Issue 6515: Inconsistency concerning VisibilityKind - UML2 Superstructure (uml2-superstructure-ftf) Source: Daimler AG (Mr. Mario Jeckle, mario(at)jeckle.de) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Just a minor point, but still annoying to the reader ... The superstructure lists at page 16 all four possible types (i.e. "public", "private", "protected", and "package") but within the Infrastructure document (page 73) solely "public" and "private" are mentioned. The same for the enumeration example at page 116. Also it would be helpful to shift the visual presentation options ("+", "-", "#", and "~") for VisibilityKind from the chapter describing attributes (Superstructure p. 41) to more general description at page 16 which is multiple referenced from other parts of the spec. Resolution: see abov e Revised Text: Actions taken: November 7, 2003: received issue March 8, 2005: closed issue Discussion: The issue was apparently drafted against a version of the UML2 Superstructure document preceding the FAS (ptc/03-08-02). Consequently, SuperFAS location references have been translated as follows: Issue location Superstructure FAS location “page 16” Section 7.3.6, page 39-40, VisibilityKind “page 116” Section 7.12.2, page 97, Enumeration, Figure 42 “p. 41” Section 7.8.1, page 64, Classifier Furthermore, the reference to “Infrastructure document (page 73)” is translated as Section 9.20.2, page 93, VisibilityKind, in the UML2 Infrastructure FAS (ptc/03-09-15). Apparently, the InfraFAS does not include protected and package enumeration literals for the VisibilityKind enumeration because MOF does not require them. However, in view of the desire to have corresponding sections of the SuperFAS and InfraFAS be identical, it seems necessary to add protected and package literals to the definition of VisibilityKind in the InfraFAS. MOF (or any other reuser of the Infrastructure) can choose to either (1) ignore unused values or (2) provide constraints preventing their use, as appropriate. The following changes are required to accomplish the task and bring both documents into alignment: Add “protected” and “package” as the third and fourth literal values, respectively, in the Description subsection of VisiblityKind, section 9.20.2, page 93, of the UML2 Infrastructure FAS. Change the phrase “Any element marked as having package element is visible” to “Any element marked as having package visibility is visible” in the third sentence of the fourth bullet point in the Semantics subsection, section 7.3.6, page 40, of the UML2 Superstructure FAS. (This change is intended only as a grammatical change to provide correctness, clarity and cross-document alignment by fixing a wrong word choice.) Add a third bullet point to the Semantics subsection of VisibilityKind, section 9.20.2, page 93, of the UML2 Infrastructure FAS with the text “A protected element is visible to elements that have a generalization relationship to the namespace that owns it.” Add a fourth bullet point in the Semantics subsection of VisibilityKind, section 9.20.2, page 93, of the UML2 Infrastructure FAS with the text “A package element is owned by a namespace that is not a package, and is visible to elements that are in the same package as its owning namespace. Only named elements that are not owned by packages can be marked as having package visibility. Any element marked as having package visibility is visible to all elements within the nearest enclosing package (given that other owning elements have proper visibility). Outside the nearest enclosing package, an element marked as having package visibility is not visible.” Add “protected” and “package” as the third and fourth literals, respectively, of the VisiblityKind enumeration in Figure 42, section 7.12.2, page 97, of the UML2 Superstructure FAS. Add “protected” and “package” as the third and fourth literals, respectively, of the VisiblityKind enumeration in Figure 63, section 9.20, page 92, of the UML2 Infrastructure FAS. Add “protected” and “package” as the third and fourth literals, respectively, of the VisiblityKind enumeration in Figure 88, section 11.5.4, page 136, of the UML2 Infrastructure FAS. The suggestion to move the discussion of visibility presentation options to the VisibilityKind section is reasonable and places discussion of these options in a more likely location. However, removing the offending references presents textual flow problems in both FASs. Rather than removing them, a discussion of visibility presentation options is added to the VisibilityKind section. The following changes are required to accomplish this: In the first bullet under the text “In the following bullets, each of these parts is described:” on page 120, section 11.3.3, of the UML2 Infrastructure FAS replace the text “such as + or -.” with the text “such as +, -, #, or ~”. In the discussion of VisibilityKind at the following locations UML2 Superstructure FAS, section 7.3.6, page 40 UML2 Infrastructure FAS, section 9.20.2, page 93, add the following Notation subsection after the existing Semantics subsection: Notation The following visual presentation options are available for representing VisibilityKind enumeration literal values: “+” public “-“ private “#” protected “~” package End of Annotations:===== -Return: cris.kobryn@telelogic.com Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 07:22:04 -0000 From: "Cris Kobryn" To: juergen@omg.org, issues@omg.org, cris.kobryn@telelogic.com Subject: Fwd: Inconsistency concerning VisibilityKind - UML2 