Issue 6447: Corrections and improvements to glossary definitions (uml2-superstructure-ftf) Source: Pivot Point (Mr. Cris Kobryn, ) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Description: Consider the following corrections and improvements to Terms and Definitions: Activation ­ Consider changing from “the execution of an action” to “initiating the execution of an action”. Analysis ­ Delete the term “software”. Artifact ­ Delete the term “software”. Comment ­ Replace term “note” with “comment”. Runtime. run-time for a physical system, to imply execution of the operational system. (S-pg 252) Deployment diagram ­ Replace “software artifacts as nodes” with “artifacts on nodes”. Delete the term software and change as to on. Design ­ Delete the term “software”. Delete “required functional and quality”. This is too restrictive, and doesn't include physical requirements, etc. Design time - Delete the term “software”. Development process - Delete the term “software”. Diagram ­ Update the types of diagrams to be consistent with the proposal (i.e. timing diagrams, structure diagrams, information flow, etc) Generalization ­ Insert “indirect” prior to “instance of the general classifier”. Inheritance ­ Delete last fragment “related by behavior”. Interaction diagram ­ Include reference to timing diagram. Interaction overview diagram ­ delete “s” on nodes Layer ­ Don’t restrict the use of the term partition to reflect a vertical slice of the architecture. This is too limiting. Add a qualifier such as may. Modeling time - Delete the term “software”. Module - Delete the term “software”. Object diagram ­ should this be replaced with Instance diagram. Part ­ Add the following after classifier instance “or roles of a classifier”. Reference the definition for “Role”, which provides clarification. Partition - Don’t restrict the use of the term partition too much. Partition can reflect the grouping of any set of model elements based on a set of criteria. Run time ­ Insert after “computer program” “or a system”. Specification ­ Consider changing the definition to “a set of requirements for a system or other classifier. Subsystem ­ Replace “See package” with “See system” System ­ Replace system definition with the following: A component which contains parts, and has observable properties and behaviors. Trace ­ Add the following ­ A dependency between a derived requirement and a source requirement Use case diagram ­ Change from “A diagram that shows the relationships among actors and use cases within a system” to “A diagram that shows the relationships among actors, the subject (system), and use cases Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: November 6, 2003: received issue March 9, 2005: closed issue Discussion: The glossary has been completely removed from the specification as a result of the resolution to issue 6211. Therefore, these recommendations are no longer applicable Disposition: Closed, no change End of Annotations:===== eference: UML 2 Superstructure, OMG doc# ptc/03-08-02, Preface, Terms and Definitions Issue: Corrections and improvements to glossary definitions Description: Consider the following corrections and improvements to Terms and Definitions: Activation ­ Consider changing from “the execution of an action” to “initiating the execution of an action”. Analysis ­ Delete the term “software”. Artifact ­ Delete the term “software”. Comment ­ Replace term “note” with “comment”. Runtime. run-time for a physical system, to imply execution of the operational system. (S-pg 252) Deployment diagram ­ Replace “software artifacts as nodes” with “artifacts on nodes”. Delete the term software and change as to on. Design ­ Delete the term “software”. Delete “required functional and quality”. This is too restrictive, and doesn't include physical requirements, etc. Design time - Delete the term “software”. Development process - Delete the term “software”. Diagram ­ Update the types of diagrams to be consistent with the proposal (i.e. timing diagrams, structure diagrams, information flow, etc) Generalization ­ Insert “indirect” prior to “instance of the general classifier”. Inheritance ­ Delete last fragment “related by behavior”. Interaction diagram ­ Include reference to timing diagram. Interaction overview diagram ­ delete “s” on nodes Layer ­ Don’t restrict the use of the term partition to reflect a vertical slice of the architecture. This is too limiting. Add a qualifier such as may. Modeling time - Delete the term “software”. Module - Delete the term “software”. Object diagram ­ should this be replaced with Instance diagram. Part ­ Add the following after classifier instance “or roles of a classifier”. Reference the definition for “Role”, which provides clarification. Partition - Don’t restrict the use of the term partition too much. Partition can reflect the grouping of any set of model elements based on a set of criteria. Run time ­ Insert after “computer program” “or a system”. Specification ­ Consider changing the definition to “a set of requirements for a system or other classifier. Subsystem ­ Replace “See package” with “See system” System ­ Replace system definition with the following: A component which contains parts, and has observable properties and