Issue 6608: Notation when guards are used in conjunction with triggers in transitions (uml2-superstructure-ftf) Source: France Telecom R&D (Mr. Mariano Belaunde, mariano.belaunde(at)orange.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: According to the metamodel, a transition may have a guard and a trigger. However the specification does not say how to draw a transition that has both. Should we put the guard, (1) near the arrow which is before the "input" symbol representing the trigger signal, or (2) near the arrow which is after the "input" symbol or (3) inside the symbol representing the trigger? Resolution: see above Revised Text: Actions taken: November 12, 2003: received issue March 8, 2005: closed issue Discussion: This issue is indeed currently overlooked by the transition iconic representation. The proposed resolution is follow option (3) and add the guard using the regular notation within the signal receipt symbol as follows This will be clarified in the iconic transition section (as described in issue 6381). End of Annotations:===== ubject: UML2 issues regarding state machines Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 16:56:16 +0100 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: UML2 issues regarding state machines Thread-Index: AcOpNYB/qGoC2u+RS/u+oqlWCBLomA== From: "BELAUNDE Mariano FTRD/DTL/LAN" To: "Juergen Boldt" Cc: Birger Møller-Pedersen (ETO) , PRESSO Maria-José FTRD/DTL/LAN X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Nov 2003 15:57:13.0246 (UTC) FILETIME=[A32C5BE0:01C3A935] Juergen, Could you please add the following 4 issues for consideration to the UML2 superstructure FTF? Thanks in advance, Mariano Issue: Notation when guards are used in conjunction with triggers in transitions. According to the metamodel, a transition may have a guard and a trigger. However the specification does not say how to draw a transition that has both. Should we put the guard, (1) near the arrow which is before the "input" symbol representing the trigger signal, or (2) near the arrow which is after the "input" symbol or (3) inside the symbol representing the trigger? -------------------------------------------------------------- Mariano Belaunde France Télécom R&D/DTL/TAL/EXA 2, avenue Pierre Marzin 22307 Lannion cedex Tel : +33 (0)2 96 05 15 63 Fax : +33 (0)2 96 05 39 45 OMG Issue 6608 Title: Notation when guards are used in conjunction with triggers in transitions Source: France Telecom R&D (Mr. Mariano Belaunde, mailto:%20mariano.belaunde@francetelecom.com) Summary: According to the metamodel, a transition may have a guard and a trigger. However the specification does not say how to draw a transition that has both. Should we put the guard, (1) near the arrow which is before the "input" symbol representing the trigger signal, or (2) near the arrow which is after the "input" symbol or (3) inside the symbol representing the trigger? Discussion: This issue is indeed currently overlooked by the transition iconic representation. The proposed resolution is follow option (3) and add the guard using the regular notation within the signal receipt symbol as follows This will be clarified in the iconic transition section (as described in issue 6381). Disposition: Resolved OMG Issue 6608 Title: Notation when guards are used in conjunction with triggers in transitions Source: France Telecom R&D (Mr. Mariano Belaunde, mailto:%20mariano.belaunde@francetelecom.com) Summary: According to the metamodel, a transition may have a guard and a trigger. However the specification does not say how to draw a transition that has both. Should we put the guard, (1) near the arrow which is before the "input" symbol representing the trigger signal, or (2) near the arrow which is after the "input" symbol or (3) inside the symbol representing the trigger? Discussion: This issue is indeed currently overlooked by the transitionaction-oriented iconic representation. The proposed resolution is follow option (3) and add the guard using the regular notation within the signal receipt symbol as follows This will be clarified in the iconic transition section (as described in issue 6381). Disposition: Resolved From: "Thomas Weigert" To: "Branislav Selic" , Subject: Re: Updated ballot 12 -- issue 6608 not resolved? Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 17:00:44 -0500 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal Bran, so sorry for just noticing this now, but the resolution of issue 6608 is somewhat confusing. I think that the author says that this issue will be resolved as part of the resolution to 6381. If so, the disposition should not be "Resolved" but "Duplicate", as this issue is not resolved at this point at all. The issue could only be marked as "Resolved" if there in fact was a resolution to the issue, I believe. Th. -----Original Message----- From: Branislav Selic [mailto:bselic@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 4:23 PM To: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Cc: mu2i-ftf@omg.org; ocl2-ftf@omg.org Subject: Updated ballot 12 Due to a miscommunication between Eran and myself, I incorrectly included two issue resolutions in ballot 12 that were already approved in ballot 11. These are the resolutions to issues 6237 and 6397. Therefore, they have been removed from the ballot. The newer version of the ballot is appended below. Apologies for the confusion, Bran To: "Thomas Weigert" Cc: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: Updated ballot 12 -- issue 6608 not resolved? X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.2CF1 June 9, 2003 From: Branislav Selic Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 18:58:13 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML05/25/M/IBM(Release 6.0.2CF1|June 9, 2003) at 04/18/2004 18:58:17, Serialize complete at 04/18/2004 18:58:17 Thomas, I thought about that when I put the ballot together. However, "duplicate" means that the same issue is raised in more than one place. In this case, the resolution to one issue happens to resolve another issue, so I don't think this qualifies as a duplicate. We've had a number of such cases where we say that "this issue is resolved by