Superstructure User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 68.71.8.84 --- In u2p-issues@yahoogroups.com, Mario Jeckle wrote: Just a minor point, but still annoying to the reader ... The superstructure lists at page 16 all four possible types (i.e. "public", "private", "protected", and "package") but within the Infrastructure document (page 73) solely "public" and "private" are mentioned. The same for the enumeration example at page 116. Also it would be helpful to shift the visual presentation options ("+", "-", "#", and "~") for VisibilityKind from the chapter describing attributes (Superstructure p. 41) to more general description at page 16 which is multiple referenced from other parts of the spec. Mario -- Prof. Mario Jeckle University of Applied Sciences Furtwangen Dept. Business Applications of Computer Science W3C Representative of DaimlerChrysler Research and Technology OMG Representative of DaimlerChrysler URL: http://www.jeckle.de MailTo:mario@j... MailTo:jeckle@f... My public key: http://www.jeckle.de/marioJeckle.pub [mail really from me _always_ has this signature and is signed digitally -- mail without it is forged spam] Subject: ,cl, Proposed resolution for shared issue 6515 Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 15:48:24 -0700 X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: ,cl, Proposed resolution for shared issue 6515 Thread-Index: AcROc96mDaKSzgfURFeEzNE29P+23Q== From: "Tolbert, Doug M" To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Jun 2004 22:48:25.0314 (UTC) FILETIME=[DF9EAC20:01C44E73] A proposed resolution for the subject issue can be found in the attached Word document. Doug <> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its attachments from all computers. UML2 Shared Issue 6515 Resolution.doc OMG Issue No: 6515 Title: Dependency notation for interfaces - UML2 Superstructure Source: DaimlerChrysler (Mr. Mario Jeckle, mario@jeckle.de) Summary: Just a minor point, but still annoying to the reader ... The superstructure lists at page 16 all four possible types (i.e. "public", "private", "protected", and "package") but within the Infrastructure document (page 73) solely "public" and "private" are mentioned. The same for the enumeration example at page 116. Also it would be helpful to shift the visual presentation options ("+", "-", "#", and "~") for VisibilityKind from the chapter describing attributes (Superstructure p. 41) to more general description at page 16 which is multiple referenced from other parts of the spec. Discussion: The issue was apparently drafted against a version of the UML2 Superstructure document preceding the FAS (ptc/03-08-02). Consequently, SuperFAS location references have been translated as follows: Issue location Superstructure FAS location .page 16. Section 7.3.6, page 39-40, VisibilityKind .page 116. Section 7.12.2, page 97, Enumeration, Figure 42 .p. 41. Section 7.8.1, page 64, Classifier Furthermore, the reference to .Infrastructure document (page 73). is translated as Section 9.20.2, page 93, VisibilityKind, in the UML2 Infrastructure FAS (ptc/03-09-15). Apparently, the InfraFAS does not include protected and package enumeration literals for the VisibilityKind enumeration because MOF does not require them. However, in view of the desire to have corresponding sections of the SuperFAS and InfraFAS be identical, it seems necessary to add protected and package literals to the definition of VisibilityKind in the InfraFAS. MOF (or any other re-user of the Infrastructure) can choose to either (1) ignore unused values or (2) provide constraints preventing their use, as appropriate. The following changes are required to accomplish the task and bring both documents into alignment: Add .protected. and .package. as the third and fourth literal values, respectively, in the Description subsection of VisiblityKind, section 9.20.2, page 93, of the UML2 Infrastructure FAS. Change the phrase .Any element marked as having package element is visible. to .Any element marked as having package visibility is visible. in the third sentence of the fourth bullet point in the Semantics subsection, section 7.3.6, page 40, of the UML2 Superstructure FAS. (This change is intended only as a grammatical change to provide correctness, clarity and cross-document alignment by fixing a wrong word choice.) Add a third bullet point to the Semantics subsection of VisibilityKind, section 9.20.2, page 93, of the UML2 Infrastructure FAS with the text .A protected element is visible to elements that have a generalization relationship to the namespace that owns it.. Add a fourth bullet point in the Semantics subsection of VisibilityKind, section 9.20.2, page 93, of the UML2 Infrastructure FAS with the text .A package element is owned by a namespace that is not a package, and is visible to elements that are in the same package as its owning namespace. Only named elements that are not owned by packages can be marked as having package visibility. Any element marked as having package visibility is visible to all elements within the nearest enclosing package (given that other owning elements have proper visibility). Outside the nearest enclosing package, an element marked as having package visibility is not visible.. Add .protected. and .package. as the third and fourth literals, respectively, of the VisiblityKind enumeration in Figure 42, section 7.12.2, page 97, of the UML2 Superstructure FAS. Add .protected. and .package. as the third and fourth literals, respectively, of the VisiblityKind