Issue 6503: Why not using the UML1 activity symbol for UML2 actions? (uml2-rtf) Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG (Mr. Tim Weilkiens, tim.weilkiens(at)oose.de) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: I didn't recognize it before, but now I am surprised that the action symbol is not the same as the UML1 activity symbol ("shape with straight top and bottom and with convex arcs on the two sides"). Actions are no activities, but the semantic is similar for the "normal" UML user. In UML1 the user has to distinguish between the activity symbol and the state symbol ("round-cornered rectangle"), especially if states and activities are shown within the same diagram. Now you has to use the UML1 state symbol for actions. I think that this is confusing for the normal UML user. Another point is that the action symbol is the same as the state symbol. There will be no chance for a misunderstanding, because both symbols are not allowed within the same diagram. But it would be much clearer if the action symbol has a different notation and looks like the UML1 activity symbol. So, why not using the UML1 activity symbol for UML2 actions? Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: November 7, 2003: received issue March 5, 2004: moved to the Superstructure FTF from Infrastructure August 23, 2006: closed issue Discussion: This is too large and debatable a change for the FTF to address, and does not affect implementability. UML2 completely separates state machine and activity semantics and notation. This eliminates the need to have different symbols to distinguish states from activities on the same diagram. UML2 could have used the UML1.x activity notation for actions in an activity, but rounded rectangles are somewhat easier to draw by hand, and there shape may be simpler to manage. At this point, the cost of changing this is probably greater than its value. Disposition: Closed, no change End of Annotations:===== -Return: cris.kobryn@telelogic.com Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 07:18:42 -0000 From: "Cris Kobryn" To: juergen@omg.org, issues@omg.org, cris.kobryn@telelogic.com Subject: Fwd: Why not using the UML1 activity symbol for UML2 actions? User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 68.71.8.84 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id hA88IUNA023326 --- In u2p-issues@yahoogroups.com, "Tim Weilkiens" wrote: Hi, I didn't recognize it before, but now I am surprised that the action symbol is not the same as the UML1 activity symbol ("shape with straight top and bottom and with convex arcs on the two sides"). Actions are no activities, but the semantic is similar for the "normal" UML user. In UML1 the user has to distinguish between the activity symbol and the state symbol ("round-cornered rectangle"), especially if states and activities are shown within the same diagram. Now you has to use the UML1 state symbol for actions. I think that this is confusing for the normal UML user. Another point is that the action symbol is the same as the state symbol. There will be no chance for a misunderstanding, because both symbols are not allowed within the same diagram. But it would be much clearer if the action symbol has a different notation and looks like the UML1 activity symbol. So, why not using the UML1 activity symbol for UML2 actions? Tim --- E-Mail tim.weilkiens@o... Fon ++49 +40 41 42 50 - 25 Fax ++49 +40 41 42 50 - 50 oose.de Dienstleistungen für innovative Informatik GmbH Oberstraße 14b, D-20144 Hamburg Amtsgericht Hamburg HRB 66648 Geschäftsführer Bernd Oestereich Internet www.oose.de OMG Issue No: 6503 Title: Why not using the UML1 activity symbol for UML2 actions? Source: oose.de Dienstleistungen fur innovative Informatik (Mr. Tim Weilkiens, tim.weilkiens@oose.de) Summary: I didn't recognize it before, but now I am surprised that the action Symbol is not the same as the UML1 activity symbol ("shape with straight top and bottom and with convex arcs on the two sides"). Actions are no activities, but the semantic is similar for the "normal" UML user. In UML1 the user has to distinguish between the activity symbol and the state symbol ("round-cornered rectangle"), especially if states and activities are shown within the same diagram. Now you has to use the UML1 state symbol for actions. I think that this is confusing for the normal UML user. Another point is that the action symbol is the same as the state symbol. There will be no chance for a misunderstanding, because both symbols are not allowed within the same diagram. But it would be much clearer if the action symbol has a different notation and looks like the UML1 activity symbol. So, why not using the UML1 activity symbol for UML2 actions? Discussion: This is too large and debatable a change for the FTF to address, and does not affect implementability. Disposition: Defer --- End forwarded message ---