Issue 6972: self-activation notation in Sequence diagrams missing (uml2-superstructure-ftf) Source: (Dr. Guus Ramackers, Guus.Ramackers(at)gmail.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: UMl 1.x sequence diagrams had a notation for self-activation, where the activation boxes (now called "execution occurrences" in UML 2) can be nested. E.g. UML 1.4, Notation, Sequence Diagrams, section 3.60.4, figure 3-56 This notation is missing from UMl 2.0 Interactions chapter. No alternative notation is provided. Resolution: duplicate Revised Text: Actions taken: February 6, 2004: received issue December 2, 2004: closed issue Discussion: This is a duplicate of issue 6226, since “self-activation” is merely a special case of the “overlapping execution occurrences” situation. Disposition: Duplicate End of Annotations:===== te: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 16:28:45 +0000 From: Guus Ramackers Organization: Oracle User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en, en-us To: issues@omg.org Subject: UML 2.0 Superstructure FTF issue: self-activation notation in Sequence diagrams missing X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-White-List-Member: TRUE UMl 1.x sequence diagrams had a notation for self-activation, where the activation boxes (now called "execution occurrences" in UML 2) can be nested. E.g. UML 1.4, Notation, Sequence Diagrams, section 3.60.4, figure 3-56 This notation is missing from UMl 2.0 Interactions chapter. No alternative notation is provided. Thanks, Guus -- _____________________________________________________________ Guus Ramackers Product Manager UML and Web Services Tools Oracle JDeveloper Tools group 520 Oracle Parkway, TVP Reading RG6 1RA, UK work: +44-(0)1189-245101 e-mail: guus.ramackers@oracle.com fax: +44-(0)1189-245148 Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 11:02:49 +0100 From: Oystein Haugen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Juergen Boldt CC: issues@omg.org, uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 6972 -- UML 2.0 Superstructure FTF issue X-MailScanner-Information: This message has been scanned for viruses/spam. Contact postmaster@uio.no if you have questions about this scanning X-UiO-MailScanner: No virus found X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=0, required 12) Guus Your description is correct. The notation with nested execution occurrences must have been forgotten or left out at some point. /Oystein Juergen Boldt wrote: Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 16:28:45 +0000 From: Guus Ramackers Organization: Oracle User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en, en-us To: issues@omg.org Subject: UML 2.0 Superstructure FTF issue: self-activation notation in Sequence diagrams missing X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-White-List-Member: TRUE UMl 1.x sequence diagrams had a notation for self-activation, where the activation boxes (now called "execution occurrences" in UML 2) can be nested. E.g. UML 1.4, Notation, Sequence Diagrams, section 3.60.4, figure 3-56 This notation is missing from UMl 2.0 Interactions chapter. No alternative notation is provided. Thanks, Guus -- _____________________________________________________________ Guus Ramackers Product Manager UML and Web Services Tools Oracle JDeveloper Tools group 520 Oracle Parkway, TVP Reading RG6 1RA, UK work: +44-(0)1189-245101 e-mail: guus.ramackers@oracle.com fax: +44-(0)1189-245148 ================================= Jürgen Boldt Director, Member Services Object Management Group 250 First Avenue, Suite 100 Needham, MA 02494 Tel. +1 781 444 0404 ext. 132 Fax: +1 781 444 0320 email: juergen@omg.org www www.omg.org ================================ -- Dr. Oystein Haugen Associate Professor Department of Informatics, University of Oslo P.O. Box 1080 Blindern N-0316 Oslo Norway Tel: +47 22 85 27 37 (office) Tel: +47 913 90 914 (mobile) http://folk.uio.no/oysteinh To: Oystein Haugen Cc: Juergen Boldt , uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 6972 -- UML 2.0 Superstructure FTF issue X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.2CF1 June 9, 2003 From: Branislav Selic Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 18:56:41 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML05/25/M/IBM(Release 6.0.2CF1|June 9, 2003) at 02/15/2004 18:56:46, Serialize complete at 02/15/2004 18:56:46 I had assumed that this notation remains unchanged from the one in 1.x -- the metamodel certainly supports overlapping execution occurrences. However, it may be a good idea to include an example in the spec. Bran Oystein Haugen 02/14/2004 05:02 