Issue 6866: Part subtype (uml2-rtf) Source: NIST (Dr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov) Nature: Revision Severity: Significant Summary: Would be useful to be able to assign a subtype for objects that fill a part, to add additional characteristics. For example, a person fills the Employee part of a company, and is reclassified under a subtype of person that has an office. It is not sufficient to use the subtype as the type of the part, because the model wouldn't record what objects are allowed to fill the parts. The object is reclassified under the subtype after filling the part. Resolution: The issue suggests a new feature of UML. This is strategic and outside the scope of the RTF. Revised Text: None. Disposition: Closed, out of scope Revised Text: Actions taken: November 5, 2003: received issue April 26, 2010: closed issue April 26, 2010: closed issue Discussion: The issue suggests a new feature of UML. While interesting, such is considered outside the scope of this FTF. The issue suggests a new feature of UML. While interesting, such is considered outside the scope of this FTF. End of Annotations:===== me: Conrad Bock Company: NIST mailFrom: conrad.bock@nist.gov Nature: Revision Severity: Significant Subject: Part subtype Would be useful to be able to assign a subtype for objects that fill a part, to add additional characteristics. For example, a person fills the Employee part of a company, and is reclassified under a subtype of person that has an office. It is not sufficient to use the subtype as the type of the part, because the model wouldn't record what objects are allowed to fill the parts. The object is reclassified under the subtype after filling the part. OMG Issue No: 6866 Title: Part subtype Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock@nist.gov) Summary: Would be useful to be able to assign a subtype for objects that fill a part, to add additional characteristics. For example, a person fills the Employee part of a company, and is reclassified under a subtype of person that has an office. It is not sufficient to use the subtype as the type of the part, because the model wouldn't record what objects are allowed to fill the parts. The object is reclassified under the subtype after filling the part. Discussion: The issue suggests a new feature of UML. While interesting, such is considered outside the scope of this FTF. Issue 6866: Part subtype Issue summary Would be useful to be able to assign a subtype for objects that fill a part, to add additional characteristics. For example, a person fills the Employee part of a company, and is reclassified under a subtype of person that has an office. It is not sufficient to use the subtype as the type of the part, because the model wouldn't record what objects are allowed to fill the parts. The object is reclassified under the subtype after filling the part. Discussion The issue suggests a new feature of UML. While interesting, such is considered outside the scope of this RTF. Revised Test Resolution Subject: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype To: uml2-rtf@omg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 From: Maged Elaasar Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:42:15 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML03/25/M/IBM(Release 7.0.3FP1|February 24, 2008) at 03/16/2009 13:42:17 Issue 6866 on ballot 3 draft concludes that this area is strategic and out of the scope of the current RTF and hence recommding a "ClosedNoChange" disposition. In other resolutions, such conclusion usually leads to a "Deferred" disposition. I suggest changing it to "Deffered", what do members think? ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 Reply-To: From: "Conrad Bock" To: "'Maged Elaasar'" , Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:46:00 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcmmXq03697Ke+C1RTeIXyMAmko+2QAAFExw X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-ID: n2GHk03c026342 X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-MailScanner-From: conrad.bock@nist.gov X-MailScanner-Watermark: 1237830365.07335@KFxpGdvkciaYgAxkZlgnKw X-Spam-Status: No Maged, > Issue 6866 on ballot 3 draft concludes that this area is > strategic and out of the scope of the current RTF and hence > recommding a "ClosedNoChange" disposition. In other > resolutions, such conclusion usually leads to a "Deferred" > disposition. > > I suggest changing it to "Deffered", what do members think? I agree. Conrad Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:51:20 -0400 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Thread-Index: AcmmXrJRz7dLfTQsSuepdBGw86wYjgAAHSmA From: "Ed Seidewitz" To: "Maged Elaasar" Cc: Maged . I agree with you. .ClosedNoChange. removes the issue from consideration by any future RTF. Issues we currently consider strategic are still open issues that, after further review, may be considered by a future RTF for resolution (as opposed to waiting for new RFP). Certainly past RTFs have added features to UML, so an RTF resolution of this issue, at some point, would not be entirely out of line. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 1:42 PM To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Issue 6866 on ballot 3 draft concludes that this area is strategic and out of the scope of the current RTF and hence recommding a "ClosedNoChange" disposition. In other resolutions, such conclusion usually leads to a "Deferred" disposition. I suggest changing it to "Deffered", what do members think? ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 From: Steve Cook To: Maged Elaasar , "uml2-rtf@omg.org" Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:08:57 +0000 Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Thread-Topic: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Thread-Index: AcmmXsQnAuHhd6PCQgG+RplKPQhJwAAA0/SA Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US We do need some way to distinguish between issues that are deferred as strategic, and issues which were deferred in the past and which are liable to be reconsidered by the current RTF. From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: 16 March 2009 17:42 To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Issue 6866 on ballot 3 draft concludes that this area is strategic and out of the scope of the current RTF and hence recommding a "ClosedNoChange" disposition. In other resolutions, such conclusion usually leads to a "Deferred" disposition. I suggest changing it to "Deffered", what do members think? ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype To: Steve Cook Cc: "uml2-rtf@omg.org" X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 From: Maged Elaasar Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:19:05 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML03/25/M/IBM(Release 7.0.3FP1|February 24, 2008) at 03/16/2009 14:19:08 It is my understanding that issues that get deferred because we do not want to (or have bandwidth to) address them now in the current RTF stay open with no disposition, which will happen to all the issues not on ballots in this cycle. However, those that get a "Deferred" disposition are closed with "Deferred" disposition to mean they will be subject to future consideration, which I take to be the case for stategic issues. Please correct me if I am wrong. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 Steve Cook Steve Cook 03/16/2009 02:08 PM To Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA, "uml2-rtf@omg.org" cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype We do need some way to distinguish between issues that are deferred as strategic, and issues which were deferred in the past and which are liable to be reconsidered by the current RTF. From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: 16 March 2009 17:42 To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Issue 6866 on ballot 3 draft concludes that this area is strategic and out of the scope of the current RTF and hence recommding a "ClosedNoChange" disposition. In other resolutions, such conclusion usually leads to a "Deferred" disposition. I suggest changing it to "Deffered", what do members think? ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 pic03146.gif Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:35:31 -0400 X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Thread-Index: AcmmZRAZw6BBhmGsQCWOSsYq2TOHQwAAHqjg From: "Ed Seidewitz" To: "Maged Elaasar" Cc: Maged . I believe that, technically, we are supposed to formally address every issue that comes in before the issue deadline for this RTF. That means that any such issues that we don.t want to or have time to address should be given .Deferred. disposition, whether they are strategic or not. (You will note that many issues from the last RTF effectively got deferred by a blanket statement to the effect that .we think this needs consideration, but we didn.t have time.) I suggest that, for strategic issues, we just note in the resolution discussion text that the issue was deferred for future .strategic consideration.. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 2:19 PM To: Steve Cook Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype It is my understanding that issues that get deferred because we do not want to (or have bandwidth to) address them now in the current RTF stay open with no disposition, which will happen to all the issues not on ballots in this cycle. However, those that get a "Deferred" disposition are closed with "Deferred" disposition to mean they will be subject to future consideration, which I take to be the case for stategic issues. Please correct me if I am wrong. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 Steve Cook Steve Cook 03/16/2009 02:08 PM To Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA, "uml2-rtf@omg.org" cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype We do need some way to distinguish between issues that are deferred as strategic, and issues which were deferred in the past and which are liable to be reconsidered by the current RTF. From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: 16 March 2009 17:42 To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Issue 6866 on ballot 3 draft concludes that this area is strategic and out of the scope of the current RTF and hence recommding a "ClosedNoChange" disposition. In other resolutions, such conclusion usually leads to a "Deferred" disposition. I suggest changing it to "Deffered", what do members think? ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype To: "Ed Seidewitz" Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 From: Maged Elaasar Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:48:22 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML03/25/M/IBM(Release 7.0.3FP1|February 24, 2008) at 03/16/2009 14:48:24 Steve, I am not entirely sure either if "Deferred" is an official disposition value to be included in the RTF report when an issue is closed and deemed for future consideration. If it is not official, then we will have a problem distinguishing these issues from other deferred for lack of time. If we may, we can make it an "official" disposition value and clearly state what is means. In fact, we should do that for all dispositions values (i.e. take their stated meanings from the spreadsheet and publishing them in the RTF report and UML issues website). Later on when we have bugzilla, we can propose it as a value for the disposoition field. Ed, what you are saying is by giving the unaddressed issues a "Deferred" dispostion in the report, we are saying that those stay "open" in he RTF issue database. I find that a bit confusing myself. I would prefer to still make a blanket statement that these issues continue to be "open" with no disposition to distinguish them from those that are really closed with "deferred" disposition bec. of strategic relevance. This way, we cal always search for those issues and reopen them in future RTF cycles by making a (disposition="deferred") query. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 "Ed Seidewitz" "Ed Seidewitz" 03/16/2009 02:35 PM To Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . I believe that, technically, we are supposed to formally address every issue that comes in before the issue deadline for this RTF. That means that any such issues that we don.t want to or have time to address should be given .Deferred. disposition, whether they are strategic or not. (You will note that many issues from the last RTF effectively got deferred by a blanket statement to the effect that .we think this needs consideration, but we didn.t have time.) I suggest that, for strategic issues, we just note in the resolution discussion text that the issue was deferred for future .strategic consideration.. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 2:19 PM To: Steve Cook Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype It is my understanding that issues that get deferred because we do not want to (or have bandwidth to) address them now in the current RTF stay open with no disposition, which will happen to all the issues not on ballots in this cycle. However, those that get a "Deferred" disposition are closed with "Deferred" disposition to mean they will be subject to future consideration, which I take to be the case for stategic issues. Please correct me if I am wrong. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 Steve Cook Steve Cook 03/16/2009 02:08 PM To Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA, "uml2-rtf@omg.org" cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype We do need some way to distinguish between issues that are deferred as strategic, and issues which were deferred in the past and which are liable to be reconsidered by the current RTF. From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: 16 March 2009 17:42 To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Issue 6866 on ballot 3 draft concludes that this area is strategic and out of the scope of the current RTF and hence recommding a "ClosedNoChange" disposition. In other resolutions, such conclusion usually leads to a "Deferred" disposition. I suggest changing it to "Deffered", what do members think? ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 pic18695.gif Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:43:45 -0400 X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Thread-Index: AcmmaJLdzo6WZI1XRfS6F3v+lgiQ+gABeIGg From: "Ed Seidewitz" To: "Maged Elaasar" Cc: Maged . According to the OMG Policies and Procedures (Section 4.4.1.4, Normal Deadlines), .Comments received before the comment deadline must be addressed by modifications to the specification, or by a brief explanation of why no modification is appropriate (e.g. either that the comment is unfounded, or that the resolution would be outside the scope of the F/RTF).. So, we need to respond in the RTF report to every issue received before the comment deadline. Whether this means we can just leave and issue open, or should give it an explicit .deferred. disposition, should probably be taken up with Juergen or Andrew. In any case, deferred issues stay on the open issues list maintained by OMG, so there is no chance they will be .lost. to future RTFs. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 2:48 PM To: Ed Seidewitz Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Steve, I am not entirely sure either if "Deferred" is an official disposition value to be included in the RTF report when an issue is closed and deemed for future consideration. If it is not official, then we will have a problem distinguishing these issues from other deferred for lack of time. If we may, we can make it an "official" disposition value and clearly state what is means. In fact, we should do that for all dispositions values (i.e. take their stated meanings from the spreadsheet and publishing them in the RTF report and UML issues website). Later on when we have bugzilla, we can propose it as a value for the disposoition field. Ed, what you are saying is by giving the unaddressed issues a "Deferred" dispostion in the report, we are saying that those stay "open" in he RTF issue database. I find that a bit confusing myself. I would prefer to still make a blanket statement that these issues continue to be "open" with no disposition to distinguish them from those that are really closed with "deferred" disposition bec. of strategic relevance. This way, we cal always search for those issues and reopen them in future RTF cycles by making a (disposition="deferred") query. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 "Ed Seidewitz" "Ed Seidewitz" 03/16/2009 02:35 PM To Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . I believe that, technically, we are supposed to formally address every issue that comes in before the issue deadline for this RTF. That means that any such issues that we don.t want to or have time to address should be given .Deferred. disposition, whether they are strategic or not. (You will note that many issues from the last RTF effectively got deferred by a blanket statement to the effect that .we think this needs consideration, but we didn.t have time.) I suggest that, for strategic issues, we just note in the resolution discussion text that the issue was deferred for future .strategic consideration.. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 2:19 PM To: Steve Cook Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype It is my understanding that issues that get deferred because we do not want to (or have bandwidth to) address them now in the current RTF stay open with no disposition, which will happen to all the issues not on ballots in this cycle. However, those that get a "Deferred" disposition are closed with "Deferred" disposition to mean they will be subject to future consideration, which I take to be the case for stategic issues. Please correct me if I am wrong. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 Steve Cook Steve Cook 03/16/2009 02:08 PM To Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA, "uml2-rtf@omg.org" cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype We do need some way to distinguish between issues that are deferred as strategic, and issues which were deferred in the past and which are liable to be reconsidered by the current RTF. From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: 16 March 2009 17:42 To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Issue 6866 on ballot 3 draft concludes that this area is strategic and out of the scope of the current RTF and hence recommding a "ClosedNoChange" disposition. In other resolutions, such conclusion usually leads to a "Deferred" disposition. I suggest changing it to "Deffered", what do members think? ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 Subject: Fw: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype To: Juergen Boldt X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 From: Maged Elaasar Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:59:20 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML03/25/M/IBM(Release 7.0.3FP1|February 24, 2008) at 03/16/2009 15:59:22 Juergen, a question came up in the RTF, asking about proper handling of the following: 1- Issues the RTF reviewed and deemed to be not in scope of the current RTF, i.e. they are suitable for a future major revision consideration and its RTF thereof. 2- Issues the RTF did not have time to consider or did not want to consider now and therefore wants to defer them to future RTF cycles. By convension in the issue spreadsheet we have beeen maintaining for the RTF, we have been distinguishing between the issues's status (being open or closed) and the issues's disposition (Resolved, Duplicate, ClosedNoChange, Transferred and Deferred). Therefore, we have been giving dispositions meeting point 1 above a (closed status with Deferred disposition), while giving those meeting point 2 above a (open status).. Can you please advise on weather it is appropriate for us to distingiush 1 and 2, and if so what is the best way to do it? Is what we have been doing by convesion acceptable for an RTF report? There seems to be a confusion about whether "Deferred" is an official disposition status or if it is a terminnology in the RTF report to mean those issue continue to be "open" for future. RTF. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 ----- Forwarded by Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM on 03/16/2009 03:47 PM ----- "Ed Seidewitz" 03/16/2009 03:43 PM To Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . According to the OMG Policies and Procedures (Section 4.4.1.4, Normal Deadlines), .Comments received before the comment deadline must be addressed by modifications to the specification, or by a brief explanation of why no modification is appropriate (e.g. either that the comment is unfounded, or that the resolution would be outside the scope of the F/RTF).. So, we need to respond in the RTF report to every issue received before the comment deadline. Whether this means we can just leave and issue open, or should give it an explicit .deferred. disposition, should probably be taken up with Juergen or Andrew. In any case, deferred issues stay on the open issues list maintained by OMG, so there is no chance they will be .lost. to future RTFs. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 2:48 PM To: Ed Seidewitz Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Steve, I am not entirely sure either if "Deferred" is an official disposition value to be included in the RTF report when an issue is closed and deemed for future consideration. If it is not official, then we will have a problem distinguishing these issues from other deferred for lack of time. If we may, we can make it an "official" disposition value and clearly state what is means. In fact, we should do that for all dispositions values (i.e. take their stated meanings from the spreadsheet and publishing them in the RTF report and UML issues website). Later on when we have bugzilla, we can propose it as a value for the disposoition field. Ed, what you are saying is by giving the unaddressed issues a "Deferred" dispostion in the report, we are saying that those stay "open" in he RTF issue database. I find that a bit confusing myself. I would prefer to still make a blanket statement that these issues continue to be "open" with no disposition to distinguish them from those that are really closed with "deferred" disposition bec. of strategic relevance. This way, we cal always search for those issues and reopen them in future RTF cycles by making a (disposition="deferred") query. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 "Ed Seidewitz" "Ed Seidewitz" 03/16/2009 02:35 PM To Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . I believe that, technically, we are supposed to formally address every issue that comes in before the issue deadline for this RTF. That means that any such issues that we don.t want to or have time to address should be given .Deferred. disposition, whether they are strategic or not. (You will note that many issues from the last RTF effectively got deferred by a blanket statement to the effect that .we think this needs consideration, but we didn.t have time.) I suggest that, for strategic issues, we just note in the resolution discussion text that the issue was deferred for future .strategic consideration.. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 2:19 PM To: Steve Cook Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype It is my understanding that issues that get deferred because we do not want to (or have bandwidth to) address them now in the current RTF stay open with no disposition, which will happen to all the issues not on ballots in this cycle. However, those that get a "Deferred" disposition are closed with "Deferred" disposition to mean they will be subject to future consideration, which I take to be the case for stategic issues. Please correct me if I am wrong. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 Steve Cook Steve Cook 03/16/2009 02:08 PM To Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA, "uml2-rtf@omg.org" cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype We do need some way to distinguish between issues that are deferred as strategic, and issues which were deferred in the past and which are liable to be reconsidered by the current RTF. From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: 16 March 2009 17:42 To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Issue 6866 on ballot 3 draft concludes that this area is strategic and out of the scope of the current RTF and hence recommding a "ClosedNoChange" disposition. In other resolutions, such conclusion usually leads to a "Deferred" disposition. I suggest changing it to "Deffered", what do members think? ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 pic01103.gif Subject: Fw: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype To: Juergen Boldt X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 From: Maged Elaasar Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:00:32 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML03/25/M/IBM(Release 7.0.3FP1|February 24, 2008) at 03/16/2009 16:00:34 more feedback from members on this. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 ----- Forwarded by Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM on 03/16/2009 03:59 PM ----- "Tim Weilkiens" 03/16/2009 03:55 PM To "Ed Seidewitz" , Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype In the SysML RTf we've addressed every issue and marked issues as deferred when there wasn't enough time (and prio) to resolve them. Tim -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Seidewitz [mailto:ed-s@modeldriven.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 8:47 PM To: Maged Elaasar Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . As a clarification, when I say .we need to respond to every issue received before the comment deadline., I mean every new issue received since the last RTF comment deadline. Presumably, previous RTFs addressed all prior issues (albeit by deferring many of them to future RTFs). I believe that our RTF report is required to include an official disposition for every issue submitted during our comment period. Note that many of the issues we are currently addressing are issues deferred by previous RTFs. This is intended (and to our credit!), but we address these entirely at our discretion. It is the new issues we are technically required to address. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Seidewitz Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 3:44 PM To: 'Maged Elaasar' Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . According to the OMG Policies and Procedures (Section 4.4.1.4, Normal Deadlines), .Comments received before the comment deadline must be addressed by modifications to the specification, or by a brief explanation of why no modification is appropriate (e.g. either that the comment is unfounded, or that the resolution would be outside the scope of the F/RTF).. So, we need to respond in the RTF report to every issue received before the comment deadline. Whether this means we can just leave and issue open, or should give it an explicit .deferred. disposition, should probably be taken up with Juergen or Andrew. In any case, deferred issues stay on the open issues list maintained by OMG, so there is no chance they will be .lost. to future RTFs. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 2:48 PM To: Ed Seidewitz Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Steve, I am not entirely sure either if "Deferred" is an official disposition value to be included in the RTF report when an issue is closed and deemed for future consideration. If it is not official, then we will have a problem distinguishing these issues from other deferred for lack of time. If we may, we can make it an "official" disposition value and clearly state what is means. In fact, we should do that for all dispositions values (i.e. take their stated meanings from the spreadsheet and publishing them in the RTF report and UML issues website). Later on when we have bugzilla, we can propose it as a value for the disposoition field. Ed, what you are saying is by giving the unaddressed issues a "Deferred" dispostion in the report, we are saying that those stay "open" in he RTF issue database. I find that a bit confusing myself. I would prefer to still make a blanket statement that these issues continue to be "open" with no disposition to distinguish them from those that are really closed with "deferred" disposition bec. of strategic relevance. This way, we cal always search for those issues and reopen them in future RTF cycles by making a (disposition="deferred") query. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 "Ed Seidewitz" "Ed Seidewitz" 03/16/2009 02:35 PM To Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . I believe that, technically, we are supposed to formally address every issue that comes in before the issue deadline for this RTF. That means that any such issues that we don.t want to or have time to address should be given .Deferred. disposition, whether they are strategic or not. (You will note that many issues from the last RTF effectively got deferred by a blanket statement to the effect that .we think this needs consideration, but we didn.t have time.) I suggest that, for strategic issues, we just note in the resolution discussion text that the issue was deferred for future .strategic consideration.. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 2:19 PM To: Steve Cook Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype It is my understanding that issues that get deferred because we do not want to (or have bandwidth to) address them now in the current RTF stay open with no disposition, which will happen to all the issues not on ballots in this cycle. However, those that get a "Deferred" disposition are closed with "Deferred" disposition to mean they will be subject to future consideration, which I take to be the case for stategic issues. Please correct me if I am wrong. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 Steve Cook Steve Cook 03/16/2009 02:08 PM To Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA, "uml2-rtf@omg.org" cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype We do need some way to distinguish between issues that are deferred as strategic, and issues which were deferred in the past and which are liable to be reconsidered by the current RTF. From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: 16 March 2009 17:42 To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Issue 6866 on ballot 3 draft concludes that this area is strategic and out of the scope of the current RTF and hence recommding a "ClosedNoChange" disposition. In other resolutions, such conclusion usually leads to a "Deferred" disposition. I suggest changing it to "Deffered", what do members think? ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 pic32462.gif Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype To: "Tim Weilkiens" Cc: "Ed Seidewitz" , uml2-rtf@omg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 From: Maged Elaasar Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:13:18 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML03/25/M/IBM(Release 7.0.3FP1|February 24, 2008) at 03/16/2009 16:13:20 I see the RTF issues database distinguishing between "open" vs "closed", and then setting a field for disposition for the closed ones. Tim, when you say you marked every unaddressed issue as deferred, are you referring to the RTF report's terminology of saying "leave them open without disposition to be addressed later" or is it the official disposition value assigned after they were "closed"? I think we have to either: 1- distinguish between status; (closed/open) and disposition: (deferred/closednochange), according the meaning currently in the issues spreadsheet. For the RTF report, there would be statement as to both aspects (status and disposition) 2- Remove "Deferred" as a disposiion option, and instead close the issue with "ClosedNoChange" and a resolution text saying "this is strategic thus derferrd for future consideration". In the RTF report, we state the unaddressed issues are "deferred" but still open. I personally find 1 less confusing. But we need to choose one anyways and stick to it, so we don't see inconsistent use of the terminilogy in our ballots. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 "Tim Weilkiens" "Tim Weilkiens" 03/16/2009 03:55 PM To "Ed Seidewitz" , Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype In the SysML RTf we've addressed every issue and marked issues as deferred when there wasn't enough time (and prio) to resolve them. Tim -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Seidewitz [mailto:ed-s@modeldriven.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 8:47 PM To: Maged Elaasar Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . As a clarification, when I say .we need to respond to every issue received before the comment deadline., I mean every new issue received since the last RTF comment deadline. Presumably, previous RTFs addressed all prior issues (albeit by deferring many of them to future RTFs). I believe that our RTF report is required to include an official disposition for every issue submitted during our comment period. Note that many of the issues we are currently addressing are issues deferred by previous RTFs. This is intended (and to our credit!), but we address these entirely at our discretion. It is the new issues we are technically required to address. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Seidewitz Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 3:44 PM To: 'Maged Elaasar' Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . According to the OMG Policies and Procedures (Section 4.4.1.4, Normal Deadlines), .Comments received before the comment deadline must be addressed by modifications to the specification, or by a brief explanation of why no modification is appropriate (e.g. either that the comment is unfounded, or that the resolution would be outside the scope of the F/RTF).. So, we need to respond in the RTF report to every issue received before the comment deadline. Whether this means we can just leave and issue open, or should give it an explicit .deferred. disposition, should probably be taken up with Juergen or Andrew. In any case, deferred issues stay on the open issues list maintained by OMG, so there is no chance they will be .lost. to future RTFs. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 2:48 PM To: Ed Seidewitz Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Steve, I am not entirely sure either if "Deferred" is an official disposition value to be included in the RTF report when an issue is closed and deemed for future consideration. If it is not official, then we will have a problem distinguishing these issues from other deferred for lack of time. If we may, we can make it an "official" disposition value and clearly state what is means. In fact, we should do that for all dispositions values (i.e. take their stated meanings from the spreadsheet and publishing them in the RTF report and UML issues website). Later on when we have bugzilla, we can propose it as a value for the disposoition field. Ed, what you are saying is by giving the unaddressed issues a "Deferred" dispostion in the report, we are saying that those stay "open" in he RTF issue database. I find that a bit confusing myself. I would prefer to still make a blanket statement that these issues continue to be "open" with no disposition to distinguish them from those that are really closed with "deferred" disposition bec. of strategic relevance. This way, we cal always search for those issues and reopen them in future RTF cycles by making a (disposition="deferred") query. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 "Ed Seidewitz" "Ed Seidewitz" 03/16/2009 02:35 PM To Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . I believe that, technically, we are supposed to formally address every issue that comes in before the issue deadline for this RTF. That means that any such issues that we don.t want to or have time to address should be given .Deferred. disposition, whether they are strategic or not. (You will note that many issues from the last RTF effectively got deferred by a blanket statement to the effect that .we think this needs consideration, but we didn.t have time.) I suggest that, for strategic issues, we just note in the resolution discussion text that the issue was deferred for future .strategic consideration.. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 2:19 PM To: Steve Cook Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype It is my understanding that issues that get deferred because we do not want to (or have bandwidth to) address them now in the current RTF stay open with no disposition, which will happen to all the issues not on ballots in this cycle. However, those that get a "Deferred" disposition are closed with "Deferred" disposition to mean they will be subject to future consideration, which I take to be the case for stategic issues. Please correct me if I am wrong. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 Steve Cook Steve Cook 03/16/2009 02:08 PM To Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA, "uml2-rtf@omg.org" cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype We do need some way to distinguish between issues that are deferred as strategic, and issues which were deferred in the past and which are liable to be reconsidered by the current RTF. From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: 16 March 2009 17:42 To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Issue 6866 on ballot 3 draft concludes that this area is strategic and out of the scope of the current RTF and hence recommding a "ClosedNoChange" disposition. In other resolutions, such conclusion usually leads to a "Deferred" disposition. I suggest changing it to "Deffered", what do members think? ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 pic14580.gif Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:23:06 -0400 X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Thread-Index: Acmmc5WGfNrF/2pGRKWRag09r3Wf9gAAJJeQ From: "Ed Seidewitz" To: "Maged Elaasar" Cc: Maged . I don.t believe there is any official .open/closed. distinction for issues in OMG policy. All comments received by an RTF have to be addressed. The open/closed distinction is just used in the issues database so that no issues get lost . particularly deferred issues, which need to remain .open.. As far as the RTF report is concerned, this needs to report whatever disposition we give the issue. We can.t vote .ClosedNoChange. in a ballot, and then report .Deferred. in the report. The report is exactly a report of the results of the balloting. I don. think there is any option other than (1). Indeed, there is not really anything new here over what is done in any other RTF, except for the fact that we would like to note that some issues where deferred for being .strategic. and some (perhaps) for just running out of time. We can do that in the resolution text, and we can probably tabulate them separately in the RTF report, if we want to. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 4:13 PM To: Tim Weilkiens Cc: Ed Seidewitz; uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype I see the RTF issues database distinguishing between "open" vs "closed", and then setting a field for disposition for the closed ones. Tim, when you say you marked every unaddressed issue as deferred, are you referring to the RTF report's terminology of saying "leave them open without disposition to be addressed later" or is it the official disposition value assigned after they were "closed"? I think we have to either: 1- distinguish between status; (closed/open) and disposition: (deferred/closednochange), according the meaning currently in the issues spreadsheet. For the RTF report, there would be statement as to both aspects (status and disposition) 2- Remove "Deferred" as a disposiion option, and instead close the issue with "ClosedNoChange" and a resolution text saying "this is strategic thus derferrd for future consideration". In the RTF report, we state the unaddressed issues are "deferred" but still open. I personally find 1 less confusing. But we need to choose one anyways and stick to it, so we don't see inconsistent use of the terminilogy in our ballots. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 "Tim Weilkiens" "Tim Weilkiens" 03/16/2009 03:55 PM To "Ed Seidewitz" , Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype In the SysML RTf we've addressed every issue and marked issues as deferred when there wasn't enough time (and prio) to resolve them. Tim -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Seidewitz [mailto:ed-s@modeldriven.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 8:47 PM To: Maged Elaasar Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . As a clarification, when I say .we need to respond to every issue received before the comment deadline., I mean every new issue received since the last RTF comment deadline. Presumably, previous RTFs addressed all prior issues (albeit by deferring many of them to future RTFs). I believe that our RTF report is required to include an official disposition for every issue submitted during our comment period. Note that many of the issues we are currently addressing are issues deferred by previous RTFs. This is intended (and to our credit!), but we address these entirely at our discretion. It is the new issues we are technically required to address. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Seidewitz Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 3:44 PM To: 'Maged Elaasar' Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . According to the OMG Policies and Procedures (Section 4.4.1.4, Normal Deadlines), .Comments received before the comment deadline must be addressed by modifications to the specification, or by a brief explanation of why no modification is appropriate (e.g. either that the comment is unfounded, or that the resolution would be outside the scope of the F/RTF).. So, we need to respond in the RTF report to every issue received before the comment deadline. Whether this means we can just leave and issue open, or should give it an explicit .deferred. disposition, should probably be taken up with Juergen or Andrew. In any case, deferred issues stay on the open issues list maintained by OMG, so there is no chance they will be .lost. to future RTFs. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 2:48 PM To: Ed Seidewitz Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Steve, I am not entirely sure either if "Deferred" is an official disposition value to be included in the RTF report when an issue is closed and deemed for future consideration. If it is not official, then we will have a problem distinguishing these issues from other deferred for lack of time. If we may, we can make it an "official" disposition value and clearly state what is means. In fact, we should do that for all dispositions values (i.e. take their stated meanings from the spreadsheet and publishing them in the RTF report and UML issues website). Later on when we have bugzilla, we can propose it as a value for the disposoition field. Ed, what you are saying is by giving the unaddressed issues a "Deferred" dispostion in the report, we are saying that those stay "open" in he RTF issue database. I find that a bit confusing myself. I would prefer to still make a blanket statement that these issues continue to be "open" with no disposition to distinguish them from those that are really closed with "deferred" disposition bec. of strategic relevance. This way, we cal always search for those issues and reopen them in future RTF cycles by making a (disposition="deferred") query. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 "Ed Seidewitz" "Ed Seidewitz" 03/16/2009 02:35 PM To Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . I believe that, technically, we are supposed to formally address every issue that comes in before the issue deadline for this RTF. That means that any such issues that we don.t want to or have time to address should be given .Deferred. disposition, whether they are strategic or not. (You will note that many issues from the last RTF effectively got deferred by a blanket statement to the effect that .we think this needs consideration, but we didn.t have time.) I suggest that, for strategic issues, we just note in the resolution discussion text that the issue was deferred for future .strategic consideration.. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 2:19 PM To: Steve Cook Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype It is my understanding that issues that get deferred because we do not want to (or have bandwidth to) address them now in the current RTF stay open with no disposition, which will happen to all the issues not on ballots in this cycle. However, those that get a "Deferred" disposition are closed with "Deferred" disposition to mean they will be subject to future consideration, which I take to be the case for stategic issues. Please correct me if I am wrong. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 Steve Cook Steve Cook 03/16/2009 02:08 PM To Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA, "uml2-rtf@omg.org" cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype We do need some way to distinguish between issues that are deferred as strategic, and issues which were deferred in the past and which are liable to be reconsidered by the current RTF. From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: 16 March 2009 17:42 To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Issue 6866 on ballot 3 draft concludes that this area is strategic and out of the scope of the current RTF and hence recommding a "ClosedNoChange" disposition. In other resolutions, such conclusion usually leads to a "Deferred" disposition. I suggest changing it to "Deffered", what do members think? ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype To: Maged Elaasar Cc: "Ed Seidewitz" , "Tim Weilkiens" , uml2-rtf@omg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 From: Maged Elaasar Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:24:13 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML03/25/M/IBM(Release 7.0.3FP1|February 24, 2008) at 03/16/2009 16:24:15 I guess my assumption here is that an issue need be "closed" to have a disposiion, i.e. open ones need not have dispositions. If that is not true, then option 2 could be the way to go, although it is less obvious to me what is the criteria for "closed" vs. "open" would be, i.e. do we have to explicitly specify an issue as closed or still open in the RTF repor, or will this be figured out by Juergen? ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA 03/16/2009 04:13 PM To "Tim Weilkiens" cc "Ed Seidewitz" , uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype I see the RTF issues database distinguishing between "open" vs "closed", and then setting a field for disposition for the closed ones. Tim, when you say you marked every unaddressed issue as deferred, are you referring to the RTF report's terminology of saying "leave them open without disposition to be addressed later" or is it the official disposition value assigned after they were "closed"? I think we have to either: 1- distinguish between status; (closed/open) and disposition: (deferred/closednochange), according the meaning currently in the issues spreadsheet. For the RTF report, there would be statement as to both aspects (status and disposition) 2- Remove "Deferred" as a disposiion option, and instead close the issue with "ClosedNoChange" and a resolution text saying "this is strategic thus derferrd for future consideration". In the RTF report, we state the unaddressed issues are "deferred" but still open. I personally find 1 less confusing. But we need to choose one anyways and stick to it, so we don't see inconsistent use of the terminilogy in our ballots. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 "Tim Weilkiens" "Tim Weilkiens" 03/16/2009 03:55 PM To "Ed Seidewitz" , Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype In the SysML RTf we've addressed every issue and marked issues as deferred when there wasn't enough time (and prio) to resolve them. Tim -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Seidewitz [mailto:ed-s@modeldriven.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 8:47 PM To: Maged Elaasar Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . As a clarification, when I say .we need to respond to every issue received before the comment deadline., I mean every new issue received since the last RTF comment deadline. Presumably, previous RTFs addressed all prior issues (albeit by deferring many of them to future RTFs). I believe that our RTF report is required to include an official disposition for every issue submitted during our comment period. Note that many of the issues we are currently addressing are issues deferred by previous RTFs. This is intended (and to our credit!), but we address these entirely at our discretion. It is the new issues we are technically required to address. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Seidewitz Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 3:44 PM To: 'Maged Elaasar' Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . According to the OMG Policies and Procedures (Section 4.4.1.4, Normal Deadlines), .Comments received before the comment deadline must be addressed by modifications to the specification, or by a brief explanation of why no modification is appropriate (e.g. either that the comment is unfounded, or that the resolution would be outside the scope of the F/RTF).. So, we need to respond in the RTF report to every issue received before the comment deadline. Whether this means we can just leave and issue open, or should give it an explicit .deferred. disposition, should probably be taken up with Juergen or Andrew. In any case, deferred issues stay on the open issues list maintained by OMG, so there is no chance they will be .lost. to future RTFs. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 2:48 PM To: Ed Seidewitz Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Steve, I am not entirely sure either if "Deferred" is an official disposition value to be included in the RTF report when an issue is closed and deemed for future consideration. If it is not official, then we will have a problem distinguishing these issues from other deferred for lack of time. If we may, we can make it an "official" disposition value and clearly state what is means. In fact, we should do that for all dispositions values (i.e. take their stated meanings from the spreadsheet and publishing them in the RTF report and UML issues website). Later on when we have bugzilla, we can propose it as a value for the disposoition field. Ed, what you are saying is by giving the unaddressed issues a "Deferred" dispostion in the report, we are saying that those stay "open" in he RTF issue database. I find that a bit confusing myself. I would prefer to still make a blanket statement that these issues continue to be "open" with no disposition to distinguish them from those that are really closed with "deferred" disposition bec. of strategic relevance. This way, we cal always search for those issues and reopen them in future RTF cycles by making a (disposition="deferred") query. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 "Ed Seidewitz" "Ed Seidewitz" 03/16/2009 02:35 PM To Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . I believe that, technically, we are supposed to formally address every issue that comes in before the issue deadline for this RTF. That means that any such issues that we don.t want to or have time to address should be given .Deferred. disposition, whether they are strategic or not. (You will note that many issues from the last RTF effectively got deferred by a blanket statement to the effect that .we think this needs consideration, but we didn.t have time.) I suggest that, for strategic issues, we just note in the resolution discussion text that the issue was deferred for future .strategic consideration.. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 2:19 PM To: Steve Cook Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype It is my understanding that issues that get deferred because we do not want to (or have bandwidth to) address them now in the current RTF stay open with no disposition, which will happen to all the issues not on ballots in this cycle. However, those that get a "Deferred" disposition are closed with "Deferred" disposition to mean they will be subject to future consideration, which I take to be the case for stategic issues. Please correct me if I am wrong. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 Steve Cook Steve Cook 03/16/2009 02:08 PM To Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA, "uml2-rtf@omg.org" cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype We do need some way to distinguish between issues that are deferred as strategic, and issues which were deferred in the past and which are liable to be reconsidered by the current RTF. From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: 16 March 2009 17:42 To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Issue 6866 on ballot 3 draft concludes that this area is strategic and out of the scope of the current RTF and hence recommding a "ClosedNoChange" disposition. In other resolutions, such conclusion usually leads to a "Deferred" disposition. I suggest changing it to "Deffered", what do members think? ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 pic17968.gif Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:30:27 -0400 X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Thread-Index: AcmmdRjV0QPwfIiUQi2vUUuY+KuvvwAAOGNA From: "Ed Seidewitz" To: "Maged Elaasar" Cc: All we need to do is dispose an issue as .Deferred.. Such an issue automatically stays open. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 4:24 PM To: Maged Elaasar Cc: Ed Seidewitz; Tim Weilkiens; uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype I guess my assumption here is that an issue need be "closed" to have a disposiion, i.e. open ones need not have dispositions. If that is not true, then option 2 could be the way to go, although it is less obvious to me what is the criteria for "closed" vs. "open" would be, i.e. do we have to explicitly specify an issue as closed or still open in the RTF repor, or will this be figured out by Juergen? ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA 03/16/2009 04:13 PM To "Tim Weilkiens" cc "Ed Seidewitz" , uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype I see the RTF issues database distinguishing between "open" vs "closed", and then setting a field for disposition for the closed ones. Tim, when you say you marked every unaddressed issue as deferred, are you referring to the RTF report's terminology of saying "leave them open without disposition to be addressed later" or is it the official disposition value assigned after they were "closed"? I think we have to either: 1- distinguish between status; (closed/open) and disposition: (deferred/closednochange), according the meaning currently in the issues spreadsheet. For the RTF report, there would be statement as to both aspects (status and disposition) 2- Remove "Deferred" as a disposiion option, and instead close the issue with "ClosedNoChange" and a resolution text saying "this is strategic thus derferrd for future consideration". In the RTF report, we state the unaddressed issues are "deferred" but still open. I personally find 1 less confusing. But we need to choose one anyways and stick to it, so we don't see inconsistent use of the terminilogy in our ballots. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 "Tim Weilkiens" "Tim Weilkiens" 03/16/2009 03:55 PM To "Ed Seidewitz" , Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype In the SysML RTf we've addressed every issue and marked issues as deferred when there wasn't enough time (and prio) to resolve them. Tim -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Seidewitz [mailto:ed-s@modeldriven.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 8:47 PM To: Maged Elaasar Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . As a clarification, when I say .we need to respond to every issue received before the comment deadline., I mean every new issue received since the last RTF comment deadline. Presumably, previous RTFs addressed all prior issues (albeit by deferring many of them to future RTFs). I believe that our RTF report is required to include an official disposition for every issue submitted during our comment period. Note that many of the issues we are currently addressing are issues deferred by previous RTFs. This is intended (and to our credit!), but we address these entirely at our discretion. It is the new issues we are technically required to address. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Seidewitz Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 3:44 PM To: 'Maged Elaasar' Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . According to the OMG Policies and Procedures (Section 4.4.1.4, Normal Deadlines), .Comments received before the comment deadline must be addressed by modifications to the specification, or by a brief explanation of why no modification is appropriate (e.g. either that the comment is unfounded, or that the resolution would be outside the scope of the F/RTF).. So, we need to respond in the RTF report to every issue received before the comment deadline. Whether this means we can just leave and issue open, or should give it an explicit .deferred. disposition, should probably be taken up with Juergen or Andrew. In any case, deferred issues stay on the open issues list maintained by OMG, so there is no chance they will be .lost. to future RTFs. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 2:48 PM To: Ed Seidewitz Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Steve, I am not entirely sure either if "Deferred" is an official disposition value to be included in the RTF report when an issue is closed and deemed for future consideration. If it is not official, then we will have a problem distinguishing these issues from other deferred for lack of time. If we may, we can make it an "official" disposition value and clearly state what is means. In fact, we should do that for all dispositions values (i.e. take their stated meanings from the spreadsheet and publishing them in the RTF report and UML issues website). Later on when we have bugzilla, we can propose it as a value for the disposoition field. Ed, what you are saying is by giving the unaddressed issues a "Deferred" dispostion in the report, we are saying that those stay "open" in he RTF issue database. I find that a bit confusing myself. I would prefer to still make a blanket statement that these issues continue to be "open" with no disposition to distinguish them from those that are really closed with "deferred" disposition bec. of strategic relevance. This way, we cal always search for those issues and reopen them in future RTF cycles by making a (disposition="deferred") query. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 "Ed Seidewitz" "Ed Seidewitz" 03/16/2009 02:35 PM To Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . I believe that, technically, we are supposed to formally address every issue that comes in before the issue deadline for this RTF. That means that any such issues that we don.t want to or have time to address should be given .Deferred. disposition, whether they are strategic or not. (You will note that many issues from the last RTF effectively got deferred by a blanket statement to the effect that .we think this needs consideration, but we didn.t have time.) I suggest that, for strategic issues, we just note in the resolution discussion text that the issue was deferred for future .strategic consideration.. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 2:19 PM To: Steve Cook Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype It is my understanding that issues that get deferred because we do not want to (or have bandwidth to) address them now in the current RTF stay open with no disposition, which will happen to all the issues not on ballots in this cycle. However, those that get a "Deferred" disposition are closed with "Deferred" disposition to mean they will be subject to future consideration, which I take to be the case for stategic issues. Please correct me if I am wrong. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 Steve Cook Steve Cook 03/16/2009 02:08 PM To Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA, "uml2-rtf@omg.org" cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype We do need some way to distinguish between issues that are deferred as strategic, and issues which were deferred in the past and which are liable to be reconsidered by the current RTF. From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: 16 March 2009 17:42 To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Issue 6866 on ballot 3 draft concludes that this area is strategic and out of the scope of the current RTF and hence recommding a "ClosedNoChange" disposition. In other resolutions, such conclusion usually leads to a "Deferred" disposition. I suggest changing it to "Deffered", what do members think? ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype To: "Ed Seidewitz" Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 From: Maged Elaasar Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:30:48 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML03/25/M/IBM(Release 7.0.3FP1|February 24, 2008) at 03/16/2009 16:30:51 Ok in this case, we should continue to use explicit "Deferred" (vs. ClosedNoChange) as a disposition in the ballot for strategic issues coupled with a resolution text stating that. For unaddressed issues, we will use a deemed "Deferred" disposition for them with no resoltion text, to mean they remain open. Is this fair? in which case, are you OK Steve to change the disposition of 6866 to "Deferred"? ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 "Ed Seidewitz" "Ed Seidewitz" 03/16/2009 04:23 PM To Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . I don.t believe there is any official .open/closed. distinction for issues in OMG policy. All comments received by an RTF have to be addressed. The open/closed distinction is just used in the issues database so that no issues get lost . particularly deferred issues, which need to remain .open.. As far as the RTF report is concerned, this needs to report whatever disposition we give the issue. We can.t vote .ClosedNoChange. in a ballot, and then report .Deferred. in the report. The report is exactly a report of the results of the balloting. I don. think there is any option other than (1). Indeed, there is not really anything new here over what is done in any other RTF, except for the fact that we would like to note that some issues where deferred for being .strategic. and some (perhaps) for just running out of time. We can do that in the resolution text, and we can probably tabulate them separately in the RTF report, if we want to. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 4:13 PM To: Tim Weilkiens Cc: Ed Seidewitz; uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype I see the RTF issues database distinguishing between "open" vs "closed", and then setting a field for disposition for the closed ones. Tim, when you say you marked every unaddressed issue as deferred, are you referring to the RTF report's terminology of saying "leave them open without disposition to be addressed later" or is it the official disposition value assigned after they were "closed"? I think we have to either: 1- distinguish between status; (closed/open) and disposition: (deferred/closednochange), according the meaning currently in the issues spreadsheet. For the RTF report, there would be statement as to both aspects (status and disposition) 2- Remove "Deferred" as a disposiion option, and instead close the issue with "ClosedNoChange" and a resolution text saying "this is strategic thus derferrd for future consideration". In the RTF report, we state the unaddressed issues are "deferred" but still open. I personally find 1 less confusing. But we need to choose one anyways and stick to it, so we don't see inconsistent use of the terminilogy in our ballots. