Issue 6561: Issue: Unspecified syntax and semantics for Integer, Real, and String (ocl2-rtf) Source: (, ) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Description: The specification does not describes the syntax of integer, real or string literals. Also, it does not contain the description of the allowed set of values. Rationale: Specifying the syntax and the semantics of basic types will increase the portability of OCL programs. In order to describe the semantics of basic types, the specification should describe the set of values, the allowed operations, and the standard used to perform the allowed operations. I think that it will be also useful to allow different types of integers and reals, like Integer(16), Integer(32), Integer(64), Real(32), and Real(64), in order to optimize the computational process. Resolution: OCL 2.3 introduced concrete syntax specifications for integer, real or string literals. In regard to specific sets of values, the issue seems to indicate a misunderstanding of OCL; OCL is a specification language that may be evaluated. Integers and Reals are unlimited. If a particular implementation chooses to use a restricted value set, then it is for that implementation to prove that its reduced range is appropriate. Users can of course define their own DataTypes with whatever characteristics they find suitable. Disposition: Closed, no change Revised Text: Actions taken: November 11, 2003: received issue December 23, 2013: closed issue Discussion: This is a request to improve language definition and extend its expresiveness. Should better be solved in a RTF. End of Annotations:===== ssue: Unspecified syntax and semantics for Integer, Real, and String Description: The specification does not describes the syntax of integer, real or string literals. Also, it does not contain the description of the allowed set of values. Rationale: Specifying the syntax and the semantics of basic types will increase the portability of OCL programs. In order to describe the semantics of basic types, the specification should describe the set of values, the allowed operations, and the standard used to perform the allowed operations. I think that it will be also useful to allow different types of integers and reals, like Integer(16), Integer(32), Integer(64), Real(32), and Real(64), in order to optimize the computational process. Subject: RE: OCL FTF Ballot (1st pool), closing May 16th 2005, 20:00 GMT Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 15:08:21 -0400 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: OCL FTF Ballot (1st pool), closing May 16th 2005, 20:00 GMT Thread-Index: AcVSIroogHg7CmfvRdiFfkQAY3sBFgIGKzMQ From: "Pete Rivett" To: "BELAUNDE Mariano RD-MAPS-LAN" , Cc: "Jos Warmer" X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at sentraliant.com Adaptive votes YES to all the issues in this ballot, except 6556 and 6561 to which it votes NO, for reasons as follows: 6556: I think forward compatibility is important and it's not at all clear whether or not the omission of allAttributes was accidental. 6561: This is really two issues in one: a) I think it's incumbent for a textual language to describe the concrete syntax for literals. b) I agree that different types such as Integer (16) is outside the scope and should be deferred. Minor editorial point: the Discussion for issue 6528, 6529, 6530, 6544, 6556, 6557, 6559, 6561, 6565, 6566, 6572, 6573, 6879 to 6895, 7457, 7463 etc should really say "Better solved in a new RFP" than "Better solved in a RTF" since if anything RTFs are more constrained than the FTF. Or state that they're being deferred to the RTF for timing reasons. NB Issues like 6567, 6564, 6570 would be better closed as 'Duplicate' rather than 'Merged' which is not an 'official' category, and there is for many of these no 'merged' resolution to refer to (they remain unresolved). Pete Pete Rivett (mailto:pete.rivett@adaptive.com) CTO, 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: BELAUNDE