AM To: Juergen Boldt cc: issues@omg.org, uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 6972 -- UML 2.0 Superstructure FTF issue Guus Your description is correct. The notation with nested execution occurrences must have been forgotten or left out at some point. /Oystein Juergen Boldt wrote: > >> Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 16:28:45 +0000 >> From: Guus Ramackers >> Organization: Oracle >> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) >> Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) >> X-Accept-Language: en, en-us >> To: issues@omg.org >> Subject: UML 2.0 Superstructure FTF issue: self-activation notation >> in Sequence >> diagrams missing >> X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= >> X-White-List-Member: TRUE >> >> >> UMl 1.x sequence diagrams had a notation for self-activation, where >> the activation boxes (now called "execution occurrences" in UML 2) >> can be nested. >> >> E.g. UML 1.4, Notation, Sequence Diagrams, section 3.60.4, figure 3-56 >> >> This notation is missing from UMl 2.0 Interactions chapter. No >> alternative notation is provided. >> >> Thanks, Guus >> >> -- >> >> _____________________________________________________________ >> Guus Ramackers >> Product Manager UML and Web Services Tools >> Oracle JDeveloper Tools group >> 520 Oracle Parkway, TVP >> Reading RG6 1RA, UK work: +44-(0)1189-245101 >> e-mail: guus.ramackers@oracle.com fax: +44-(0)1189-245148 >> > > > ================================= > Jürgen Boldt > Director, Member Services > > Object Management Group > 250 First Avenue, Suite 100 > Needham, MA 02494 > > Tel. +1 781 444 0404 ext. 132 > Fax: +1 781 444 0320 > email: juergen@omg.org > www www.omg.org > > ================================ -- Dr. Oystein Haugen Associate Professor Department of Informatics, University of Oslo P.O. Box 1080 Blindern N-0316 Oslo Norway Tel: +47 22 85 27 37 (office) Tel: +47 913 90 914 (mobile) http://folk.uio.no/oysteinh Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 11:30:29 +0000 From: Guus Ramackers Organization: Oracle User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en, en-us To: Branislav Selic CC: Oystein Haugen , Juergen Boldt , uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 6972 -- UML 2.0 Superstructure FTF issue Bran, We need more than an example here. If the spec does not define the notation, then, assumptions about UML 1.x notwithstanding, it is not part of the standard. Thanks, Guus Branislav Selic wrote: I had assumed that this notation remains unchanged from the one in 1.x -- the metamodel certainly supports overlapping execution occurrences. However, it may be a good idea to include an example in the spec. Bran Oystein Haugen 02/14/2004 05:02 AM To: Juergen Boldt cc: issues@omg.org, uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 6972 -- UML 2.0 Superstructure FTF issue Guus Your description is correct. The notation with nested execution occurrences must have been forgotten or left out at some point. /Oystein Juergen Boldt wrote: > >> Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 16:28:45 +0000 >> From: Guus Ramackers >> Organization: Oracle >> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) >> Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) >> X-Accept-Language: en, en-us >> To: issues@omg.org >> Subject: UML 2.0 Superstructure FTF issue: self-activation notation >> in Sequence >> diagrams missing >> X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= >> X-White-List-Member: TRUE >> >> >> UMl 1.x sequence diagrams had a notation for self-activation, where >> the activation boxes (now called "execution occurrences" in UML 2) >> can be nested. >> >> E.g. UML 1.4, Notation, Sequence Diagrams, section 3.60.4, figure 3-56 >> >> This notation is missing from UMl 2.0 Interactions chapter. No >> alternative notation is provided. >> >> Thanks, Guus >> >> -- >> >> _____________________________________________________________ >> Guus Ramackers >> Product Manager UML and Web Services Tools >> Oracle JDeveloper Tools group >> 520 Oracle Parkway, TVP >> Reading RG6 1RA, UK work: +44-(0)1189-245101 >> e-mail: guus.ramackers@oracle.com fax: +44-(0)1189-245148 >> > > > ================================= > Jürgen Boldt > Director, Member Services > > Object Management Group > 250 First Avenue, Suite 100 > Needham, MA 02494 > > Tel. +1 781 444 0404 ext. 132 > Fax: +1 781 444 0320 > email: juergen@omg.org > www www.omg.org > > ================================ -- Dr. Oystein Haugen Associate Professor Department of Informatics, University of Oslo P.O. Box 1080 Blindern N-0316 Oslo Norway Tel: +47 22 85 27 37 (office) Tel: +47 913 90 914 (mobile) http://folk.uio.no/oysteinh -- _____________________________________________________________ Guus Ramackers Product Manager UML and Web Services Tools Oracle JDeveloper Tools group 520 Oracle Parkway, TVP Reading RG6 1RA, UK work: +44-(0)1189-245101 e-mail: guus.ramackers@oracle.com fax: +44-(0)1189-245148 From: "Moore, Alan" To: "'Branislav Selic'" , Oystein Haugen Cc: Juergen Boldt , uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 6972 -- UML 2.0 Superstructure FTF issue Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:42:34 -0000 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Hi Bran, How does the metamodel support 'nested' execution occurrences - I note that Execution Occurrence is a subtype of Interaction Fragment which is a leaf element in Interactions. Alan. -----Original Message----- From: Branislav Selic [mailto:bselic@ca.ibm.com] Sent: 15 February 2004 23:57 To: Oystein Haugen Cc: Juergen Boldt; uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 6972 -- UML 2.0 Superstructure FTF issue I had assumed that this notation remains unchanged from the one in 1.x -- the metamodel certainly supports overlapping execution occurrences. However, it may be a good idea to include an example in the spec. Bran Oystein Haugen 02/14/2004 05:02 AM To: Juergen Boldt cc: issues@omg.org, uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 6972 -- UML 2.0 Superstructure FTF issue Guus Your description is correct. The notation with nested execution occurrences must have been forgotten or left out at some point. /Oystein Juergen Boldt wrote: > >> Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 16:28:45 +0000 >> From: Guus Ramackers >> Organization: Oracle >> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) >> Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) >> X-Accept-Language: en, en-us >> To: issues@omg.org >> Subject: UML 2.0 Superstructure FTF issue: self-activation notation >> in Sequence >> diagrams missing >> X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= >> X-White-List-Member: TRUE >> >> >> UMl 1.x sequence diagrams had a notation for self-activation, where >> the activation boxes (now called "execution occurrences" in UML 2) >> can be nested. >> >> E.g. UML 1.4, Notation, Sequence Diagrams, section 3.60.4, figure 3-56 >> >> This notation is missing from UMl 2.0 Interactions chapter. No >> alternative notation is provided. >> >> Thanks, Guus >> >> -- >> >> _____________________________________________________________ >> Guus Ramackers >> Product Manager UML and Web Services Tools >> Oracle JDeveloper Tools group >> 520 Oracle Parkway, TVP >> Reading RG6 1RA, UK work: +44-(0)1189-245101 >> e-mail: guus.ramackers@oracle.com fax: +44-(0)1189-245148 >> > > > ================================= > Jürgen Boldt > Director, Member Services > > Object Management Group > 250 First Avenue, Suite 100 > Needham, MA 02494 > > Tel. +1 781 444 0404 ext. 132 > Fax: +1 781 444 0320 > email: juergen@omg.org > www www.omg.org > > ================================ -- Dr. Oystein Haugen Associate Professor Department of Informatics, University of Oslo P.O. Box 1080 Blindern N-0316 Oslo Norway Tel: +47 22 85 27 37 (office) Tel: +47 913 90 914 (mobile) http://folk.uio.no/oysteinh Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:59:58 +0100 From: Oystein Haugen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: "Moore, Alan" CC: "'Branislav Selic'" , Oystein Haugen , Juergen Boldt , uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 6972 -- UML 2.0 Superstructure FTF issue X-MailScanner-Information: This message has been scanned for viruses/spam. Contact postmaster@uio.no if you have questions about this scanning X-UiO-MailScanner: No virus found X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=1.219, required 12, HTML_20_30 0.47, HTML_FONTCOLOR_BLUE 0.10, HTML_MESSAGE 0.00, HTML_TAG_EXISTS_TBODY 0.10, HTML_TITLE_EMPTY 0.54) X-UiO-Spam-score: s Alan There is no containment as such related to these execution occurrences. An execution occurrence is represented by two event occurrences and between these there may be a number of other event occurrences. Two of these intermediate event occurrences may just as well be those associated with a "nested" execution occurrence. The term "nested" in this sense has nothing to do with name scopes. In fact what we are talking about here is one method calling another one of the same lifeline. Their respective name scopes need not nest at all even though their calls are nested. /Oystein Moore, Alan wrote: Hi Bran, How does the metamodel support 'nested' execution occurrences - I