Issue 6444: Activity diagram problems (uml2-rtf) Source: Pivot Point (Mr. Cris Kobryn, ) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Description: The following are some recommendations to improve Activity diagrams for systems engineering applications: a) Generalize pins so that they can be applied to control as well as data. b) Clarify how activity diagrams can be used to represent continuous behavior (e.g., streaming input). c) Clarify how an object node to represent a role. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: November 6, 2003: received issue August 23, 2006: closed issue Discussion: This is too vaguely stated to act on. Part of item a) is covered in 6348. defer. From FTF: This is too vaguely stated to act on. Part of item a) is covered in 6348. defer RTF: Could not obtain clarification from filer. The part of item a) referred to in the FTF comment is that 6348 enabled pins to treat data as control (Pin.isControl) and allowing control edges to be used with object nodes (ObjectNode.isControlType). Part of item b) was addressed in FTF issue 6902, which added text to section 6.3 explaining that UML is for discrete modeling, but it “does not dictate the amount of time between events, which can be as small as needed by the application, for example, when simulating continuous behaviors.” Disposition: Closed, no change End of Annotations:===== eference: UML 2 Superstructure, OMG doc# ptc/03-08-02, Chapter 12. Issue: Activity diagram problems Description: The following are some recommendations to improve Activity diagrams for systems engineering applications: a) Generalize pins so that they can be applied to control as well as data. b) Clarify how activity diagrams can be used to represent continuous behavior (e.g., streaming input). c) Clarify how an object node to represent a role. Issue 6444: Activity diagram problems Activities Conrad B http://www.omg.org/issues/issue6444.txt yourdirectory/uml2-superstructure-ftf.open.html#Issue6444 Defer This is too vaguely stated to act on. Part of item a) is covered in 6348. Reply-To: From: "Conrad Bock" To: "Branislav Selic" , , "Eran Gery" , Cc: Subject: RE: Draft ballot 10 Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 10:37:08 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Hi Bran, Thanks. Comments on comments, and updates attached. Conrad > 4448: needs to specify Infrastructure fixes See attached. Since infra has no behaviors so can't refer to actions accessing operations, etc, I generalized the wording a bit to omit reference to behaviors and actions. This might be just as well for super also, since the text is in the Clases chapter. > 6444: I agree that some of the things are unclear in this issue > text, but I think that the clarification sought under item (b) > is fairly clear and probably should be answered. There are so many definitions of "continuous" that it's hard to (summarize We identified a half-dozen relevant meanings during SysML development, which are explained in separate paper to appear later). Super FTF issue 6902 addressed one aspect briefly in section 6.3. I added reference to it in the attached update. > I think, though, that the clarifying text should be included in > section 6.3 and not in the activities (NB: in that case, a > corresponding Infrastructure fix would have to be included as well). Not sure if there was an infrastructure issue corresponding to Super FTF issue 6902 was filed, but I didn't see any of the 6902 resolution in ptc/04-10-14 (there isn't even a runtime semantics section in the infra). If the 6902 resolution should have been propagated to infrastructure, perhaps it can be taken as an editorial fix on the FTF product. > 8271: I think it would be helpful to add an explanation that the > submitter is making an incorrect assumption that a convention > exists such that all elements in a metamodel diagram are > necessarily connected. The diagrams represent groupings based on > subject matter, which does not always imply that the elements > are directly connected (e.g., the connections may occur at more > general levels). OK, see update. aawg-ballot-101.doc