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 "Tim Weilkiens" "Tim Weilkiens" 03/16/2009 03:55 PM To "Ed Seidewitz" , Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype In the SysML RTf we've addressed every issue and marked issues as deferred when there wasn't enough time (and prio) to resolve them. Tim -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Seidewitz [mailto:ed-s@modeldriven.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 8:47 PM To: Maged Elaasar Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . As a clarification, when I say .we need to respond to every issue received before the comment deadline., I mean every new issue received since the last RTF comment deadline. Presumably, previous RTFs addressed all prior issues (albeit by deferring many of them to future RTFs). I believe that our RTF report is required to include an official disposition for every issue submitted during our comment period. Note that many of the issues we are currently addressing are issues deferred by previous RTFs. This is intended (and to our credit!), but we address these entirely at our discretion. It is the new issues we are technically required to address. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Seidewitz Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 3:44 PM To: 'Maged Elaasar' Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . According to the OMG Policies and Procedures (Section 4.4.1.4, Normal Deadlines), .Comments received before the comment deadline must be addressed by modifications to the specification, or by a brief explanation of why no modification is appropriate (e.g. either that the comment is unfounded, or that the resolution would be outside the scope of the F/RTF).. So, we need to respond in the RTF report to every issue received before the comment deadline. Whether this means we can just leave and issue open, or should give it an explicit .deferred. disposition, should probably be taken up with Juergen or Andrew. In any case, deferred issues stay on the open issues list maintained by OMG, so there is no chance they will be .lost. to future RTFs. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 2:48 PM To: Ed Seidewitz Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Steve, I am not entirely sure either if "Deferred" is an official disposition value to be included in the RTF report when an issue is closed and deemed for future consideration. If it is not official, then we will have a problem distinguishing these issues from other deferred for lack of time. If we may, we can make it an "official" disposition value and clearly state what is means. In fact, we should do that for all dispositions values (i.e. take their stated meanings from the spreadsheet and publishing them in the RTF report and UML issues website). Later on when we have bugzilla, we can propose it as a value for the disposoition field. Ed, what you are saying is by giving the unaddressed issues a "Deferred" dispostion in the report, we are saying that those stay "open" in he RTF issue database. I find that a bit confusing myself. I would prefer to still make a blanket statement that these issues continue to be "open" with no disposition to distinguish them from those that are really closed with "deferred" disposition bec. of strategic relevance. This way, we cal always search for those issues and reopen them in future RTF cycles by making a (disposition="deferred") query. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 "Ed Seidewitz" "Ed Seidewitz" 03/16/2009 02:35 PM To Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . I believe that, technically, we are supposed to formally address every issue that comes in before the issue deadline for this RTF. That means that any such issues that we don.t want to or have time to address should be given .Deferred. disposition, whether they are strategic or not. (You will note that many issues from the last RTF effectively got deferred by a blanket statement to the effect that .we think this needs consideration, but we didn.t have time.) I suggest that, for strategic issues, we just note in the resolution discussion text that the issue was deferred for future .strategic consideration.. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 2:19 PM To: Steve Cook Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype It is my understanding that issues that get deferred because we do not want to (or have bandwidth to) address them now in the current RTF stay open with no disposition, which will happen to all the issues not on ballots in this cycle. However, those that get a "Deferred" disposition are closed with "Deferred" disposition to mean they will be subject to future consideration, which I take to be the case for stategic issues. Please correct me if I am wrong. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 Steve Cook Steve Cook 03/16/2009 02:08 PM To Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA, "uml2-rtf@omg.org" cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype We do need some way to distinguish between issues that are deferred as strategic, and issues which were deferred in the past and which are liable to be reconsidered by the current RTF. From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: 16 March 2009 17:42 To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Issue 6866 on ballot 3 draft concludes that this area is strategic and out of the scope of the current RTF and hence recommding a "ClosedNoChange" disposition. In other resolutions, such conclusion usually leads to a "Deferred" disposition. I suggest changing it to "Deffered", what do members think? ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 pic09767.gif Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 17:02:29 -0400 X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Thread-Index: AcmmdgUPwQHfTGZQTuORKJSgaKD+awABHD3w From: "Ed Seidewitz" To: "Maged Elaasar" Cc: I think disposing 6866 as .Deferred. is the correct thing to do. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 4:31 PM To: Ed Seidewitz Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Ok in this case, we should continue to use explicit "Deferred" (vs. ClosedNoChange) as a disposition in the ballot for strategic issues coupled with a resolution text stating that. For unaddressed issues, we will use a deemed "Deferred" disposition for them with no resoltion text, to mean they remain open. Is this fair? in which case, are you OK Steve to change the disposition of 6866 to "Deferred"? ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 "Ed Seidewitz" "Ed Seidewitz" 03/16/2009 04:23 PM To Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . I don.t believe there is any official .open/closed. distinction for issues in OMG policy. All comments received by an RTF have to be addressed. The open/closed distinction is just used in the issues database so that no issues get lost . particularly deferred issues, which need to remain .open.. As far as the RTF report is concerned, this needs to report whatever disposition we give the issue. We can.t vote .ClosedNoChange. in a ballot, and then report .Deferred. in the report. The report is exactly a report of the results of the balloting. I don. think there is any option other than (1). Indeed, there is not really anything new here over what is done in any other RTF, except for the fact that we would like to note that some issues where deferred for being .strategic. and some (perhaps) for just running out of time. We can do that in the resolution text, and we can probably tabulate them separately in the RTF report, if we want to. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 4:13 PM To: Tim Weilkiens Cc: Ed Seidewitz; uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype I see the RTF issues database distinguishing between "open" vs "closed", and then setting a field for disposition for the closed ones. Tim, when you say you marked every unaddressed issue as deferred, are you referring to the RTF report's terminology of saying "leave them open without disposition to be addressed later" or is it the official disposition value assigned after they were "closed"? I think we have to either: 1- distinguish between status; (closed/open) and disposition: (deferred/closednochange), according the meaning currently in the issues spreadsheet. For the RTF report, there would be statement as to both aspects (status and disposition) 2- Remove "Deferred" as a disposiion option, and instead close the issue with "ClosedNoChange" and a resolution text saying "this is strategic thus derferrd for future consideration". In the RTF report, we state the unaddressed issues are "deferred" but still open. I personally find 1 less confusing. But we need to choose one anyways and stick to it, so we don't see inconsistent use of the terminilogy in our ballots. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 "Tim Weilkiens" "Tim Weilkiens" 03/16/2009 03:55 PM To "Ed Seidewitz" , Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype In the SysML RTf we've addressed every issue and marked issues as deferred when there wasn't enough time (and prio) to resolve them. Tim -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Seidewitz [mailto:ed-s@modeldriven.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 8:47 PM To: Maged Elaasar Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . As a clarification, when I say .we need to respond to every issue received before the comment deadline., I mean every new issue received since the last RTF comment deadline. Presumably, previous RTFs addressed all prior issues (albeit by deferring many of them to future RTFs). I believe that our RTF report is required to include an official disposition for every issue submitted during our comment period. Note that many of the issues we are currently addressing are issues deferred by previous RTFs. This is intended (and to our credit!), but we address these entirely at our discretion. It is the new issues we are technically required to address. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Seidewitz Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 3:44 PM To: 'Maged Elaasar' Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . According to the OMG Policies and Procedures (Section 4.4.1.4, Normal Deadlines), .Comments received before the comment deadline must be addressed by modifications to the specification, or by a brief explanation of why no modification is appropriate (e.g. either that the comment is unfounded, or that the resolution would be outside the scope of the F/RTF).. So, we need to respond in the RTF report to every issue received before the comment deadline. Whether this means we can just leave and issue open, or should give it an explicit .deferred. disposition, should probably be taken up with Juergen or Andrew. In any case, deferred issues stay on the open issues list maintained by OMG, so there is no chance they will be .lost. to future RTFs. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 2:48 PM To: Ed Seidewitz Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Steve, I am not entirely sure either if "Deferred" is an official disposition value to be included in the RTF report when an issue is closed and deemed for future consideration. If it is not official, then we will have a problem distinguishing these issues from other deferred for lack of time. If we may, we can make it an "official" disposition value and clearly state what is means. In fact, we should do that for all dispositions values (i.e. take their stated meanings from the spreadsheet and publishing them in the RTF report and UML issues website). Later on when we have bugzilla, we can propose it as a value for the disposoition field. Ed, what you are saying is by giving the unaddressed issues a "Deferred" dispostion in the report, we are saying that those stay "open" in he RTF issue database. I find that a bit confusing myself. I would prefer to still make a blanket statement that these issues continue to be "open" with no disposition to distinguish them from those that are really closed with "deferred" disposition bec. of strategic relevance. This way, we cal always search for those issues and reopen them in future RTF cycles by making a (disposition="deferred") query. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 "Ed Seidewitz" "Ed Seidewitz" 03/16/2009 02:35 PM To Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . I believe that, technically, we are supposed to formally address every issue that comes in before the issue deadline for this RTF. That means that any such issues that we don.t want to or have time to address should be given .Deferred. disposition, whether they are strategic or not. (You will note that many issues from the last RTF effectively got deferred by a blanket statement to the effect that .we think this needs consideration, but we didn.t have time.) I suggest that, for strategic issues, we just note in the resolution discussion text that the issue was deferred for future .strategic consideration.. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 2:19 PM To: Steve Cook Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype It is my understanding that issues that get deferred because we do not want to (or have bandwidth to) address them now in the current RTF stay open with no disposition, which will happen to all the issues not on ballots in this cycle. However, those that get a "Deferred" disposition are closed with "Deferred" disposition to mean they will be subject to future consideration, which I take to be the case for stategic issues. Please correct me if I am wrong. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 Steve Cook Steve Cook 03/16/2009 02:08 PM To Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA, "uml2-rtf@omg.org" cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype We do need some way to distinguish between issues that are deferred as strategic, and issues which were deferred in the past and which are liable to be reconsidered by the current RTF. From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: 16 March 2009 17:42 To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Issue 6866 on ballot 3 draft concludes that this area is strategic and out of the scope of the current RTF and hence recommding a "ClosedNoChange" disposition. In other resolutions, such conclusion usually leads to a "Deferred" disposition. I suggest changing it to "Deffered", what do members think? ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 17:05:23 -0400 X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Thread-Index: AcmmdgUPwQHfTGZQTuORKJSgaKD+awABJnrw From: "Ed Seidewitz" To: "Maged Elaasar" Cc: Oh, one more thing. I would suggest you check with Andrew or Juergen to be sure, but I don.t believe any issue within this RTF.s comment period can be formally .unaddressed.. Even if the disposition is .deemed. Deferred, because we didn.t really address it due to time, I am pretty sure we still need to vote on that, in order for us to have a complete report. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 4:31 PM To: Ed Seidewitz Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Ok in this case, we should continue to use explicit "Deferred" (vs. ClosedNoChange) as a disposition in the ballot for strategic issues coupled with a resolution text stating that. For unaddressed issues, we will use a deemed "Deferred" disposition for them with no resoltion text, to mean they remain open. Is this fair? in which case, are you OK Steve to change the disposition of 6866 to "Deferred"? ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 "Ed Seidewitz" "Ed Seidewitz" 03/16/2009 04:23 PM To Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . I don.t believe there is any official .open/closed. distinction for issues in OMG policy. All comments received by an RTF have to be addressed. The open/closed distinction is just used in the issues database so that no issues get lost . particularly deferred issues, which need to remain .open.. As far as the RTF report is concerned, this needs to report whatever disposition we give the issue. We can.t vote .ClosedNoChange. in a ballot, and then report .Deferred. in the report. The report is exactly a report of the results of the balloting. I don. think there is any option other than (1). Indeed, there is not really anything new here over what is done in any other RTF, except for the fact that we would like to note that some issues where deferred for being .strategic. and some (perhaps) for just running out of time. We can do that in the resolution text, and we can probably tabulate them separately in the RTF report, if we want to. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 4:13 PM To: Tim Weilkiens Cc: Ed Seidewitz; uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype I see the RTF issues database distinguishing between "open" vs "closed", and then setting a field for disposition for the closed ones. Tim, when you say you marked every unaddressed issue as deferred, are you referring to the RTF report's terminology of saying "leave them open without disposition to be addressed later" or is it the official disposition value assigned after they were "closed"? I think we have to either: 1- distinguish between status; (closed/open) and disposition: (deferred/closednochange), according the meaning currently in the issues spreadsheet. For the RTF report, there would be statement as to both aspects (status and disposition) 2- Remove "Deferred" as a disposiion option, and instead close the issue with "ClosedNoChange" and a resolution text saying "this is strategic thus derferrd for future consideration". In the RTF report, we state the unaddressed issues are "deferred" but still open. I personally find 1 less confusing. But we need to choose one anyways and stick to it, so we don't see inconsistent use of the terminilogy in our ballots. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 "Tim Weilkiens" "Tim Weilkiens" 03/16/2009 03:55 PM To "Ed Seidewitz" , Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype In the SysML RTf we've addressed every issue and marked issues as deferred when there wasn't enough time (and prio) to resolve them. Tim -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Seidewitz [mailto:ed-s@modeldriven.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 8:47 PM To: Maged Elaasar Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . As a clarification, when I say .we need to respond to every issue received before the comment deadline., I mean every new issue received since the last RTF comment deadline. Presumably, previous RTFs addressed all prior issues (albeit by deferring many of them to future RTFs). I believe that our RTF report is required to include an official disposition for every issue submitted during our comment period. Note that many of the issues we are currently addressing are issues deferred by previous RTFs. This is intended (and to our credit!), but we address these entirely at our discretion. It is the new issues we are technically required to address. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Seidewitz Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 3:44 PM To: 'Maged Elaasar' Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . According to the OMG Policies and Procedures (Section 4.4.1.4, Normal Deadlines), .Comments received before the comment deadline must be addressed by modifications to the specification, or by a brief explanation of why no modification is appropriate (e.g. either that the comment is unfounded, or that the resolution would be outside the scope of the F/RTF).. So, we need to respond in the RTF report to every issue received before the comment deadline. Whether this means we can just leave and issue open, or should give it an explicit .deferred. disposition, should probably be taken up with Juergen or Andrew. In any case, deferred issues stay on the open issues list maintained by OMG, so there is no chance they will be .lost. to future RTFs. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 2:48 PM To: Ed Seidewitz Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Steve, I am not entirely sure either if "Deferred" is an official disposition value to be included in the RTF report when an issue is closed and deemed for future consideration. If it is not official, then we will have a problem distinguishing these issues from other deferred for lack of time. If we may, we can make it an "official" disposition value and clearly state what is means. In fact, we should do that for all dispositions values (i.e. take their stated meanings from the spreadsheet and publishing them in the RTF report and UML issues website). Later on when we have bugzilla, we can propose it as a value for the disposoition field. Ed, what you are saying is by giving the unaddressed issues a "Deferred" dispostion in the report, we are saying that those stay "open" in he RTF issue database. I find that a bit confusing myself. I would prefer to still make a blanket statement that these issues continue to be "open" with no disposition to distinguish them from those that are really closed with "deferred" disposition bec. of strategic relevance. This way, we cal always search for those issues and reopen them in future RTF cycles by making a (disposition="deferred") query. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 "Ed Seidewitz" "Ed Seidewitz" 03/16/2009 02:35 PM To Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . I believe that, technically, we are supposed to formally address every issue that comes in before the issue deadline for this RTF. That means that any such issues that we don.t want to or have time to address should be given .Deferred. disposition, whether they are strategic or not. (You will note that many issues from the last RTF effectively got deferred by a blanket statement to the effect that .we think this needs consideration, but we didn.t have time.) I suggest that, for strategic issues, we just note in the resolution discussion text that the issue was deferred for future .strategic consideration.. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 2:19 PM To: Steve Cook Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype It is my understanding that issues that get deferred because we do not want to (or have bandwidth to) address them now in the current RTF stay open with no disposition, which will happen to all the issues not on ballots in this cycle. However, those that get a "Deferred" disposition are closed with "Deferred" disposition to mean they will be subject to future consideration, which I take to be the case for stategic issues. Please correct me if I am wrong. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 Steve Cook Steve Cook 03/16/2009 02:08 PM To Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA, "uml2-rtf@omg.org" cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype We do need some way to distinguish between issues that are deferred as strategic, and issues which were deferred in the past and which are liable to be reconsidered by the current RTF. From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: 16 March 2009 17:42 To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Issue 6866 on ballot 3 draft concludes that this area is strategic and out of the scope of the current RTF and hence recommding a "ClosedNoChange" disposition. In other resolutions, such conclusion usually leads to a "Deferred" disposition. I suggest changing it to "Deffered", what do members think? ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 X-Auth-ID: koethe Cc: "Maged Elaasar" , From: "Manfred R. Koethe" To: "Ed Seidewitz" Subject: Re: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 17:56:35 -0400 X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 1.2.0 (v56) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) Ed, you are correct with your statement below. Regarding the "Deferred"resolution: Look what the explanation in the report template says: "The RTF/FTF agrees that there is a problem that needs fixing, but did not agree on a resolution and deferred its resolution to a future RTF/FTF." I think, this is exactly what you were looking for. Manfred On Mar 16, 2009, at 17:05 , Ed Seidewitz wrote: Oh, one more thing. I would suggest you check with Andrew or Juergen to be sure, but I don.t believe any issue within this RTF.s comment period can be formally .unaddressed.. Even if the disposition is .deemed. Deferred, because we didn.t really address it due to time, I am pretty sure we still need to vote on that, in order for us to have a complete report. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 4:31 PM To: Ed Seidewitz Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Ok in this case, we should continue to use explicit "Deferred" (vs. ClosedNoChange) as a disposition in the ballot for strategic issues coupled with a resolution text stating that. For unaddressed issues, we will use a deemed "Deferred" disposition for them with no resoltion text, to mean they remain open. Is this fair? in which case, are you OK Steve to change the disposition of 6866 to "Deferred"? ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 "Ed Seidewitz" "Ed Seidewitz" 03/16/2009 04:23 PM To Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . I don.t believe there is any official .open/closed. distinction for issues in OMG policy. All comments received by an RTF have to be addressed. The open/closed distinction is just used in the issues database so that no issues get lost . particularly deferred issues, which need to remain .open.. As far as the RTF report is concerned, this needs to report whatever disposition we give the issue. We can.t vote .ClosedNoChange. in a ballot, and then report .Deferred. in the report. The report is exactly a report of the results of the balloting. I don. think there is any option other than (1). Indeed, there is not really anything new here over what is done in any other RTF, except for the fact that we would like to note that some issues where deferred for being .strategic. and some (perhaps) for just running out of time. We can do that in the resolution text, and we can probably tabulate them separately in the RTF report, if we want to. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 4:13 PM To: Tim Weilkiens Cc: Ed Seidewitz; uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype I see the RTF issues database distinguishing between "open" vs "closed", and then setting a field for disposition for the closed ones. Tim, when you say you marked every unaddressed issue as deferred, are you referring to the RTF report's terminology of saying "leave them open without disposition to be addressed later" or is it the official disposition value assigned after they were "closed"? I think we have to either: 1- distinguish between status; (closed/open) and disposition: (deferred/closednochange), according the meaning currently in the issues spreadsheet. For the RTF report, there would be statement as to both aspects (status and disposition) 2- Remove "Deferred" as a disposiion option, and instead close the issue with "ClosedNoChange" and a resolution text saying "this is strategic thus derferrd for future consideration". In the RTF report, we state the unaddressed issues are "deferred" but still open. I personally find 1 less confusing. But we need to choose one anyways and stick to it, so we don't see inconsistent use of the terminilogy in our ballots. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 "Tim Weilkiens" "Tim Weilkiens" 03/16/2009 03:55 PM To "Ed Seidewitz" , Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype In the SysML RTf we've addressed every issue and marked issues as deferred when there wasn't enough time (and prio) to resolve them. Tim -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Seidewitz [mailto:ed-s@modeldriven.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 8:47 PM To: Maged Elaasar Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . As a clarification, when I say .we need to respond to every issue received before the comment deadline., I mean every new issue received since the last RTF comment deadline. Presumably, previous RTFs addressed all prior issues (albeit by deferring many of them to future RTFs). I believe that our RTF report is required to include an official disposition for every issue submitted during our comment period. Note that many of the issues we are currently addressing are issues deferred by previous RTFs. This is intended (and to our credit!), but we address these entirely at our discretion. It is the new issues we are technically required to address. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Seidewitz Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 3:44 PM To: 'Maged Elaasar' Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . According to the OMG Policies and Procedures (Section 4.4.1.4, Normal Deadlines), .Comments received before the comment deadline must be addressed by modifications to the specification, or by a brief explanation of why no modification is appropriate (e.g. either that the comment is unfounded, or that the resolution would be outside the scope of the F/RTF).. So, we need to respond in the RTF report to every issue received before the comment deadline. Whether this means we can just leave and issue open, or should give it an explicit .deferred. disposition, should probably be taken up with Juergen or Andrew. In any case, deferred issues stay on the open issues list maintained by OMG, so there is no chance they will be .lost. to future RTFs. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 2:48 PM To: Ed Seidewitz Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Steve, I am not entirely sure either if "Deferred" is an official disposition value to be included in the RTF report when an issue is closed and deemed for future consideration. If it is not official, then we will have a problem distinguishing these issues from other deferred for lack of time. If we may, we can make it an "official" disposition value and clearly state what is means. In fact, we should do that for all dispositions values (i.e. take their stated meanings from the spreadsheet and publishing them in the RTF report and UML issues website). Later on when we have bugzilla, we can propose it as a value for the disposoition field. Ed, what you are saying is by giving the unaddressed issues a "Deferred" dispostion in the report, we are saying that those stay "open" in he RTF issue database. I find that a bit confusing myself. I would prefer to still make a blanket statement that these issues continue to be "open" with no disposition to distinguish them from those that are really closed with "deferred" disposition bec. of strategic relevance. This way, we cal always search for those issues and reopen them in future RTF cycles by making a (disposition="deferred") query. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 "Ed Seidewitz" "Ed Seidewitz" 03/16/2009 02:35 PM To Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . I believe that, technically, we are supposed to formally address every issue that comes in before the issue deadline for this RTF. That means that any such issues that we don.t want to or have time to address should be given .Deferred. disposition, whether they are strategic or not. (You will note that many issues from the last RTF effectively got deferred by a blanket statement to the effect that .we think this needs consideration, but we didn.t have time.) I suggest that, for strategic issues, we just note in the resolution discussion text that the issue was deferred for future .strategic consideration.. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 2:19 PM To: Steve Cook Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype It is my understanding that issues that get deferred because we do not want to (or have bandwidth to) address them now in the current RTF stay open with no disposition, which will happen to all the issues not on ballots in this cycle. However, those that get a "Deferred" disposition are closed with "Deferred" disposition to mean they will be subject to future consideration, which I take to be the case for stategic issues. Please correct me if I am wrong. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 Steve Cook Steve Cook 03/16/2009 02:08 PM To Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA, "uml2-rtf@omg.org" cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype We do need some way to distinguish between issues that are deferred as strategic, and issues which were deferred in the past and which are liable to be reconsidered by the current RTF. From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: 16 March 2009 17:42 To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Issue 6866 on ballot 3 draft concludes that this area is strategic and out of the scope of the current RTF and hence recommding a "ClosedNoChange" disposition. In other resolutions, such conclusion usually leads to a "Deferred" disposition. I suggest changing it to "Deffered", what do members think? ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 --------------------------------------------------------------- Manfred R. Koethe 88solutions Corporation tel: +1 (617) 848 0525 fax: +1 (617) 848 8819 mailto: koethe@88solutions.com web: http://www.88solutions.com --------(Model-Driven Modeling Solutions)-------- PGP4.sig Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 09:14:36 +0100 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Thread-Index: AcmmdgUPwQHfTGZQTuORKJSgaKD+awABJnrwABdiswA= From: "Tim Weilkiens" To: "Ed Seidewitz" , "Maged Elaasar" Cc: In the SysML RTF we've marked issued "deferred" to say "leave them open without disposition to be addressed later". And we vote on them. Now they are considered in the RTF for the next SysML version. Tim -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Seidewitz [mailto:ed-s@modeldriven.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 10:05 PM To: Maged Elaasar Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Oh, one more thing. I would suggest you check with Andrew or Juergen to be sure, but I don.t believe any issue within this RTF.s comment period can be formally .unaddressed.. Even if the disposition is .deemed. Deferred, because we didn.t really address it due to time, I am pretty sure we still need to vote on that, in order for us to have a complete report. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 4:31 PM To: Ed Seidewitz Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Ok in this case, we should continue to use explicit "Deferred" (vs. ClosedNoChange) as a disposition in the ballot for strategic issues coupled with a resolution text stating that. For unaddressed issues, we will use a deemed "Deferred" disposition for them with no resoltion text, to mean they remain open. Is this fair? in which case, are you OK Steve to change the disposition of 6866 to "Deferred"? ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 "Ed Seidewitz" "Ed Seidewitz" 03/16/2009 04:23 PM To Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . I don.t believe there is any official .open/closed. distinction for issues in OMG policy. All comments received by an RTF have to be addressed. The open/closed distinction is just used in the issues database so that no issues get lost . particularly deferred issues, which need to remain .open.. As far as the RTF report is concerned, this needs to report whatever disposition we give the issue. We can.t vote .ClosedNoChange. in a ballot, and then report .Deferred. in the report. The report is exactly a report of the results of the balloting. I don. think there is any option other than (1). Indeed, there is not really anything new here over what is done in any other RTF, except for the fact that we would like to note that some issues where deferred for being .strategic. and some (perhaps) for just running out of time. We can do that in the resolution text, and we can probably tabulate them separately in the RTF report, if we want to. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 4:13 PM To: Tim Weilkiens Cc: Ed Seidewitz; uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype I see the RTF issues database distinguishing between "open" vs "closed", and then setting a field for disposition for the closed ones. Tim, when you say you marked every unaddressed issue as deferred, are you referring to the RTF report's terminology of saying "leave them open without disposition to be addressed later" or is it the official disposition value assigned after they were "closed"? I think we have to either: 1- distinguish between status; (closed/open) and disposition: (deferred/closednochange), according the meaning currently in the issues spreadsheet. For the RTF report, there would be statement as to both aspects (status and disposition) 2- Remove "Deferred" as a disposiion option, and instead close the issue with "ClosedNoChange" and a resolution text saying "this is strategic thus derferrd for future consideration". In the RTF report, we state the unaddressed issues are "deferred" but still open. I personally find 1 less confusing. But we need to choose one anyways and stick to it, so we don't see inconsistent use of the terminilogy in our ballots. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 "Tim Weilkiens" "Tim Weilkiens" 03/16/2009 03:55 PM To "Ed Seidewitz" , Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype In the SysML RTf we've addressed every issue and marked issues as deferred when there wasn't enough time (and prio) to resolve them. Tim -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Seidewitz [mailto:ed-s@modeldriven.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 8:47 PM To: Maged Elaasar Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . As a clarification, when I say .we need to respond to every issue received before the comment deadline., I mean every new issue received since the last RTF comment deadline. Presumably, previous RTFs addressed all prior issues (albeit by deferring many of them to future RTFs). I believe that our RTF report is required to include an official disposition for every issue submitted during our comment period. Note that many of the issues we are currently addressing are issues deferred by previous RTFs. This is intended (and to our credit!), but we address these entirely at our discretion. It is the new issues we are technically required to address. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Seidewitz Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 3:44 PM To: 'Maged Elaasar' Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . According to the OMG Policies and Procedures (Section 4.4.1.4, Normal Deadlines), .Comments received before the comment deadline must be addressed by modifications to the specification, or by a brief explanation of why no modification is appropriate (e.g. either that the comment is unfounded, or that the resolution would be outside the scope of the F/RTF).. So, we need to respond in the RTF report to every issue received before the comment deadline. Whether this means we can just leave and issue open, or should give it an explicit .deferred. disposition, should probably be taken up with Juergen or Andrew. In any case, deferred issues stay on the open issues list maintained by OMG, so there is no chance they will be .lost. to future RTFs. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 2:48 PM To: Ed Seidewitz Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Steve, I am not entirely sure either if "Deferred" is an official disposition value to be included in the RTF report when an issue is closed and deemed for future consideration. If it is not official, then we will have a problem distinguishing these issues from other deferred for lack of time. If we may, we can make it an "official" disposition value and clearly state what is means. In fact, we should do that for all dispositions values (i.e. take their stated meanings from the spreadsheet and publishing them in the RTF report and UML issues website). Later on when we have bugzilla, we can propose it as a value for the disposoition field. Ed, what you are saying is by giving the unaddressed issues a "Deferred" dispostion in the report, we are saying that those stay "open" in he RTF issue database. I find that a bit confusing myself. I would prefer to still make a blanket statement that these issues continue to be "open" with no disposition to distinguish them from those that are really closed with "deferred" disposition bec. of strategic relevance. This way, we cal always search for those issues and reopen them in future RTF cycles by making a (disposition="deferred") query. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 "Ed Seidewitz" "Ed Seidewitz" 03/16/2009 02:35 PM To Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . I believe that, technically, we are supposed to formally address every issue that comes in before the issue deadline for this RTF. That means that any such issues that we don.t want to or have time to address should be given .Deferred. disposition, whether they are strategic or not. (You will note that many issues from the last RTF effectively got deferred by a blanket statement to the effect that .we think this needs consideration, but we didn.t have time.) I suggest that, for strategic issues, we just note in the resolution discussion text that the issue was deferred for future .strategic consideration.. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 2:19 PM To: Steve Cook Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype It is my understanding that issues that get deferred because we do not want to (or have bandwidth to) address them now in the current RTF stay open with no disposition, which will happen to all the issues not on ballots in this cycle. However, those that get a "Deferred" disposition are closed with "Deferred" disposition to mean they will be subject to future consideration, which I take to be the case for stategic issues. Please correct me if I am wrong. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 Steve Cook Steve Cook 03/16/2009 02:08 PM To Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA, "uml2-rtf@omg.org" cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype We do need some way to distinguish between issues that are deferred as strategic, and issues which were deferred in the past and which are liable to be reconsidered by the current RTF. From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: 16 March 2009 17:42 To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Issue 6866 on ballot 3 draft concludes that this area is strategic and out of the scope of the current RTF and hence recommding a "ClosedNoChange" disposition. In other resolutions, such conclusion usually leads to a "Deferred" disposition. I suggest changing it to "Deffered", what do members think? ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 image001147.gif From: Steve Cook To: Ed Seidewitz , Maged Elaasar CC: "uml2-rtf@omg.org" Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:16:08 +0000 Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Thread-Topic: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Thread-Index: AcmmdgUPwQHfTGZQTuORKJSgaKD+awABHD3wABuL/KA= Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US I agree. However I remain nervous that issues get marked as .deferred. in two ways: 1. Because somebody takes a good look at it and decided it is outside RTF scope, and this is voted on 2. Because RTF runs out of time and marks everything it hasn.t looked at yet as deferred. I don.t really see any obvious way in our current process to distinguish between these without trawling through the records. From: Ed Seidewitz [mailto:ed-s@modeldriven.com] Sent: 16 March 2009 21:02 To: Maged Elaasar Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype I think disposing 6866 as .Deferred. is the correct thing to do. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 4:31 PM To: Ed Seidewitz Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Ok in this case, we should continue to use explicit "Deferred" (vs. ClosedNoChange) as a disposition in the ballot for strategic issues coupled with a resolution text stating that. For unaddressed issues, we will use a deemed "Deferred" disposition for them with no resoltion text, to mean they remain open. Is this fair? in which case, are you OK Steve to change the disposition of 6866 to "Deferred"? ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 "Ed Seidewitz" "Ed Seidewitz" 03/16/2009 04:23 PM To Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . I don.t believe there is any official .open/closed. distinction for issues in OMG policy. All comments received by an RTF have to be addressed. The open/closed distinction is just used in the issues database so that no issues get lost . particularly deferred issues, which need to remain .open.. As far as the RTF report is concerned, this needs to report whatever disposition we give the issue. We can.t vote .ClosedNoChange. in a ballot, and then report .Deferred. in the report. The report is exactly a report of the results of the balloting. I don. think there is any option other than (1). Indeed, there is not really anything new here over what is done in any other RTF, except for the fact that we would like to note that some issues where deferred for being .strategic. and some (perhaps) for just running out of time. We can do that in the resolution text, and we can probably tabulate them separately in the RTF report, if we want to. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 4:13 PM To: Tim Weilkiens Cc: Ed Seidewitz; uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype I see the RTF issues database distinguishing between "open" vs "closed", and then setting a field for disposition for the closed ones. Tim, when you say you marked every unaddressed issue as deferred, are you referring to the RTF report's terminology of saying "leave them open without disposition to be addressed later" or is it the official disposition value assigned after they were "closed"? I think we have to either: 1- distinguish between status; (closed/open) and disposition: (deferred/closednochange), according the meaning currently in the issues spreadsheet. For the RTF report, there would be statement as to both aspects (status and disposition) 2- Remove "Deferred" as a disposiion option, and instead close the issue with "ClosedNoChange" and a resolution text saying "this is strategic thus derferrd for future consideration". In the RTF report, we state the unaddressed issues are "deferred" but still open. I personally find 1 less confusing. But we need to choose one anyways and stick to it, so we don't see inconsistent use of the terminilogy in our ballots. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 "Tim Weilkiens" "Tim Weilkiens" 03/16/2009 03:55 PM To "Ed Seidewitz" , Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype In the SysML RTf we've addressed every issue and marked issues as deferred when there wasn't enough time (and prio) to resolve them. Tim -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Seidewitz [mailto:ed-s@modeldriven.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 8:47 PM To: Maged Elaasar Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . As a clarification, when I say .we need to respond to every issue received before the comment deadline., I mean every new issue received since the last RTF comment deadline. Presumably, previous RTFs addressed all prior issues (albeit by deferring many of them to future RTFs). I believe that our RTF report is required to include an official disposition for every issue submitted during our comment period. Note that many of the issues we are currently addressing are issues deferred by previous RTFs. This is intended (and to our credit!), but we address these entirely at our discretion. It is the new issues we are technically required to address. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Seidewitz Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 3:44 PM To: 'Maged Elaasar' Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . According to the OMG Policies and Procedures (Section 4.4.1.4, Normal Deadlines), .Comments received before the comment deadline must be addressed by modifications to the specification, or by a brief explanation of why no modification is appropriate (e.g. either that the comment is unfounded, or that the resolution would be outside the scope of the F/RTF).. So, we need to respond in the RTF report to every issue received before the comment deadline. Whether this means we can just leave and issue open, or should give it an explicit .deferred. disposition, should probably be taken up with Juergen or Andrew. In any case, deferred issues stay on the open issues list maintained by OMG, so there is no chance they will be .lost. to future RTFs. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 2:48 PM To: Ed Seidewitz Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Steve, I am not entirely sure either if "Deferred" is an official disposition value to be included in the RTF report when an issue is closed and deemed for future consideration. If it is not official, then we will have a problem distinguishing these issues from other deferred for lack of time. If we may, we can make it an "official" disposition value and clearly state what is means. In fact, we should do that for all dispositions values (i.e. take their stated meanings from the spreadsheet and publishing them in the RTF report and UML issues website). Later on when we have bugzilla, we can propose it as a value for the disposoition field. Ed, what you are saying is by giving the unaddressed issues a "Deferred" dispostion in the report, we are saying that those stay "open" in he RTF issue database. I find that a bit confusing myself. I would prefer to still make a blanket statement that these issues continue to be "open" with no disposition to distinguish them from those that are really closed with "deferred" disposition bec. of strategic relevance. This way, we cal always search for those issues and reopen them in future RTF cycles by making a (disposition="deferred") query. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 "Ed Seidewitz" "Ed Seidewitz" 03/16/2009 02:35 PM To Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . I believe that, technically, we are supposed to formally address every issue that comes in before the issue deadline for this RTF. That means that any such issues that we don.t want to or have time to address should be given .Deferred. disposition, whether they are strategic or not. (You will note that many issues from the last RTF effectively got deferred by a blanket statement to the effect that .we think this needs consideration, but we didn.t have time.) I suggest that, for strategic issues, we just note in the resolution discussion text that the issue was deferred for future .strategic consideration.. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 2:19 PM To: Steve Cook Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype It is my understanding that issues that get deferred because we do not want to (or have bandwidth to) address them now in the current RTF stay open with no disposition, which will happen to all the issues not on ballots in this cycle. However, those that get a "Deferred" disposition are closed with "Deferred" disposition to mean they will be subject to future consideration, which I take to be the case for stategic issues. Please correct me if I am wrong. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 Steve Cook Steve Cook 03/16/2009 02:08 PM To Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA, "uml2-rtf@omg.org" cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype We do need some way to distinguish between issues that are deferred as strategic, and issues which were deferred in the past and which are liable to be reconsidered by the current RTF. From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: 16 March 2009 17:42 To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Issue 6866 on ballot 3 draft concludes that this area is strategic and out of the scope of the current RTF and hence recommding a "ClosedNoChange" disposition. In other resolutions, such conclusion usually leads to a "Deferred" disposition. I suggest changing it to "Deffered", what do members think? ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:47:18 -0400 X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Thread-Index: AcmmaJLdzo6WZI1XRfS6F3v+lgiQ+gABeIGgAABKfFA= From: "Ed Seidewitz" To: "Maged Elaasar" Cc: Maged . As a clarification, when I say .we need to respond to every issue received before the comment deadline., I mean every new issue received since the last RTF comment deadline. Presumably, previous RTFs addressed all prior issues (albeit by deferring many of them to future RTFs). I believe that our RTF report is required to include an official disposition for every issue submitted during our comment period. Note that many of the issues we are currently addressing are issues deferred by previous RTFs. This is intended (and to our credit!), but we address these entirely at our discretion. It is the new issues we are technically required to address. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Seidewitz Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 3:44 PM To: 'Maged Elaasar' Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . According to the OMG Policies and Procedures (Section 4.4.1.4, Normal Deadlines), .Comments received before the comment deadline must be addressed by modifications to the specification, or by a brief explanation of why no modification is appropriate (e.g. either that the comment is unfounded, or that the resolution would be outside the scope of the F/RTF).. So, we need to respond in the RTF report to every issue received before the comment deadline. Whether this means we can just leave and issue open, or should give it an explicit .deferred. disposition, should probably be taken up with Juergen or Andrew. In any case, deferred issues stay on the open issues list maintained by OMG, so there is no chance they will be .lost. to future RTFs. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 2:48 PM To: Ed Seidewitz Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Steve, I am not entirely sure either if "Deferred" is an official disposition value to be included in the RTF report when an issue is closed and deemed for future consideration. If it is not official, then we will have a problem distinguishing these issues from other deferred for lack of time. If we may, we can make it an "official" disposition value and clearly state what is means. In fact, we should do that for all dispositions values (i.e. take their stated meanings from the spreadsheet and publishing them in the RTF report and UML issues website). Later on when we have bugzilla, we can propose it as a value for the disposoition field. Ed, what you are saying is by giving the unaddressed issues a "Deferred" dispostion in the report, we are saying that those stay "open" in he RTF issue database. I find that a bit confusing myself. I would prefer to still make a blanket statement that these issues continue to be "open" with no disposition to distinguish them from those that are really closed with "deferred" disposition bec. of strategic relevance. This way, we cal always search for those issues and reopen them in future RTF cycles by making a (disposition="deferred") query. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 "Ed Seidewitz" "Ed Seidewitz" 03/16/2009 02:35 PM To Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . I believe that, technically, we are supposed to formally address every issue that comes in before the issue deadline for this RTF. That means that any such issues that we don.t want to or have time to address should be given .Deferred. disposition, whether they are strategic or not. (You will note that many issues from the last RTF effectively got deferred by a blanket statement to the effect that .we think this needs consideration, but we didn.t have time.) I suggest that, for strategic issues, we just note in the resolution discussion text that the issue was deferred for future .strategic consideration.. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 2:19 PM To: Steve Cook Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype It is my understanding that issues that get deferred because we do not want to (or have bandwidth to) address them now in the current RTF stay open with no disposition, which will happen to all the issues not on ballots in this cycle. However, those that get a "Deferred" disposition are closed with "Deferred" disposition to mean they will be subject to future consideration, which I take to be the case for stategic issues. Please correct me if I am wrong. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 Steve Cook Steve Cook 03/16/2009 02:08 PM To Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA, "uml2-rtf@omg.org" cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype We do need some way to distinguish between issues that are deferred as strategic, and issues which were deferred in the past and which are liable to be reconsidered by the current RTF. From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: 16 March 2009 17:42 To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Issue 6866 on ballot 3 draft concludes that this area is strategic and out of the scope of the current RTF and hence recommding a "ClosedNoChange" disposition. In other resolutions, such conclusion usually leads to a "Deferred" disposition. I suggest changing it to "Deffered", what do members think? ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 20:55:23 +0100 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Thread-Index: AcmmaJLdzo6WZI1XRfS6F3v+lgiQ+gABeIGgAABKfFAAAEdmMA== From: "Tim Weilkiens" To: "Ed Seidewitz" , "Maged Elaasar" Cc: In the SysML RTf we've addressed every issue and marked issues as deferred when there wasn't enough time (and prio) to resolve them. Tim -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Seidewitz [mailto:ed-s@modeldriven.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 8:47 PM To: Maged Elaasar Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . As a clarification, when I say .we need to respond to every issue received before the comment deadline., I mean every new issue received since the last RTF comment deadline. Presumably, previous RTFs addressed all prior issues (albeit by deferring many of them to future RTFs). I believe that our RTF report is required to include an official disposition for every issue submitted during our comment period. Note that many of the issues we are currently addressing are issues deferred by previous RTFs. This is intended (and to our credit!), but we address these entirely at our discretion. It is the new issues we are technically required to address. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ed Seidewitz Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 3:44 PM To: 'Maged Elaasar' Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . According to the OMG Policies and Procedures (Section 4.4.1.4, Normal Deadlines), .Comments received before the comment deadline must be addressed by modifications to the specification, or by a brief explanation of why no modification is appropriate (e.g. either that the comment is unfounded, or that the resolution would be outside the scope of the F/RTF).. So, we need to respond in the RTF report to every issue received before the comment deadline. Whether this means we can just leave and issue open, or should give it an explicit .deferred. disposition, should probably be taken up with Juergen or Andrew. In any case, deferred issues stay on the open issues list maintained by OMG, so there is no chance they will be .lost. to future RTFs. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 2:48 PM To: Ed Seidewitz Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Steve, I am not entirely sure either if "Deferred" is an official disposition value to be included in the RTF report when an issue is closed and deemed for future consideration. If it is not official, then we will have a problem distinguishing these issues from other deferred for lack of time. If we may, we can make it an "official" disposition value and clearly state what is means. In fact, we should do that for all dispositions values (i.e. take their stated meanings from the spreadsheet and publishing them in the RTF report and UML issues website). Later on when we have bugzilla, we can propose it as a value for the disposoition field. Ed, what you are saying is by giving the unaddressed issues a "Deferred" dispostion in the report, we are saying that those stay "open" in he RTF issue database. I find that a bit confusing myself. I would prefer to still make a blanket statement that these issues continue to be "open" with no disposition to distinguish them from those that are really closed with "deferred" disposition bec. of strategic relevance. This way, we cal always search for those issues and reopen them in future RTF cycles by making a (disposition="deferred") query. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 "Ed Seidewitz" "Ed Seidewitz" 03/16/2009 02:35 PM To Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Maged . I believe that, technically, we are supposed to formally address every issue that comes in before the issue deadline for this RTF. That means that any such issues that we don.t want to or have time to address should be given .Deferred. disposition, whether they are strategic or not. (You will note that many issues from the last RTF effectively got deferred by a blanket statement to the effect that .we think this needs consideration, but we didn.t have time.) I suggest that, for strategic issues, we just note in the resolution discussion text that the issue was deferred for future .strategic consideration.. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 2:19 PM To: Steve Cook Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype It is my understanding that issues that get deferred because we do not want to (or have bandwidth to) address them now in the current RTF stay open with no disposition, which will happen to all the issues not on ballots in this cycle. However, those that get a "Deferred" disposition are closed with "Deferred" disposition to mean they will be subject to future consideration, which I take to be the case for stategic issues. Please correct me if I am wrong. ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 Steve Cook Steve Cook 03/16/2009 02:08 PM To Maged Elaasar/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA, "uml2-rtf@omg.org" cc Subject RE: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype We do need some way to distinguish between issues that are deferred as strategic, and issues which were deferred in the past and which are liable to be reconsidered by the current RTF. From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: 16 March 2009 17:42 To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Issue 6866 : Part Subtype Issue 6866 on ballot 3 draft concludes that this area is strategic and out of the scope of the current RTF and hence recommding a "ClosedNoChange" disposition. In other resolutions, such conclusion usually leads to a "Deferred" disposition. I suggest changing it to "Deffered", what do members think? ------------------------------------- Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Technical Lead, Rational Modeling Tools CAS Research Staff Member, OMG Contributing Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab melaasar@ca.ibm.com Tel: 613-270-4651 Disposition: Defer