note that Execution Occurrence is a subtype of Interaction Fragment which is a leaf element in Interactions. Alan. -----Original Message----- From: Branislav Selic [mailto:bselic@ca.ibm.com] Sent: 15 February 2004 23:57 To: Oystein Haugen Cc: Juergen Boldt; uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 6972 -- UML 2.0 Superstructure FTF issue I had assumed that this notation remains unchanged from the one in 1.x -- the metamodel certainly supports overlapping execution occurrences. However, it may be a good idea to include an example in the spec. Bran Oystein Haugen 02/14/2004 05:02 AM To: Juergen Boldt cc: issues@omg.org, uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 6972 -- UML 2.0 Superstructure FTF issue Guus Your description is correct. The notation with nested execution occurrences must have been forgotten or left out at some point. /Oystein Juergen Boldt wrote: > >> Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 16:28:45 +0000 >> From: Guus Ramackers >> Organization: Oracle >> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) >> Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) >> X-Accept-Language: en, en-us >> To: issues@omg.org >> Subject: UML 2.0 Superstructure FTF issue: self-activation notation >> in Sequence >> diagrams missing >> X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= >> X-White-List-Member: TRUE >> >> >> UMl 1.x sequence diagrams had a notation for self-activation, where >> the activation boxes (now called "execution occurrences" in UML 2) >> can be nested. >> >> E.g. UML 1.4, Notation, Sequence Diagrams, section 3.60.4, figure 3-56 >> >> This notation is missing from UMl 2.0 Interactions chapter. No >> alternative notation is provided. >> >> Thanks, Guus >> >> -- >> >> _____________________________________________________________ >> Guus Ramackers >> Product Manager UML and Web Services Tools >> Oracle JDeveloper Tools group >> 520 Oracle Parkway, TVP >> Reading RG6 1RA, UK work: +44-(0)1189-245101 >> e-mail: guus.ramackers@oracle.com fax: +44-(0)1189-245148 >> > > > ================================= > Jürgen Boldt > Director, Member Services > > Object Management Group > 250 First Avenue, Suite 100 > Needham, MA 02494 > > Tel. +1 781 444 0404 ext. 132 > Fax: +1 781 444 0320 > email: juergen@omg.org > www www.omg.org > > ================================ -- Dr. Oystein Haugen Associate Professor Department of Informatics, University of Oslo P.O. Box 1080 Blindern N-0316 Oslo Norway Tel: +47 22 85 27 37 (office) Tel: +47 913 90 914 (mobile) http://folk.uio.no/oysteinh -- Dr. Oystein Haugen Associate Professor Department of Informatics, University of Oslo P.O. Box 1080 Blindern N-0316 Oslo Norway Tel: +47 22 85 27 37 (office) Tel: +47 913 90 914 (mobile) http://folk.uio.no/oysteinh To: "Moore, Alan" Cc: Juergen Boldt , Oystein Haugen , uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 6972 -- UML 2.0 Superstructure FTF issue X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.2CF1 June 9, 2003 From: Branislav Selic Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:04:44 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML05/25/M/IBM(Release 6.0.2CF1|June 9, 2003) at 02/16/2004 08:04:46, Serialize complete at 02/16/2004 08:04:46 It supports them in the sense that two or more execution occurrences on the same lifeline can be nested in the order in which they appear. That is, execution occurrence a might start at point t1 and end at point t4 whereas another one might start at point t2 and end at t3 with the general order being t1->t2->t3->t4. This would result in the nexting that we want. Bran "Moore, Alan" 02/16/2004 07:42 AM To: Branislav Selic/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA, Oystein Haugen cc: Juergen Boldt , uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 6972 -- UML 2.0 Superstructure FTF issue Hi Bran, How does the metamodel support 'nested' execution occurrences - I note that Execution Occurrence is a subtype of Interaction Fragment which is a leaf element in Interactions. Alan. -----Original Message----- From: Branislav Selic [mailto:bselic@ca.ibm.com] Sent: 15 February 2004 23:57 To: Oystein Haugen Cc: Juergen Boldt; uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 6972 -- UML 2.0 Superstructure FTF issue I had assumed that this notation remains unchanged from the one in 1.x -- the metamodel certainly supports overlapping execution occurrences. However, it may be a good idea to include an example in the spec. Bran Oystein Haugen 02/14/2004 05:02 AM To: Juergen Boldt cc: issues@omg.org, uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 6972 -- UML 2.0 