Issue 7375: useless example on p.330, Figure 247 (uml2-rtf) Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology (Dr. Thomas Weigert, weigert(at)mst.edu) Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor Summary: p.330, Figure 247. This example is useless, as it canot be understood without much detail on the FFT computation. It would be better to use examples that readers can readily understand. Resolution: The issue is subjective. Some readers might find the example helpful. The example is useful as a depiction of a realistic computation. Revised Text: None Disposition: Closed, no Change Revised Text: Actions taken: May 20, 2004: received issue May 24, 2004: received issue April 26, 2010: closed issue April 26, 2010: closed issue April 26, 2010: closed issue April 26, 2010: closed issue Discussion: The issue is subjective. Some readers might find the example helpful. Due to lack of time, the RTF/FTF agrees that the following are problems that need fixing, but decided to defer their resolution to a future RTF working on this specification. End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 24 May 2004 07:47:53 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Thomas Weigert Company: Motorola mailFrom: thomas.weigert@motorola.com Notification: No Specification: UML Section: 12.13.20 FormalNumber: ptc/03-08-02 Version: 2.0 RevisionDate: 02/08/2003 Page: 330 Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0) Description p.330, Figure 247. This example is useless, as it canot be understood without much detail on the FFT computation. It would be better to use examples that readers can readily understand. OMG Issue No: 7375 Title: useless example on p.330, Figure 247 Source: Motorola (Dr. Thomas Weigert, thomas.weigert@motorola.com) Summary: p.330, Figure 247. This example is useless, as it canot be understood without much detail on the FFT computation. It would be better to use examples that readers can readily understand. Discussion: The issue is subjective. Some readers might find the example helpful. Disposition: Closed no change Reply-To: From: "Conrad Bock" To: Subject: RE: Draft of ballot 17 Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 13:37:05 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Bran, > > 3. I also disagree with 7375, as described earlier. It is not enough > > that "some readers might find this example helpful" but that > > examples should be helpful period. I am fine with deferring this > > issue, but we do need a better example here eventually. > > Alternatively, there needs to be much more explanation added. > > I agree that more explanation should be provided, but disagree > with removing the example altogether. I think the best > compromise is to defer this issue. It's certainly not a spec > consistency problem. > > Conrad, do you agree to changing this to a Defer? OK. Conrad Subject: Proposed issue resolutions, set 1: Activities -- No change and duplicates Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:00:16 -0500 X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Proposed issue resolutions, set 1: Activities -- No change and duplicates thread-index: AcmDLoPo5ZLYjIHbRwaX3F8d2ZwvGA== From: "Ed Seidewitz" To: Attached is a Word document with draft resolutions for Activities issues that I propose to close with no change or that I have identified as duplicates of other issues. -- Ed OMG Issue No: 7375 Title: useless example on p.330, Figure 247 Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology (Dr. Thomas Weigert, weigert@mst.edu) Summary: p.330, Figure 247. This example is useless, as it canot be understood without much detail on the FFT computation. It would be better to use examples that readers can readily understand. Resolution: The issue is subjective. Some readers might find the example helpful. The example useful as a depiction of a realistic computation. Revised Text: None Disposition: Closed, no Change DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=fo31odo+STQz4nvaayejeFrxuqgDuIxh8MOJx3Zy40g=; b=IqTQzko/O8kkXkGBIZSk1/A9JafYj0zgzz2NlnKsezWXtfFlYkh5JkDrM+Z3eZdGHk slOLsbWjURS50Abhnsa3DiIvXAiecdHwZ8lOqMWYIZ3DirjH6N8HdAinD/5jwgPek3gJ po39GAKooFpoxJJJwZEhSvkARZHRwpj6chSew= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=KT2M6rrCMK2w0GKNToM6vQJmh6nHyIeXFTWsW7jvN3DqhuJU+wVmh+X4Mt3bhvpEqg JOmW9rDQhBwGH+WS3LixCmQgLejjQdTuz2wASWhkD5hTB8EZg6jU6tc8roptQPdSR/3N 2yuw2iO2BrsYmDAWbfH5mmHG2njlzKmT0KEfk= Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:52:34 -0500 Subject: Re: Proposed issue resolutions, set 1: Activities -- No change and duplicates From: Bran Selic To: Ed Seidewitz Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Ed, a few minor comments on the proposed resolutions: -7375: While I agree that the spec should not have to explain FFT (Fast Fourier Transform), the spec should at least provide a reference pointer to some text, for those readers who want to understand the example but don't know about FFT. However, a better solution would be to give a short (one-paragraph?) explanation and a reference. -8071: perhaps the information that you provided in your resolution should be included in the "Changes from UML 1.x" section of the ObjectNode metaclass description? -8673: I suggest reformulating the resolution text, since it reads as if the resolver is not quite sure if the problem has been solved or not (because of the way the word "seems" is used in the text). I think that the intent here was to say that the problem no longer exists, but what is still unclear is when in the past it was resolved. - 9395: same problem as 8673; i.e., because of the word "seems", it sounds as if the resolver is not quite sure if the problem has been solved or not. Cheers...Bran On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Ed Seidewitz wrote: Attached is a Word document with draft resolutions for Activities issues that I propose to close with no change or that I have identified as duplicates of other issues. -- Ed Subject: RE: Proposed issue resolutions, set 1: Activities -- No change and duplicates Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 10:29:25 -0500 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Proposed issue resolutions, set 1: Activities -- No change and duplicates thread-index: AcmDNeigOGg55xX7RRGfwZtWKnlL7wAgiVkg From: "Ed Seidewitz" To: "Bran Selic" Cc: Bran . Thanks for the comments. See below. -7375: While I agree that the spec should not have to explain FFT (Fast Fourier Transform), the spec should at least provide a reference pointer to some text, for those readers who want to understand the example but don't know about FFT. However, a better solution would be to give a short (one-paragraph?) explanation and a reference. [EVS] I don.t know. The point of the example isn.t really to show how to do FFT in UML, it is to give a realistic-looking example of the use of expansion regions. I don.t think the reader really needs to know anything about FFT in order to get something useful from the example on how expansion regions can be used. In any case, I am probably not the right person to write up an explanation of FFT for the example. Would you (or someone else) like to do it? If someone does, I wouldn.t object to including it. But if no one wants to come up with such a revised resolution, I think the example is still useful, and I don.t think there is any point in just leaving the issue open. -8071: perhaps the information that you provided in your resolution should be included in the "Changes from UML 1.x" section of the ObjectNode metaclass description? [EVS] Good idea. I will revise the resolution. -8673: I suggest reformulating the resolution text, since it reads as if the resolver is not quite sure if the problem has been solved or not (because of the way the word "seems" is used in the text). I think that the intent here was to say that the problem no longer exists, but what is still unclear is when in the past it was resolved. - 9395: same problem as 8673; i.e., because of the word "seems", it sounds as if the resolver is not quite sure if the problem has been solved or not. [EVS] Good points on the above. I will revise the text. -- Ed