders of magnitude than the few decades computers have been around. c) For us who are used to naming conventions, and have stomached using the word redefinition to include renaming, why is a made up word like "coconsistent" such a problem? 2. 6404 Given that a resolution to 6404 is in ballot 23, we should surely pull it from Ballot 24. You just sent me a list in which you listed 6405 as one of my remaining 10 issues and I screwed up by pulling 6404. Sorry.. 3. 6437. I always forget about Infra, since I am not on the Infra FTF. Will research the infra implications. 4. 6616 I specifically called Guus' attention to this already in the email you received, don't understand why you should suggest what I have already told you I did. Guus' views on the matter will get good attention, I am sure. But if he wants "isRoot" back (the issue does NOT say it is needed, nor does it give any argument for why it's loss is regrettable) he should explain why, because it is easier to leave it out. It is not in the FAS as approved, and no-one (including Guus) has so far given any complaint. 5. 7400. Yes, the terminology should be "Closed, no change". I had to create my own format for these, reliving the hell you have been thru often enough, because the styles and wording on the issues website do not match our report styles and wording, and I got this wrong. Will change it for the ballot. - Karl -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Branislav Selic [mailto:bselic@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 6:26 PM To: Karl Frank Cc: mu2i-ftf@omg.org; uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: Super FTF telecon on Wed. Aug. 18 Karl, some feedback on your propsoed resolutions: 6212: I have two objections to your resolution: (1) I do not feel that renaming "isConsistentWith()" to "isCoConsistentWith()" improves anything as the concept of "co-consistency" is not a common and well-understood term in the computing science community and (2), that query is defined in numerous places in the spec and would have to be redefined everywhere. I would much prefer your second potential solution. 6404: I have already provided a resolution to this issue in ballot 23. (Also, I think that your resolution is incorrect.) 6437: shouldn't this also have an Infrastructure fix in it? 6630: We had this discussion already and I strongly object to your resolution. Specifically, I believe that a client of a dependency should be able to navigate to its dependencies (it is the client). The ramifications of your change are significant since Dependency is the parent class of Realization, Usage, and InterfaceRealization, which are extensively used in many models. Your resolution will impact many implementations adversely. 6616: I seem to recall that Guus felt rather strongly about this one. I suggest that you consult him about it directly. 7400: shouldn't this be a "closed, no change" rather than a "resolved"? Cheers, Bran "Karl Frank" 08/17/2004 03:53 PM To Branislav Selic/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA, , cc Subject RE: Super FTF telecon on Wed. Aug. 18 Eight proposals are attached. One, 6630, met with counterarguments in an earlier circulation. I am still convinced my proposal is in the best interest of UML modeling, so I am sending it out again with a little more argument to back it up. The obvious easy resolution is self-evident, just x-out the navigability from Supplier, but before I fall back to that easy answer, I want to try out my preferred solution first. Guus, one of your issues is in this batch, so you should look for it. 6616, humorously but accurately named "isRoot disappeared". Karl -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Branislav Selic [mailto:bselic@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 3:20 PM To: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org; mu2i-ftf@omg.org Subject: Super FTF telecon on Wed. Aug. 18 DATE: Wed. Aug. 18 TIME: 11 am EDT (usual time) DURATION: 35 minutes NUMBER: 866 842-3549 (toll free North America) 1+613 787-5018 (International) PASSCODE: 8455752# Please plan to attend this one, it is very important. Thanks...Bran[attachment "ForBallot24.doc" deleted by Branislav Selic/Ottawa/IBM]