Superstructure FTF issue Guus Your description is correct. The notation with nested execution occurrences must have been forgotten or left out at some point. /Oystein Juergen Boldt wrote: > >> Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 16:28:45 +0000 >> From: Guus Ramackers >> Organization: Oracle >> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) >> Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) >> X-Accept-Language: en, en-us >> To: issues@omg.org >> Subject: UML 2.0 Superstructure FTF issue: self-activation notation >> in Sequence >> diagrams missing >> X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= >> X-White-List-Member: TRUE >> >> >> UMl 1.x sequence diagrams had a notation for self-activation, where >> the activation boxes (now called "execution occurrences" in UML 2) >> can be nested. >> >> E.g. UML 1.4, Notation, Sequence Diagrams, section 3.60.4, figure 3-56 >> >> This notation is missing from UMl 2.0 Interactions chapter. No >> alternative notation is provided. >> >> Thanks, Guus >> >> -- >> >> _____________________________________________________________ >> Guus Ramackers >> Product Manager UML and Web Services Tools >> Oracle JDeveloper Tools group >> 520 Oracle Parkway, TVP >> Reading RG6 1RA, UK work: +44-(0)1189-245101 >> e-mail: guus.ramackers@oracle.com fax: +44-(0)1189-245148 >> > > > ================================= > Jürgen Boldt > Director, Member Services > > Object Management Group > 250 First Avenue, Suite 100 > Needham, MA 02494 > > Tel. +1 781 444 0404 ext. 132 > Fax: +1 781 444 0320 > email: juergen@omg.org > www www.omg.org > > ================================ -- Dr. Oystein Haugen Associate Professor Department of Informatics, University of Oslo P.O. Box 1080 Blindern N-0316 Oslo Norway Tel: +47 22 85 27 37 (office) Tel: +47 913 90 914 (mobile) http://folk.uio.no/oysteinh To: Guus Ramackers Cc: Juergen Boldt , Oystein Haugen , uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 6972 -- UML 2.0 Superstructure FTF issue X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.2CF1 June 9, 2003 From: Branislav Selic Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:10:23 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML05/25/M/IBM(Release 6.0.2CF1|June 9, 2003) at 02/16/2004 08:10:24, Serialize complete at 02/16/2004 08:10:24 Guus, My point is that there is no need to change the metamodel in any way to support this, as I pointed out in my preceding e-mail (i.e., it has nothing to do with assumptions about 1.x). However, it would be useful to show an example with some accompanying text for this. Bran Guus Ramackers 02/16/2004 06:30 AM To: Branislav Selic/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc: Oystein Haugen , Juergen Boldt , uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 6972 -- UML 2.0 Superstructure FTF issue Bran, We need more than an example here. If the spec does not define the notation, then, assumptions about UML 1.x notwithstanding, it is not part of the standard. Thanks, Guus Branislav Selic wrote: I had assumed that this notation remains unchanged from the one in 1.x -- the metamodel certainly supports overlapping execution occurrences. However, it may be a good idea to include an example in the spec. Bran Oystein Haugen 02/14/2004 05:02 AM To: Juergen Boldt cc: issues@omg.org, uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 6972 -- UML 2.0 Superstructure FTF issue Guus Your description is correct. The notation with nested execution occurrences must have been forgotten or left out at some point. /Oystein Juergen Boldt wrote: > >> Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 16:28:45 +0000 >> From: Guus Ramackers >> Organization: Oracle >> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) >> Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) >> X-Accept-Language: en, en-us >> To: issues@omg.org >> Subject: UML 2.0 Superstructure FTF issue: self-activation notation >> in Sequence >> diagrams missing >> X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= >> X-White-List-Member: TRUE >> >> >> UMl 1.x sequence diagrams had a notation for self-activation, where >> the activation boxes (now called "execution occurrences" in UML 2) >> can be nested. >> >> E.g. UML 1.4, Notation, Sequence Diagrams, section 3.60.4, figure 3-56 >> >> This notation is missing from UMl 2.0 Interactions chapter. No >> alternative notation is provided. >> >> Thanks, Guus >> >> -- >> >> _____________________________________________________________ >> Guus Ramackers >> Product Manager UML and Web Services Tools >> Oracle JDeveloper Tools group >> 520 Oracle Parkway, TVP >> Reading RG6 1RA, UK