Mariano RD-MAPS-LAN [mailto:mariano.belaunde@francetelecom.com] Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 11:03 AM To: ocl2-ftf@omg.org Cc: Jos Warmer Subject: OCL FTF Ballot (1st pool), closing May 16th 2005, 20:00 GMT Hi FTF members, As already announced, here is the 1st ballot for the OMG OCL2 FTF. For details on the issue resolutions please refer to the attached document (zip/word file) listing all the issue resolutions of this ballot. The voting deadline is May 16th, 2005, 20:00 GMT. Regards, Mariano Note: The extension of the zip file has been changed to zzz. <> ------------------- snip -------------------- *** OCL2.0 FTF Ballot 1st Poll *** *** Voting Deadline May 16th, 2005, 20:00 GMT *** Company: Voter: Please vote with Yes/No/Abstain for each issue resolution, as detailed in the attachment. Note: A short reason for No votes is mandatory. OMG Issue No 1790: OMG Issue No 3392: OMG Issue No 3800: OMG Issue No 3855: OMG Issue No 4112: OMG Issue No 4691: OMG Issue No 4692: OMG Issue No 4693: OMG Issue No 4694: OMG Issue No 5581: OMG Issue No 5582: OMG Issue No 6393: OMG Issue No 6528: OMG Issue No 6529: OMG Issue No 6530: OMG Issue No 6537: OMG Issue No 6542: OMG Issue No 6543: OMG Issue No 6544: OMG Issue No 6545: OMG Issue No 6559: OMG Issue No 6561: OMG Issue No 6564: OMG Issue No 6565: OMG Issue No 6566: OMG Issue No 6567: OMG Issue No 6568: OMG Issue No 6569: OMG Issue No 6570: OMG Issue No 6572: OMG Issue No 6573: OMG Issue No 6610: OMG Issue No 6612: OMG Issue No 6633: OMG Issue No 6879: OMG Issue No 6880: OMG Issue No 6881: OMG Issue No 6882: OMG Issue No 6883: OMG Issue No 6884: OMG Issue No 6885: OMG Issue No 6886: OMG Issue No 6887: OMG Issue No 6888: OMG Issue No 6889: OMG Issue No 6890: OMG Issue No 6891: OMG Issue No 6892: OMG Issue No 6893: OMG Issue No 6894: OMG Issue No 6895: OMG Issue No 7456: OMG Issue No 7457: OMG Issue No 7462: OMG Issue No 7463: OMG Issue No 7469: OMG Issue No 7470: ------------------- snip -------------------- X-Sender: klas0@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.2.0 Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 09:37:04 +0200 To: "Pete Rivett" From: Jos Warmer Subject: RE: OCL FTF Ballot (1st pool), closing May 16th 2005, 20:00 GMT Cc: "BELAUNDE Mariano RD-MAPS-LAN" , X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Pete, I can assure you that "allAttrubutes" has been removed on purpose, it was not accidental. The reason behind this was that the access to attributes etc. was basically a cripled way to get some (but not much) infromation about the metalevel. All you get is a list of Strings, with the names of attributes. There is no way to get any more information about these attributes (like e.g. their type etc.) . As such it was seen as not very useful. As OCL submitters we expected a generic way to get access to the metalevel defined in theUML 2 infrastructure or superstructure and we deceded that it would be more useful to - reuse something that is already defined in the infrastructure or superstructure - have reall access to the metalevel As it is, I think that the access to the metalevel in the infrastructure or superstructure is not available. Which leaves us with the choice to either keep "allAttributes" in its not sio usefull form or remove it and define something more useful later on. My choice still is to remove it, but since I have no vote this is just a personal opinion. Jos At 09:08 PM 5/16/2005, Pete Rivett wrote: Adaptive votes YES to all the issues in this ballot, except 6556 and 6561 to which it votes NO, for reasons as follows: 6556: I think forward compatibility is important and it's not at all clear whether or not the omission of allAttributes was accidental. 