Issue 7227: UML2 Super/Deployment/inheritance (uml2-rtf) Source: Adaptive (Mr. Pete Rivett, pete.rivett(at)adaptive.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Deployment should not be a Dependency Section 10.3.4, figure 126 show the Deployment subclass of Dependency with location subsetting client and deployedArtifact subsetting supplier. This means in effect that a Node is deemed dependent on the Artifacts that are deployed to it which seems to me the wrong way round if anything. Since it is not really true either that an Artifact is dependent on the Node it is deployed to, it does not seem sensible for Deployment to inherit from Dependency at all: it should inherit directly from DirectedRelationship. [Aside: Figure 126 shows 'subsets source' and 'subsets target' which is not reflected in section 10.3.4. I had assumed that Dependency would itself specify client and supplier to subset/redefine source and target but this oddly appears not to be the case] Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: April 11, 2004: received issue Discussion: Disposition: Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF End of Annotations:===== Subject: UML2 Super/Deployment/inheritance Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 23:10:08 -0400 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: UML2 Super/Deployment/inheritance Thread-Index: AcQgOv8sYGeKzO6ATou4yzJ5HiZLNg== From: "Pete Rivett" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id i3C36xna023330 Deployment should not be a Dependency Section 10.3.4, figure 126 show the Deployment subclass of Dependency with location subsetting client and deployedArtifact subsetting supplier. This means in effect that a Node is deemed dependent on the Artifacts that are deployed to it which seems to me the wrong way round if anything. Since it is not really true either that an Artifact is dependent on the Node it is deployed to, it does not seem sensible for Deployment to inherit from Dependency at all: it should inherit directly from DirectedRelationship. [Aside: Figure 126 shows 'subsets source' and 'subsets target' which is not reflected in section 10.3.4. I had assumed that Dependency would itself specify client and supplier to subset/redefine source and target but this oddly appears not to be the case] Pete Rivett (mailto:pete.rivett@adaptive.com) Consulting Architect, Adaptive Inc. Dean Park House, 8-10 Dean Park Crescent, Bournemouth, BH1 1HL, UK Tel: +44 (0)1202 449419 Fax: +44 (0)1202 449448 Subject: RE: First draft of Ballot 18 (full) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 07:25:06 -0400 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: First draft of Ballot 18 (full) Thread-Index: AcRkaDzVJAwcEo2yQJyo76a7goIVVQAbuYHw From: "Pete Rivett" To: "Branislav Selic" , , Issue 6156 partially applies to Infra, so as for 7056, should have an Infrastructure resolution section: although Infra does not have the equivalent of Figure 22, it does require the '/' added to the description of attribute and currently does not include anything at all about classifier notation (the Notation section is all about attributes) so should include not only the new para but the current first two paragraphs from Super.. Issue 7227: I have major problem with the following from the resolution "Deployment is a subclass of Dependency as that is the notation that it uses. This is based on the UML 1.x notation, and as such is best kept consistent. ": surely consistency with (UML 1.4) notation should not be the basis of the metamodel! Moreover the resolution is incorrect to use as justification "all dashed lines are Dependencies" - one exception that comes to mind is Imports. And precise consistency of mapping notation to metamodel is not something seen as vital in the past (there are several shapes which are not unambiguous, not to mention the overuse of text in guillemets and the famous inability to interpret an association with no navigability arrows). As author of the issue I made the point that Deployment is a relationship between Node and Artifact where neither is Dependent in any sense on the other. The fact that, as the resolution discusses, a Node may 'know about' what's deployed on it is irrelevant with respect to Dependency. More seriously, the point of the metamodel is not some generally handy way to interchange the models, but to provide some semantics/meaning: software may actually want to apply some processing to Dependencies (e.g. for impact analysis) for which this Deployment information is just not relevant. Pete Rivett (mailto:pete.rivett@adaptive.com) Chief Scientist, Adaptive Inc. Dean Park House, 8-10 Dean Park Crescent, Bournemouth, BH1 1HL, UK Tel: +44 (0)1202 449419 Fax: +44 (0)1202 449448 http://www.adaptive.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Branislav Selic [mailto:bselic@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 10:11 PM To: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org; mu2i-ftf@omg.org Subject: First draft of Ballot 18 (full) Attached, please find a draft of the issues resolutions proposed for Ballot 18. Bran http://www.adaptive.com