work: +44-(0)1189-245101 >> e-mail: guus.ramackers@oracle.com fax: +44-(0)1189-245148 >> > > > ================================= > Jürgen Boldt > Director, Member Services > > Object Management Group > 250 First Avenue, Suite 100 > Needham, MA 02494 > > Tel. +1 781 444 0404 ext. 132 > Fax: +1 781 444 0320 > email: juergen@omg.org > www www.omg.org > > ================================ -- Dr. Oystein Haugen Associate Professor Department of Informatics, University of Oslo P.O. Box 1080 Blindern N-0316 Oslo Norway Tel: +47 22 85 27 37 (office) Tel: +47 913 90 914 (mobile) http://folk.uio.no/oysteinh -- _____________________________________________________________ Guus Ramackers Product Manager UML and Web Services Tools Oracle JDeveloper Tools group 520 Oracle Parkway, TVP Reading RG6 1RA, UK work: +44-(0)1189-245101 e-mail: guus.ramackers@oracle.com fax: +44-(0)1189-245148 To: Guus Ramackers Cc: Juergen Boldt , Oystein Haugen , uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 6972 -- UML 2.0 Superstructure FTF issue X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.2CF1 June 9, 2003 From: Branislav Selic Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:10:23 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML05/25/M/IBM(Release 6.0.2CF1|June 9, 2003) at 02/16/2004 08:10:24, Serialize complete at 02/16/2004 08:10:24 Guus, My point is that there is no need to change the metamodel in any way to support this, as I pointed out in my preceding e-mail (i.e., it has nothing to do with assumptions about 1.x). However, it would be useful to show an example with some accompanying text for this. Bran Guus Ramackers 02/16/2004 06:30 AM To: Branislav Selic/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc: Oystein Haugen , Juergen Boldt , uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 6972 -- UML 2.0 Superstructure FTF issue Bran, We need more than an example here. If the spec does not define the notation, then, assumptions about UML 1.x notwithstanding, it is not part of the standard. Thanks, Guus Branislav Selic wrote: I had assumed that this notation remains unchanged from the one in 1.x -- the metamodel certainly supports overlapping execution occurrences. However, it may be a good idea to include an example in the spec. Bran Oystein Haugen 02/14/2004 05:02 AM To: Juergen Boldt cc: issues@omg.org, uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 6972 -- UML 2.0 Superstructure FTF issue Guus Your description is correct. The notation with nested execution occurrences must have been forgotten or left out at some point. /Oystein Juergen Boldt wrote: > >> Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 16:28:45 +0000 >> From: Guus Ramackers >> Organization: Oracle >> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) >> Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) >> X-Accept-Language: en, en-us >> To: issues@omg.org >> Subject: UML 2.0 Superstructure FTF issue: self-activation notation >> in Sequence >> diagrams missing >> X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= >> X-White-List-Member: TRUE >> >> >> UMl 1.x sequence diagrams had a notation for self-activation, where >> the activation boxes (now called "execution occurrences" in UML 2) >> can be nested. >> >> E.g. UML 1.4, Notation, Sequence Diagrams, section 3.60.4, figure 3-56 >> >> This notation is missing from UMl 2.0 Interactions chapter. No >> alternative notation is provided. >> >> Thanks, Guus >> >> -- >> >> _____________________________________________________________ >> Guus Ramackers >> Product Manager UML and Web Services Tools >> Oracle JDeveloper Tools group >> 520 Oracle Parkway, TVP >> Reading RG6 1RA, UK work: +44-(0)1189-245101 >> e-mail: guus.ramackers@oracle.com fax: +44-(0)1189-245148 >> > > > ================================= > Jürgen Boldt > Director, Member Services > > Object Management Group > 250 First Avenue, Suite 100 > Needham, MA 02494 > > Tel. +1 781 444 0404 ext. 132 > Fax: +1 781 444 0320 > email: juergen@omg.org > www www.omg.org > > ================================ -- Dr. Oystein Haugen Associate Professor Department of Informatics, University of Oslo P.O. Box 1080 Blindern N-0316 Oslo Norway Tel: +47 22 85 27 37 (office) Tel: +47 913 90 914 (mobile) http://folk.uio.no/oysteinh -- _____________________________________________________________ Guus Ramackers Product Manager UML and Web Services Tools Oracle JDeveloper Tools group 520 Oracle Parkway, TVP Reading RG6 1RA, UK work: +44-(0)1189-245101 e-mail: guus.ramackers@oracle.com fax: +44-(0)1189-245148 Subject: Re: ,ia, ExecutionOccurence discussion related to 6077 and 6972 Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:26:14 -0500 X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Issue 6077: questions Thread-Index: AcPxBQqTRPSUL3SgR/6vcFQDcp8DYgBQGlsQAJmzVzA= From: "Nikolai Mansurov" To: "Branislav Selic" , , "Moore, Alan" Cc: Dear colleagues, Following-up the discussion on issue 6972 as well as the discussion regarding 6077, it occures to me that there is some inconsistency in the current specification regarding the nature of the ExecutionOccurence. In section 14.3.4 we say that "An ExecutionOccurence is an instantiation of a unit of behavior within the Lifeline". This is consistent with the meta-model, where an ExecutionOccurence is defined as a separate class (as a leaf subclass of InteractionFragment, and not as a CombinedFragment). Then we say, that "since the ExecutionOccurence will have some duration, it is represented by two EventOccurences, the start EventOccurence and the finish EventOccurence." However later we are saying, that "there may be other EventOccurences between [start and finish]". This seems to contradict the above concept of an ExecutionOccurence as a unit of behavior, and a leaf subclass of InteractionFragment. For example, on Figure 333 ExecutionOccurences for ob1, ob2 and ob3 are not quite units, because they cover some InteractionFragments, even a CombinedFragment in case of ob1. The way the meta-model is constructed, there is no logical relation between the InteractionFragments covered by the ExecutionOccurence symbol (i.e. between the ExecutionOccurence and those EventOccurences between start and stop). Instead, there is only a temporal relation. The following several questions can be raised: 1) Are there any missing semantic constraints on what events may or may not occur between start and finish? In particular, how start and finish are related to the InteractionOperands of the CombinedFragments? Is it propser nesting, or do we also allow non-nestable overlaps? 2) The second question was raised in 6972: can ExecutionOccurences themselves be nested ? And should they always be properly nested ? The way how ExecutionOccurence is defined today, there seems to be no constraint whatsoever to have non-nestable partially overlapping ExecutionOccurences: start1 start2 finish1 finish2 Following-up on the discussion on 6077: 3) How ExecutionOccurences are related to Calls and associated replies ? In particular, are replies always emanate from an ExecutionOccurence ? The illustrations in the specification suggest that. Is a synch Call always associated with an ExecutionOccurence ? Again the illustrations suggest that. Is ExecutionOccurence always triggered by a Call ? For example, can it be triggered by an asynch Signal ? I have created a small illustration that goes beyond Figure 333 in highlighting the above questions (attached). The above issues can be solved by - making ExecutionOccurence a subclass of the CombinedFragment, - associating the ExecutionOccurence with an optional trigger EventOccurence (call, signal, create or destroy) - associating replies with the ExecutionOccurence. This will disambiguate nesting of ExecutionOccurences and other InteractionFragments at the cost of disallowing situations a), e) and f) in the attached example. I suggest that the modified example is included in the spec. This can be a resolution for 6972, but it is related to the proposed resolutions on 6077 and few other issues. Any comments? Best regards, Nick To: "Nikolai Mansurov" Cc: "Moore, Alan" , oysteinh@ifi.uio.no, uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: ,ia, ExecutionOccurence discussion related to 6077 and 6972 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.2CF1 June 9, 2003 From: Branislav Selic Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 19:32:40 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML05/25/M/IBM(Release 6.0.2CF1|June 9, 2003) at 02/16/2004 19:32:43, Serialize complete at 02/16/2004 19:32:43 Nick, You raise very good points, but I am not sure that I agree with your interpretation of "unit". I don't think it was intended to imply anything but logical cohesion -- not some kind of indivisibility. However, I agree that it would be nice to solve some of the problems that your note describes. I am not sure, though, whether they fall within FTF scope or not. Some quick feedback on your cases: (a) linking an execution occurrence with a trigger sounds like a good idea, but it may come with some unwanted baggage such as the need to introduce the complex notion of causality (at the moment, there is no assumption of causality in interactions). (d) Is it not possible for this type of situation to occur