behaviors. Trace ­ Add the following ­ A dependency between a derived requirement and a source requirement Use case diagram ­ Change from “A diagram that shows the relationships among actors and use cases within a system” to “A diagram that shows the relationships among actors, the subject (system), and use cases” OMG Issue No: 6447 Title: Corrections and improvements to glossary definitions Source: Telelogic AB (Mr. Cris Kobryn, ckobryn@acm.org) Summary: Description: Consider the following corrections and improvements to Terms and Definitions: Activation Consider changing from .the execution of an action. to .initiating the execution of an action.. Analysis Delete the term .software.. Artifact Delete the term .software.. Comment Replace term .note. with .comment.. Runtime. run-time for a physical system, to imply execution of the operational system. (S-pg 252) Deployment diagram Replace .software artifacts as nodes. with .artifacts on nodes.. Delete the term software and change as to on. Design Delete the term .software.. Delete .required functional and quality.. This is too restrictive, and doesn't include physical requirements, etc. Design time - Delete the term .software.. Development process - Delete the term .software.. Diagram Update the types of diagrams to be consistent with the proposal (i.e. timing diagrams, structure diagrams, information flow, etc) Generalization Insert .indirect. prior to .instance of the general classifier.. Inheritance Delete last fragment .related by behavior.. Interaction diagram Include reference to timing diagram. Interaction overview diagram delete .s. on nodes Layer Don.t restrict the use of the term partition to reflect a vertical slice of the architecture. This is too limiting. Add a qualifier such as may. time - Delete the term .software.. Module - Delete the term .software.. Object diagram should this be replaced with Instance diagram. Part Add the following after classifier instance .or roles of a classifier.. Reference the definition for .Role., which provides clarification. Partition - Don.t restrict the use of the term partition too much. Partition can reflect the grouping of any set of model elements based on a set of criteria. Run time Insert after .computer program. .or a system.. Specification Consider changing the definition to .a set of requirements for a system or other classifier. Subsystem Replace .See package. with .See system. System Replace system definition with the following: A component which contains parts, and has observable properties and behaviors. Trace Add the following A dependency between a derived requirement and a source requirement Use case diagram Change from .A diagram that shows the relationships among actors and use cases within a system. to .A diagram that shows the relationships among actors, the subject (system), and use cases Discussion: The glossary has been removed as a result of the resolution to issue 6211. Consequently, these suggestions, although good ones, are not applicable. Disposition: Closed, no change Reply-To: From: "Cris Kobryn" To: "'James Odell'" Cc: "'Branislav Selic'" , , Subject: RE: Glossary removal and Ballot 11 Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 12:25:47 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-Index: AcQSbZL85XbXNu0CShCFfh+TffmzCwClBSNg > Bran, > > In Ballot 11, there are two glossary-related issues (6459, 6447) that > indicate: "The glossary has been removed as a result of the resolution to > issue 6211." > > > 1) Kabira is STRONGLY against removing the glossary. > > 2) Issue 6211 has to do with the new OMG document structure requiring > certain mandatory sections -- not removing sections such as the glossary. I concur with Jim, and Telelogic also STRONGLY proposes the removal of the Glossary. (Furthermore, we do not believe that this is within the scope of the FTF's charter, since this is a major section of the specification that has 1) been voted upon for adoption by the PTC; and 2) has been part of the UML spec since 1997. I am also cc-ing the SysML Partners on this, since we are actively working on correcting and extending the UML 2 glossary so that it meets the needs of systems engineers as well as software engineers. -- Cris Subject: RE: Glossary removal and Ballot 11 Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 01:01:24 -0500 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Glossary removal and Ballot 11 Thread-Index: AcQSbZL85XbXNu0CShCFfh+TffmzCwClBSNgAAeF6PA= From: "Pete Rivett" To: Cc: "Branislav Selic" , "James Odell" , , X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id i2T5trAH014268 Cris, Did you mean to say "Telelogic also STRONGLY proposes the removal of the Glossary." - I'm guessing from the rest of the email you mean "opposes"? The Glossary has never been normative in any way - in the adopted spec it was an appendix. I certainly do not see the removal/recasting of non-normative sections/appendixes, as outside the FTF Charter: especially since it was not requested at all in the RFP. Even if a lot of effort were spent to bring it up to scratch, we would still end up with redundant text (in the glossary and the formal definition of the concept/metaclass) which leaves us with an ongoing consistency