issue xxxx" and they were all treated as "resolved" rather than as duplicate. I'll leave it as is. Bran "Thomas Weigert" 04/18/2004 06:00 PM To Branislav Selic/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA, cc Subject Re: Updated ballot 12 -- issue 6608 not resolved? Bran, so sorry for just noticing this now, but the resolution of issue 6608 is somewhat confusing. I think that the author says that this issue will be resolved as part of the resolution to 6381. If so, the disposition should not be "Resolved" but "Duplicate", as this issue is not resolved at this point at all. The issue could only be marked as "Resolved" if there in fact was a resolution to the issue, I believe. Th. -----Original Message----- From: Branislav Selic [mailto:bselic@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 4:23 PM To: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Cc: mu2i-ftf@omg.org; ocl2-ftf@omg.org Subject: Updated ballot 12 Due to a miscommunication between Eran and myself, I incorrectly included two issue resolutions in ballot 12 that were already approved in ballot 11. These are the resolutions to issues 6237 and 6397. Therefore, they have been removed from the ballot. The newer version of the ballot is appended below. Apologies for the confusion, Bran To: "Thomas Weigert" Cc: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: Updated ballot 12 -- issue 6608 not resolved? X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.2CF1 June 9, 2003 From: Branislav Selic Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 19:04:04 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML05/25/M/IBM(Release 6.0.2CF1|June 9, 2003) at 04/18/2004 19:04:08, Serialize complete at 04/18/2004 19:04:08 Ahh, you are right: the resolution to issue 6381 was pulled at the last minute at your request but I forgot about the connection to 6608. Therefore, I will need to pull out issue 6608 as well. Bran "Thomas Weigert" 04/18/2004 06:00 PM To Branislav Selic/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA, cc Subject Re: Updated ballot 12 -- issue 6608 not resolved? Bran, so sorry for just noticing this now, but the resolution of issue 6608 is somewhat confusing. I think that the author says that this issue will be resolved as part of the resolution to 6381. If so, the disposition should not be "Resolved" but "Duplicate", as this issue is not resolved at this point at all. The issue could only be marked as "Resolved" if there in fact was a resolution to the issue, I believe. Th. -----Original Message----- From: Branislav Selic [mailto:bselic@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 4:23 PM To: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Cc: mu2i-ftf@omg.org; ocl2-ftf@omg.org Subject: Updated ballot 12 Due to a miscommunication between Eran and myself, I incorrectly included two issue resolutions in ballot 12 that were already approved in ballot 11. These are the resolutions to issues 6237 and 6397. Therefore, they have been removed from the ballot. The newer version of the ballot is appended below. Apologies for the confusion, Bran From: "Eran Gery" To: "'Branislav Selic'" Cc: Subject: More Statemachine resolutions Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 01:35:44 +0300 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 00000000EC840A89B0118247A991840092C4F311A4867901 Attached two resolutions 6381, 6608 that relate to the action notation, which I believe triggerred all this activities/behaviors reorg Conrad and Thomas did. The notorious 6381 (Alan's clarification request for the action notation) is submitted relying on Conrad's 7319, specifically utilizing the sequence node. If 7319 is submitted to 20 then 6381 can also be submitted. This will probably be my last installment before going on my vacation... Eran winmail1.dat From: "Moore, Alan" To: "'Eran Gery'" , "'Branislav Selic'" Cc: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: More Statemachine resolutions Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 14:22:42 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Hi Eran, A couple of comments: On the graphics you state: It is not prescribed here whether this graphical action presentation is composed from a single graphical line segment with attached icons, or several line segments connecting the icons. Does this mean that the display will be different depending on the toolbuilders choice, for example with a single line segment there will only be one arrow, whereas with several line segments there will be one arrow per segment - in which case, is 395 an example of the latter? Also The signal sending graphic maps to an activity owned by the transition on which the graphic is attached (which owns an instance of sendSignalAction). from my reading of the revised description above, this is no longer true - it maps to an action not an activity. If I'm correct then its hard to see how the following is possible if there are several sendSignalActions in the effect of a Transition: If a tool does not use the actions package, the details of the sent signal may be captured within the body of the activity instead of the sendSignalAction instance How do we distinguish the different actions? Regards, Alan. -----Original Message----- From: Eran Gery [mailto:erang@ilogix.co.il] Sent: 21 July 2004 23:36 To: 'Branislav Selic' Cc: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: More Statemachine resolutions Attached two resolutions 6381, 6608 that relate to the action notation, which I believe triggerred all this activities/behaviors reorg Conrad and Thomas did. The notorious 6381 (Alan's clarification request for the action notation) is submitted relying on Conrad's 7319, specifically utilizing the sequence node. If 7319 is submitted to 20 then 6381 can also be submitted. This will probably be my last installment before going on my vacation... Eran From: "Eran Gery" To: "'Moore, Alan'" , "'Branislav Selic'" Cc: Subject: RE: More Statemachine resolutions Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:08:38 +0300 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Alan - see inline -----Original Message----- From: Moore, Alan [mailto:AlanM@artisansw.com] Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 4:23 PM To: 'Eran Gery'; 'Branislav Selic' Cc: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: More Statemachine resolutions Hi Eran, A couple of comments: On the graphics you state: It is not prescribed here whether this graphical action presentation is composed from a single graphical line segment with attached icons, or several line segments connecting the icons. EG> it does say that the line makes one transition. It does not prescribe how to construct it. Does this mean that the display will be different depending on the toolbuilders choice, for example with a single line segment there will only be one arrow, whereas with several line segments there will be one arrow per segment - in which case, is 395 an example of the latter? EG> Yes Also The signal sending graphic maps to an activity owned by the transition on which the graphic is attached (which owns an instance of sendSignalAction). from my reading of the revised description above, this is no longer true - it maps to an action not an activity. EG> Right. This shall be corrected. It shall say that a send symbol maps to an action which is part of the activity owned by the transition. BRAN - not sure I'll havr time to ammend it... if not could you please ammend this for the ballot ? If I'm correct then its hard to see how the following is possible if there are several sendSignalActions in the effect of a Transition: If a tool does not use the actions package, the details of the sent signal may be captured within the body of the activity instead of the sendSignalAction instance How do we distinguish the different actions? EG> In order to support this notation you have to support basic actions a structured activities. In that case you would have to map the send to an opaque action from basic actions. This is new stuff coming from Conrad and Thomas. Regards, Alan. -----Original Message----- From: Eran Gery [mailto:erang@ilogix.co.il] Sent: 21 July 2004 23:36 To: 'Branislav Selic' Cc: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: More Statemachine resolutions Attached two resolutions 6381, 6608 that relate to the action notation, which I believe triggerred all this activities/behaviors reorg Conrad and Thomas did. The notorious 6381 (Alan's clarification request for the action notation) is submitted relying on Conrad's 7319, specifically utilizing the sequence node. If 7319 is submitted to 20 then 6381 can also be submitted. This will probably be my last installment before going on my vacation... From: "Thomas Weigert" To: "Branislav Selic" , "Thomas Weigert" Cc: , Subject: RE: Draft of ballot 20 Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 12:46:51 -0500 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Jul 2004 17:47:47.0749 (UTC) FILETIME=[7F652D50:01C4726F] Thanks, Bran. Note that in the case of 6608, this has nothing to do with the action/activity harmonization. I think that the chosen alternative is suboptimal, as it is inconsistent with the other usages of guards on state machines. In other words, it is not a good solution. In the case of 6381, I think the solution is also not a good one as it creates an ambiguous mapping. In other words, we cannot look at the diagram and know what the abstract syntax is that it represents. This could be easily remedied, but it would be better to have Eran available for comments. Th. -----Original Message----- From: Branislav Selic [mailto:bselic@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 12:32 PM To: Thomas Weigert Cc: mu2i-ftf@omg.org; uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: Draft of ballot 20 Thanks, Thomas. Here is the situation regarding the issues you mention: 6153: I will pull that when I see the action/activity harmonization posted. Until then, I will leave it in. 6381 and 6608: the problem here is that these two resolutions were submitted by Eran before he left on 3 weeks of vacation. he won't be back until after the Montreal meeting and will not be checking his e-mail. Note that, in both cases, approving these resolutions in advance of the action/activity harmonization is not a big problem. The later resolution will simply supersede the former one. We've already had a number of these cases (including, notably, one resolution that made Action concrete and another later one that made it abstract again). The advantage of doing it this way is that we at least have a resolution to these issues in case the action/activities unification gets bogged down. So, it may be best to just leave the ballot as is. Regards, Bran "Thomas Weigert" 07/25/2004 03:04 AM To Branislav Selic/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA, cc Subject RE: Draft of ballot 20 Bran, comments, late due to travel... Issue 6153: This issue resolution overlaps with the issue resolution worked out by Conrad with respect to the action/activity simplification. The resolution by Conrad is somewhat more encompassing and does not leverage the xor relationship which we have decided to not deploy (I believe) in UML2. I suggest that the two issue resolutions get harmonized and only one be submitted. Issue 6381: I believe this issue resolution should await the final resolution of the activity/action issue, as the mapping between notation and abstract syntax cannot be finalized until that issue is dispatched with. I recommend to wait with this resolution. Issue 6608: I believe that it would be more consistent to follow suggestion (2) rather than (3). I suggest we discuss this further. Cheers, Th. -----Original Message----- From: Branislav Selic [mailto:bselic@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 2:44 PM To: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Cc: mu2i-ftf@omg.org Subject: Draft of ballot 20 Here is the current draft of ballot 20. Eran, I changed your resolution to reflect the new BNF format that we are hoping to adopt as part of issue 7135. There are 25 resoutions in this ballot at present. I expect that karl will likely have at least one more resolution. Please review and tell me if you have any objections to any of the resolutions -- before noon tomorrow, if possible. Cheers, Bran