if Db is a parallel machine? -- seems reasonable to me (also, remember that a lifeline could be decomposed) (f) I am not sure I understand this one: as far as I am concerned, there are two separate execution occurrences in this case, one corresponding to each alternative. They both have the same start event, but separate and mutually exclusive stop events. So, I am not sure how the problem of overlap can come up at all. (NB: This is a rather rushed reply, so I may have easily overlooked something fundamental). Bran "Nikolai Mansurov" 02/16/2004 02:26 PM To: Branislav Selic/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA, , "Moore, Alan" cc: Subject: Re: ,ia, ExecutionOccurence discussion related to 6077 and 6972 Dear colleagues, Following-up the discussion on issue 6972 as well as the discussion regarding 6077, it occures to me that there is some inconsistency in the current specification regarding the nature of the ExecutionOccurence. In section 14.3.4 we say that "An ExecutionOccurence is an instantiation of a unit of behavior within the Lifeline". This is consistent with the meta-model, where an ExecutionOccurence is defined as a separate class (as a leaf subclass of InteractionFragment, and not as a CombinedFragment). Then we say, that "since the ExecutionOccurence will have some duration, it is represented by two EventOccurences, the start EventOccurence and the finish EventOccurence." However later we are saying, that "there may be other EventOccurences between [start and finish]". This seems to contradict the above concept of an ExecutionOccurence as a unit of behavior, and a leaf subclass of InteractionFragment. For example, on Figure 333 ExecutionOccurences for ob1, ob2 and ob3 are not quite units, because they cover some InteractionFragments, even a CombinedFragment in case of ob1. The way the meta-model is constructed, there is no logical relation between the InteractionFragments covered by the ExecutionOccurence symbol (i.e. between the ExecutionOccurence and those EventOccurences between start and stop). Instead, there is only a temporal relation. The following several questions can be raised: 1) Are there any missing semantic constraints on what events may or may not occur between start and finish? In particular, how start and finish are related to the InteractionOperands of the CombinedFragments? Is it propser nesting, or do we also allow non-nestable overlaps? 2) The second question was raised in 6972: can ExecutionOccurences themselves be nested ? And should they always be properly nested ? The way how ExecutionOccurence is defined today, there seems to be no constraint whatsoever to have non-nestable partially overlapping ExecutionOccurences: start1 start2 finish1 finish2 Following-up on the discussion on 6077: 3) How ExecutionOccurences are related to Calls and associated replies ? In particular, are replies always emanate from an ExecutionOccurence ? The illustrations in the specification suggest that. Is a synch Call always associated with an ExecutionOccurence ? Again the illustrations suggest that. Is ExecutionOccurence always triggered by a Call ? For example, can it be triggered by an asynch Signal ? I have created a small illustration that goes beyond Figure 333 in highlighting the above questions (attached). The above issues can be solved by - making ExecutionOccurence a subclass of the CombinedFragment, - associating the ExecutionOccurence with an optional trigger EventOccurence (call, signal, create or destroy) - associating replies with the ExecutionOccurence. This will disambiguate nesting of ExecutionOccurences and other InteractionFragments at the cost of disallowing situations a), e) and f) in the attached example. I suggest that the modified example is included in the spec. This can be a resolution for 6972, but it is related to the proposed resolutions on 6077 and few other issues. Any comments? Best regards, Nick #### operations2.doc has been removed from this note on February 16, 2004 by Branislav Selic OMG Issue No: 6972 Title: self-activation notation in Sequence diagrams missing Source: Oracle (Dr. Guus Ramackers, guus.ramackers@oracle.com) Summary: UMl 1.x sequence diagrams had a notation for self-activation, where the activation boxes (now called "execution occurrences" in UML 2) can be nested. E.g. UML 1.4, Notation, Sequence Diagrams, section 3.60.4, figure 3-56 This notation is missing from UMl 2.0 Interactions chapter. No alternative notation is provided. Discussion: This is a duplicate of issue 6226, since .self-activation. is merely a special case of the .overlapping execution occurrences. situation. Disposition: Duplicate