6561: This is really two issues in one: a) I think it's incumbent for a textual language to describe the concrete syntax for literals. b) I agree that different types such as Integer (16) is outside the scope and should be deferred. Minor editorial point: the Discussion for issue 6528, 6529, 6530, 6544, 6556, 6557, 6559, 6561, 6565, 6566, 6572, 6573, 6879 to 6895, 7457, 7463 etc should really say "Better solved in a new RFP" than "Better solved in a RTF" since if anything RTFs are more constrained than the FTF. Or state that they're being deferred to the RTF for timing reasons. NB Issues like 6567, 6564, 6570 would be better closed as 'Duplicate' rather than 'Merged' which is not an 'official' category, and there is for many of these no 'merged' resolution to refer to (they remain unresolved). Pete Pete Rivett (mailto:pete.rivett@adaptive.com) CTO, 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: BELAUNDE Mariano RD-MAPS-LAN [mailto:mariano.belaunde@francetelecom.com] Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 11:03 AM To: ocl2-ftf@omg.org Cc: Jos Warmer Subject: OCL FTF Ballot (1st pool), closing May 16th 2005, 20:00 GMT Hi FTF members, As already announced, here is the 1st ballot for the OMG OCL2 FTF. For details on the issue resolutions please refer to the attached document (zip/word file) listing all the issue resolutions of this ballot. The voting deadline is May 16th, 2005, 20:00 GMT. Regards, Mariano Note: The extension of the zip file has been changed to zzz. <> ------------------- snip -------------------- *** OCL2.0 FTF Ballot 1st Poll *** *** Voting Deadline May 16th, 2005, 20:00 GMT *** Company: Voter: Please vote with Yes/No/Abstain for each issue resolution, as detailed in the attachment. Note: A short reason for No votes is mandatory. OMG Issue No 1790: OMG Issue No 3392: OMG Issue No 3800: OMG Issue No 3855: OMG Issue No 4112: OMG Issue No 4691: OMG Issue No 4692: OMG Issue No 4693: OMG Issue No 4694: OMG Issue No 5581: OMG Issue No 5582: OMG Issue No 6393: OMG Issue No 6528: OMG Issue No 6529: OMG Issue No 6530: OMG Issue No 6537: OMG Issue No 6542: OMG Issue No 6543: OMG Issue No 6544: OMG Issue No 6545: OMG Issue No 6559: OMG Issue No 6561: OMG Issue No 6564: OMG Issue No 6565: OMG Issue No 6566: OMG Issue No 6567: OMG Issue No 6568: OMG Issue No 6569: OMG Issue No 6570: OMG Issue No 6572: OMG Issue No 6573: OMG Issue No 6610: OMG Issue No 6612: OMG Issue No 6633: OMG Issue No 6879: OMG Issue No 6880: OMG Issue No 6881: OMG Issue No 6882: OMG Issue No 6883: OMG Issue No 6884: OMG Issue No 6885: OMG Issue No 6886: OMG Issue No 6887: OMG Issue No 6888: OMG Issue No 6889: OMG Issue No 6890: OMG Issue No 6891: OMG Issue No 6892: OMG Issue No 6893: OMG Issue No 6894: OMG Issue No 6895: OMG Issue No 7456: OMG Issue No 7457: OMG Issue No 7462: OMG Issue No 7463: OMG Issue No 7469: OMG Issue No 7470: ------------------- snip -------------------- _____________________________________________________ Klasse Objecten tel : +31 (0)35 6037646 Chalonhof 153 fax : +31 (0)35 6037647 3762 CT Soest email : J.Warmer@klasse.nl X-Sender: klas0@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.2.0 Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 09:47:09 +0200 To: "Pete Rivett" From: Jos Warmer Subject: RE: OCL FTF Ballot (1st pool), closing May 16th 2005, 20:00 GMT Cc: "BELAUNDE Mariano RD-MAPS-LAN" , X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner Pete, On issue 6561. I did not realize that the IntegerLiteral, StringLiteral and RealLiteral were not completely defined in the OCL 2.0. Thanks for pointing this out. I agree that it is useful to have such a rule in the grammar to support portability. I do not think that it is useful to define Integer(16) and the like. A good solution seems to simply copy the concrete syntax for Real, Integer and String literals from OCL 1.5 . That will ensure backwards compatibility with OCL 1.5 and portability within OCL 2.0. Jos At 09:08 PM 5/16/2005, Pete Rivett wrote: Adaptive votes YES to all the issues in this ballot, except 6556 and 6561 to which it votes NO, for reasons as follows: 6556: I think forward compatibility is important and it's not at all clear whether or not the omission of allAttributes was accidental. 