enumeration in Figure 63, section 9.20, page 92, of the UML2 Infrastructure FAS. Add .protected. and .package. as the third and fourth literals, respectively, of the VisiblityKind enumeration in Figure 88, section 11.5.4, page 136, of the UML2 Infrastructure FAS. The suggestion to move the discussion of visibility presentation options to the VisibilityKind section is reasonable and places discussion of these options in a more likely location. However, removing the offending references presents textual flow problems in both FASs. Rather than removing them, a discussion of visibility presentation options is added to the VisibilityKind section. The following changes are required to accomplish this: In the first bullet under the text .In the following bullets, each of these parts is described:. on page 120, section 11.3.3, of the UML2 Infrastructure FAS replace the text .such as + or -.. with the text .such as +, -, #, or ~.. In the discussion of VisibilityKind at the following locations UML2 Superstructure FAS, section 7.3.6, page 40 UML2 Infrastructure FAS, section 9.20.2, page 93, add the following Notation subsection after the existing Semantics subsection: Notation The following visual presentation options are available for representing VisibilityKind enumeration literal values: .+. public .-. private .#. protected .~. package Disposition: Resolved Subject: FW: ,cl, Proposed resolution for shared issue 6515 Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 09:16:46 -0700 X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: ,cl, Proposed resolution for shared issue 6515 Thread-Index: AcROc96mDaKSzgfURFeEzNE29P+23QagMgJA From: "Tolbert, Doug M" To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Jul 2004 16:16:47.0483 (UTC) FILETIME=[CBDDB4B0:01C468F4] This is a resending of the proposed resolution to issue 6515 requested by Bran. Doug -----Original Message----- From: Tolbert, Doug M [mailto:Doug.Tolbert@unisys.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 3:48 PM To: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org; mu2i-ftf@omg.org Subject: ,cl, Proposed resolution for shared issue 6515 A proposed resolution for the subject issue can be found in the attached Word document. Doug <> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its attachments from all computers. UML2 Shared Issue 6515 Resolution1.doc OMG Issue No: 6515 Title: Dependency notation for interfaces - UML2 Superstructure Source: DaimlerChrysler (Mr. Mario Jeckle, mario@jeckle.de) Summary: Just a minor point, but still annoying to the reader ... The superstructure lists at page 16 all four possible types (i.e. "public", "private", "protected", and "package") but within the Infrastructure document (page 73) solely "public" and "private" are mentioned. The same for the enumeration example at page 116. Also it would be helpful to shift the visual presentation options ("+", "-", "#", and "~") for VisibilityKind from the chapter describing attributes (Superstructure p. 41) to more general description at page 16 which is multiple referenced from other parts of the spec. Discussion: The issue was apparently drafted against a version of the UML2 Superstructure document preceding the FAS (ptc/03-08-02). Consequently, SuperFAS location references have been translated as follows: Issue location Superstructure FAS location .page 16. Section 7.3.6, page 39-40, VisibilityKind .page 116. Section 7.12.2, page 97, Enumeration, Figure 42 .p. 41. Section 7.8.1, page 64, Classifier Furthermore, the reference to .Infrastructure document (page 73). is translated as Section 9.20.2, page 93, VisibilityKind, in the UML2 Infrastructure FAS (ptc/03-09-15). Apparently, the InfraFAS does not include protected and package enumeration literals for the VisibilityKind enumeration because MOF does not require them. However, in view of the desire to have corresponding sections of the SuperFAS and InfraFAS be identical, it seems necessary to add protected and package literals to the definition of VisibilityKind in the InfraFAS. MOF (or any other re-user of the Infrastructure) can choose to either (1) ignore unused values or (2) provide constraints preventing their use, as appropriate. The following changes are required to accomplish the task and bring both documents into alignment: Add .protected. and .package. as the third and fourth literal values, respectively, in the Description subsection of VisiblityKind, section 9.20.2, page 93, of the UML2 Infrastructure FAS. Change the phrase .Any element marked as having package element is visible. to .Any element marked as having package visibility is visible. in the third sentence of the fourth bullet point in the Semantics subsection, section 7.3.6, page 40, of the UML2 Superstructure FAS. (This change is intended only as a grammatical change to provide correctness, clarity and cross-document alignment by fixing a wrong word choice.) Add a third bullet point to the Semantics subsection of VisibilityKind, section 9.20.2, page 93, of the UML2 Infrastructure FAS with the text .A protected element is visible to elements that have a generalization relationship to the namespace that owns it.. Add a fourth bullet point in the Semantics subsection of VisibilityKind, section 9.20.2, page 93, of the UML2 Infrastructure FAS with the text .A package element is owned by a namespace that is not a package, and is visible to elements that are in the same package as its owning namespace. Only named elements that are not owned by packages can be marked as