problem that I think we should aim to avoid. And would make the FTF far less *efficient* since resolutions would frequently also have to propose changed text to the Glossary. The proposal I favored at Anaheim was to have *one* place for each concept where it is fully defined: in the body of the specification, but have this 'defining occurrence' for the term/concept signaled in the index using a bold page number (or whatever typographic annotation is felt best). What alternative proposal do you or Jim have for addressing the issues discussed at Anaheim and summarized by Bran? Pete Pete Rivett (mailto:pete.rivett@adaptive.com) Consulting Architect, 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Cris Kobryn [mailto:cris.kobryn@telelogic.com] > Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 9:26 PM > To: 'James Odell' > Cc: 'Branislav Selic'; uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org; > sysml@yahoogroups.com > Subject: RE: Glossary removal and Ballot 11 > > > Bran, > > > > In Ballot 11, there are two glossary-related issues (6459, > 6447) that > > indicate: "The glossary has been removed as a result of > the resolution to > > issue 6211." > > > > > > 1) Kabira is STRONGLY against removing the glossary. > > > > 2) Issue 6211 has to do with the new OMG document structure > requiring > > certain mandatory sections -- not removing sections such as > the glossary. > > I concur with Jim, and Telelogic also STRONGLY proposes the > removal of the > Glossary. (Furthermore, we do not believe that this is within > the scope of > the FTF's charter, since this is a major section of the > specification that > has 1) been voted upon for adoption by the PTC; and 2) has > been part of the > UML spec since 1997. > > I am also cc-ing the SysML Partners on this, since we are > actively working > on correcting and extending the UML 2 glossary so that it > meets the needs of > systems engineers as well as software engineers. > > -- Cris > > > User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.4.030702.0 Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 18:55:13 -0500 Subject: Re: Glossary removal and Ballot 11 From: James Odell To: Karl, I agree that keeping a glossary consistent with the body text is a pain. I, however, believe that it is a necessary one. A central and easily accessible glossary is IMO essential to both understanding, using, and maintaining the spec. Speaking for myself, I do not want to spend large amounts of time looking through the document to find the normative definition. -Jim On 3/29/04 10:02 AM, Karl Frank scribed: > The contents of the glossary at present are inconsistent with the normative > portions of the spec. > > The continued presence of those inconsistencies in the document is > intolerable. > > How about moving it (not removing it) to a separate OMG document # and make it > available to all? We'll see just how useful it is in that new guise. > > - Karl > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pete Rivett [mailto:pete.rivett@adaptive.com] > Sent: Mon 3/29/2004 1:01 AM > To: cris.kobryn@telelogic.com > Cc: Branislav Selic; James Odell; uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org; > sysml@yahoogroups.com > Subject: RE: Glossary removal and Ballot 11 > > > > Cris, > Did you mean to say "Telelogic also STRONGLY proposes the removal of the > Glossary." - I'm guessing from the rest of the email you mean "opposes"? > > The Glossary has never been normative in any way - in the adopted spec > it was an appendix. I certainly do not see the removal/recasting of > non-normative sections/appendixes, as outside the FTF Charter: > especially since it was not requested at all in the RFP. > > Even if a lot of effort were spent to bring it up to scratch, we would > still end up with redundant text (in the glossary and the formal > definition of the concept/metaclass) which leaves us with an ongoing > consistency problem that I think we should aim to avoid. And would make > the FTF far less *efficient* since resolutions would frequently also > have to propose changed text to the Glossary. > > The proposal I favored at Anaheim was to have *one* place for each > concept where it is fully defined: in the body of the specification, but > have this 'defining occurrence' for the term/concept signaled in the > index using a bold page number (or whatever typographic annotation is > felt best). > > What alternative proposal do you or Jim have for addressing the issues > discussed at Anaheim and summarized by Bran? > > > Pete > > Pete Rivett (mailto:pete.rivett@adaptive.com) > Consulting Architect, 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 > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Cris Kobryn [mailto:cris.kobryn@telelogic.com] >> Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 9:26 PM >> To: 'James Odell' >> Cc: 'Branislav Selic'; uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org; >> sysml@yahoogroups.com >> Subject: RE: Glossary removal and Ballot 11 >> >>> Bran, >>> >>> In Ballot 11, there are two glossary-related issues (6459, >> 6447) that >>> indicate: "The glossary has been removed as a result of >> the resolution to >>> issue 6211." >>> >>> >>> 1) Kabira is STRONGLY against