6561: This is really two issues in one: a) I think it's incumbent for a textual language to describe the concrete syntax for literals. b) I agree that different types such as Integer (16) is outside the scope and should be deferred. Minor editorial point: the Discussion for issue 6528, 6529, 6530, 6544, 6556, 6557, 6559, 6561, 6565, 6566, 6572, 6573, 6879 to 6895, 7457, 7463 etc should really say "Better solved in a new RFP" than "Better solved in a RTF" since if anything RTFs are more constrained than the FTF. Or state that they're being deferred to the RTF for timing reasons. NB Issues like 6567, 6564, 6570 would be better closed as 'Duplicate' rather than 'Merged' which is not an 'official' category, and there is for many of these no 'merged' resolution to refer to (they remain unresolved). Pete Pete Rivett (mailto:pete.rivett@adaptive.com) CTO, 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: BELAUNDE Mariano RD-MAPS-LAN [mailto:mariano.belaunde@francetelecom.com] Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 11:03 AM To: ocl2-ftf@omg.org Cc: Jos Warmer Subject: OCL FTF Ballot (1st pool), closing May 16th 2005, 20:00 GMT Hi FTF members, As already announced, here is the 1st ballot for the OMG OCL2 FTF. For details on the issue resolutions please refer to the attached document (zip/word file) listing all the issue resolutions of this ballot. The voting deadline is May 16th, 2005, 20:00 GMT. Regards, Mariano Note: The extension of the zip file has been changed to zzz. <> ------------------- snip -------------------- *** OCL2.0 FTF Ballot 1st Poll *** *** Voting Deadline May 16th, 2005, 20:00 GMT *** Company: Voter: Please vote with Yes/No/Abstain for each issue resolution, as detailed in the attachment. Note: A short reason for No votes is mandatory. OMG Issue No 1790: OMG Issue No 3392: OMG Issue No 3800: OMG Issue No 3855: OMG Issue No 4112: OMG Issue No 4691: OMG Issue No 4692: OMG Issue No 4693: OMG Issue No 4694: OMG Issue No 5581: OMG Issue No 5582: OMG Issue No 6393: OMG Issue No 6528: OMG Issue No 6529: OMG Issue No 6530: OMG Issue No 6537: OMG Issue No 6542: OMG Issue No 6543: OMG Issue No 6544: OMG Issue No 6545: OMG Issue No 6559: OMG Issue No 6561: OMG Issue No 6564: OMG Issue No 6565: OMG Issue No 6566: OMG Issue No 6567: OMG Issue No 6568: OMG Issue No 6569: OMG Issue No 6570: OMG Issue No 6572: OMG Issue No 6573: OMG Issue No 6610: OMG Issue No 6612: OMG Issue No 6633: OMG Issue No 6879: OMG Issue No 6880: OMG Issue No 6881: OMG Issue No 6882: OMG Issue No 6883: OMG Issue No 6884: OMG Issue No 6885: OMG Issue No 6886: OMG Issue No 6887: OMG Issue No 6888: OMG Issue No 6889: OMG Issue No 6890: OMG Issue No 6891: OMG Issue No 6892: OMG Issue No 6893: OMG Issue No 6894: OMG Issue No 6895: OMG Issue No 7456: OMG Issue No 7457: OMG Issue No 7462: OMG Issue No 7463: OMG Issue No 7469: OMG Issue No 7470: ------------------- snip -------------------- _____________________________________________________ Klasse Objecten tel : +31 (0)35 6037646 Chalonhof 153 fax : +31 (0)35 6037647 3762 CT Soest email : J.Warmer@klasse.nl Subject: RE : OCL FTF Ballot (1st pool), closing May 16th 2005, 20:00 GMT Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 10:02:08 +0200 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: OCL FTF Ballot (1st pool), closing May 16th 2005, 20:00 GMT Thread-Index: AcVSIroogHg7CmfvRdiFfkQAY3sBFgIGKzMQAB4l0iA= From: "BELAUNDE Mariano RD-MAPS-LAN" To: "Pete Rivett" , Cc: "Jos Warmer" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 May 2005 08:02:09.0489 (UTC) FILETIME=[B9A23410:01C55AB6] Pete, >>> 6561: This is really two issues in one: a) I think it's incumbent for a textual language to describe the >>> concrete syntax for literals. b) I agree that different types such as Integer (16) is outside the scope >>> and should be deferred. I agree with your remark. To solve this I propose to send to Juergen a new issue to individualize issue (a) so that it can be treated separately. >>> NB Issues like 6567, 6564, 6570 