having package visibility. Any element marked as having package visibility is visible to all elements within the nearest enclosing package (given that other owning elements have proper visibility). Outside the nearest enclosing package, an element marked as having package visibility is not visible.. Add .protected. and .package. as the third and fourth literals, respectively, of the VisiblityKind enumeration in Figure 42, section 7.12.2, page 97, of the UML2 Superstructure FAS. Add .protected. and .package. as the third and fourth literals, respectively, of the VisiblityKind enumeration in Figure 63, section 9.20, page 92, of the UML2 Infrastructure FAS. Add .protected. and .package. as the third and fourth literals, respectively, of the VisiblityKind enumeration in Figure 88, section 11.5.4, page 136, of the UML2 Infrastructure FAS. The suggestion to move the discussion of visibility presentation options to the VisibilityKind section is reasonable and places discussion of these options in a more likely location. However, removing the offending references presents textual flow problems in both FASs. Rather than removing them, a discussion of visibility presentation options is added to the VisibilityKind section. The following changes are required to accomplish this: In the first bullet under the text .In the following bullets, each of these parts is described:. on page 120, section 11.3.3, of the UML2 Infrastructure FAS replace the text .such as + or -.. with the text .such as +, -, #, or ~.. In the discussion of VisibilityKind at the following locations UML2 Superstructure FAS, section 7.3.6, page 40 UML2 Infrastructure FAS, section 9.20.2, page 93, add the following Notation subsection after the existing Semantics subsection: Notation The following visual presentation options are available for representing VisibilityKind enumeration literal values: .+. public .-. private .#. protected .~. package Disposition: Resolved Subject: RE: Ballot 19 - 1 week to vote! Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 15:19:49 +0200 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Ballot 19 - 1 week to vote! Thread-Index: AcRre8Y5Nxo7ikl5QziJ67h1boi2IQDpTkUA From: "Anders Ek" To: "Branislav Selic" , Cc: Some questions: 6515: Is really title of the issue correct? It seems to be about dependencies but the text only deals with restructuring visibility. 7053: Is really the discussion text correct? It seems like we don.t want to change the current multiplicity (1) but still the text talks about having multiplicity 0..1 Note that I have no complaints on the proposed resolutions to the issues. I just want to make sure that I have understood the proposals correctly. /Anders -----Original Message----- From: Branislav Selic [mailto:bselic@ca.ibm.com] Sent: den 16 juli 2004 23:22 To: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Cc: mu2i-ftf@omg.org Subject: Ballot 19 - 1 week to vote! Attached is the official ballot 19. The vote starts today at 6 PM EDT and concludes next Friday, July 23 at 6 PM EDT. Regards, Bran To: "Anders Ek" Cc: mu2i-ftf@omg.org, uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: Ballot 19 - 1 week to vote! X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.2CF1 June 9, 2003 From: Branislav Selic Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 23:39:27 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML01/25/M/IBM(Release 6.0.2CF2|July 23, 2003) at 07/21/2004 23:39:33, Serialize complete at 07/21/2004 23:39:33 Good eye, Anders. The title on issue 6515 is indeed incorrect. It should be: "Inconsistency concerning VisibilityKind". This was probably an error that I introduced when I copied the issue from the OMG database, so I apologize. Fortunately, the text of the issue is the correct one as is the response. Regarding issue 7053, the last phrase in the last sentence is somewhat misleading. It really should say that the multiplicities on the relevant association ends should "remain 1" and, furthermore, should not discuss ownership at all, since these associations are not aggregations. However, the conclusions in the text (that states, regions, and transitions have a state machine context) and the "closed, no change" disposition are both correct. With Eran's permission, I will change the text of the resolution when I enter it into the draft FTF report to read: "therefore, the multiplicities of these association ends should remain 1". Thanks for the careful scrutiny. It would be great if more people did such reviews. Regards, Bran "Anders Ek" 07/21/2004 09:19 AM To Branislav Selic/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA, cc Subject RE: Ballot 19 - 1 week to vote! Some questions: 6515: Is really title of the issue correct? It seems to be about dependencies but the text only deals with restructuring visibility. 7053: Is really the discussion text correct? It seems like we donâ..t want to change the current multiplicity (1) but still the text talks about having multiplicity 0..1 Note that I have no complaints on the proposed resolutions to the issues. I just want to make sure that I have understood the proposals correctly. /Anders -----Original Message----- From: Branislav Selic [mailto:bselic@ca.ibm.com] Sent: den 16 juli 2004 23:22 To: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Cc: mu2i-ftf@omg.org Subject: Ballot 19 - 1 week to vote! Attached is the official ballot 19. The vote starts today at 6 PM EDT and concludes next Friday, July 23 at 6 PM EDT. Regards, Bran --- End forwarded message ---