removing the glossary. >>> >>> 2) Issue 6211 has to do with the new OMG document structure >> requiring >>> certain mandatory sections -- not removing sections such as >> the glossary. >> >> I concur with Jim, and Telelogic also STRONGLY proposes the >> removal of the >> Glossary. (Furthermore, we do not believe that this is within >> the scope of >> the FTF's charter, since this is a major section of the >> specification that >> has 1) been voted upon for adoption by the PTC; and 2) has >> been part of the >> UML spec since 1997. >> >> I am also cc-ing the SysML Partners on this, since we are >> actively working >> on correcting and extending the UML 2 glossary so that it >> meets the needs of >> systems engineers as well as software engineers. >> >> -- Cris >> >> >> > > To: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: Fw: Glossary removal and Ballot 11 -- from Jim Odell X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.2CF1 June 9, 2003 From: Branislav Selic Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 04:59:12 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML05/25/M/IBM(Release 6.0.2CF1|June 9, 2003) at 03/30/2004 04:59:17, Serialize complete at 03/30/2004 04:59:17 ------ Forwarded Message From: James Odell Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 18:55:13 -0500 To: Subject: Re: Glossary removal and Ballot 11 Karl, I agree that keeping a glossary consistent with the body text is a pain. I, however, believe that it is a necessary one. A central and easily accessible glossary is IMO essential to both understanding, using, and maintaining the spec. Speaking for myself, I do not want to spend large amounts of time looking through the document to find the normative definition. -Jim On 3/29/04 10:02 AM, Karl Frank scribed: > The contents of the glossary at present are inconsistent with the normative > portions of the spec. > > The continued presence of those inconsistencies in the document is > intolerable. > > How about moving it (not removing it) to a separate OMG document # and make it > available to all? We'll see just how useful it is in that new guise. > > - Karl > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pete Rivett [mailto:pete.rivett@adaptive.com] > Sent: Mon 3/29/2004 1:01 AM > To: cris.kobryn@telelogic.com > Cc: Branislav Selic; James Odell; uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org; > sysml@yahoogroups.com > Subject: RE: Glossary removal and Ballot 11 > > > > Cris, > Did you mean to say "Telelogic also STRONGLY proposes the removal of the > Glossary." - I'm guessing from the rest of the email you mean "opposes"? > > The Glossary has never been normative in any way - in the adopted spec > it was an appendix. I certainly do not see the removal/recasting of > non-normative sections/appendixes, as outside the FTF Charter: > especially since it was not requested at all in the RFP. > > Even if a lot of effort were spent to bring it up to scratch, we would > still end up with redundant text (in the glossary and the formal > definition of the concept/metaclass) which leaves us with an ongoing > consistency problem that I think we should aim to avoid. And would make > the FTF far less *efficient* since resolutions would frequently also > have to propose changed text to the Glossary. > > The proposal I favored at Anaheim was to have *one* place for each > concept where it is fully defined: in the body of the specification, but > have this 'defining occurrence' for the term/concept signaled in the > index using a bold page number (or whatever typographic annotation is > felt best). > > What alternative proposal do you or Jim have for addressing the issues > discussed at Anaheim and summarized by Bran? > > > Pete > > Pete Rivett (mailto:pete.rivett@adaptive.com) > Consulting Architect, 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 > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Cris Kobryn [mailto:cris.kobryn@telelogic.com] >> Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 9:26 PM >> To: 'James Odell' >> Cc: 'Branislav Selic'; uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org; >> sysml@yahoogroups.com >> Subject: RE: Glossary removal and Ballot 11 >> >>> Bran, >>> >>> In Ballot 11, there are two glossary-related issues (6459, >> 6447) that >>> indicate: "The glossary has been removed as a result of >> the resolution to >>> issue 6211." >>> >>> >>> 1) Kabira is STRONGLY against removing the glossary. >>> >>> 2) Issue 6211 has to do with the new OMG document structure >> requiring >>> certain mandatory sections -- not removing sections such as >> the glossary. >> >> I concur with Jim, and Telelogic also STRONGLY proposes the >> removal of the >> Glossary. (Furthermore, we do not believe that this is within >> the scope of >> the FTF's charter, since this is a major section of the >> specification that >> has 1) been voted upon for adoption by the PTC; and 2) has >> been part of the >> UML spec since 1997. >> >> I am also cc-ing the SysML Partners on this, since we are >> actively working >> on correcting and extending the UML 2 glossary so that it >> meets the needs of >> systems engineers as well as software engineers. >> >> -- Cris >> >> >> > > ------ End of Forwarded Message