would be better closed as 'Duplicate' rather than 'Merged' which is >>> not an 'official' category, and there is for many of these no 'merged' resolution to refer to (they remain >>> unresolved). I have taken the term "merged" as a possible value of "disposition" from the template of the FTF report, so I made the assumption that this is currently an official category (maybe this was not the case in the past?). Also I think this term reflects well the situation where two issues are not totally identical but are "naturally" solved by a single resolution statement. -Mariano -----Message d'origine----- De : Pete Rivett [mailto:pete.rivett@adaptive.com] Envoyé : lundi 16 mai 2005 21:08 À : BELAUNDE Mariano RD-MAPS-LAN; ocl2-ftf@omg.org Cc : Jos Warmer Objet : RE: OCL FTF Ballot (1st pool), closing May 16th 2005, 20:00 GMT Adaptive votes YES to all the issues in this ballot, except 6556 and 6561 to which it votes NO, for reasons as follows: 6556: I think forward compatibility is important and it's not at all clear whether or not the omission of allAttributes was accidental. 6561: This is really two issues in one: a) I think it's incumbent for a textual language to describe the concrete syntax for literals. b) I agree that different types such as Integer (16) is outside the scope and should be deferred. Minor editorial point: the Discussion for issue 6528, 6529, 6530, 6544, 6556, 6557, 6559, 6561, 6565, 6566, 6572, 6573, 6879 to 6895, 7457, 7463 etc should really say "Better solved in a new RFP" than "Better solved in a RTF" since if anything RTFs are more constrained than the FTF. Or state that they're being deferred to the RTF for timing reasons. NB Issues like 6567, 6564, 6570 would be better closed as 'Duplicate' rather than 'Merged' which is not an 'official' category, and there is for many of these no 'merged' resolution to refer to (they remain unresolved). Pete Pete Rivett (mailto:pete.rivett@adaptive.com) CTO, 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: BELAUNDE Mariano RD-MAPS-LAN [mailto:mariano.belaunde@francetelecom.com] Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 11:03 AM To: ocl2-ftf@omg.org Cc: Jos Warmer Subject: OCL FTF Ballot (1st pool), closing May 16th 2005, 20:00 GMT Hi FTF members, As already announced, here is the 1st ballot for the OMG OCL2 FTF. For details on the issue resolutions please refer to the attached document (zip/word file) listing all the issue resolutions of this ballot. The voting deadline is May 16th, 2005, 20:00 GMT. Regards, Mariano Note: The extension of the zip file has been changed to zzz. <> ------------------- snip -------------------- *** OCL2.0 FTF Ballot 1st Poll *** *** Voting Deadline May 16th, 2005, 20:00 GMT *** Company: Voter: Please vote with Yes/No/Abstain for each issue resolution, as detailed in the attachment. Note: A short reason for No votes is mandatory. OMG Issue No 1790: OMG Issue No 3392: OMG Issue No 3800: OMG Issue No 3855: OMG Issue No 4112: OMG Issue No 4691: OMG Issue No 4692: OMG Issue No 4693: OMG Issue No 4694: OMG Issue No 5581: OMG Issue No 5582: OMG Issue No 6393: OMG Issue No 6528: OMG Issue No 6529: OMG Issue No 6530: OMG Issue No 6537: OMG Issue No 6542: OMG Issue No 6543: OMG Issue No 6544: OMG Issue No 6545: OMG Issue No 6559: OMG Issue No 6561: OMG Issue No 6564: OMG Issue No 6565: OMG Issue No 6566: OMG Issue No 6567: OMG Issue No 6568: OMG Issue No 6569: OMG Issue No 6570: OMG Issue No 6572: OMG Issue No 6573: OMG Issue No 6610: OMG Issue No 6612: OMG Issue No 6633: OMG Issue No 6879: OMG Issue No 6880: OMG Issue No 6881: OMG Issue No 6882: OMG Issue No 6883: OMG Issue No 6884: OMG Issue No 6885: OMG Issue No 6886: OMG Issue No 6887: OMG Issue No 6888: OMG Issue No 6889: OMG Issue No 6890: OMG Issue No 6891: OMG Issue No 6892: OMG Issue No 6893: OMG Issue No 6894: OMG Issue No 6895: OMG Issue No 7456: OMG Issue No 7457: OMG Issue No 7462: OMG Issue No 7463: OMG Issue No 7469: OMG Issue No 7470: ------------------- snip --------------------