Issue 7443: Issue in UML 2 Interaction package (uml2-superstructure-ftf) Source: Independent (Dr. Marc-Philippe Huget, marc-philippe.huget(at)imag.fr) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: In the UML 2 Interaction package specification (UML 2 spec, dated 2003/04/10): p. 381, it is written that "InteractionFragment is an abstract notion of the most general interaction unit. An interaction fragment is a piece of an interaction. Each interaction fragment is conceptually like an interaction by itself". InteractionFragment is described as an abstract notion and Interaction is defined as a specialization of InteractionFragment. Don't we define normally in the other way around: the InteractionFragment is the abstract notion and is called Interaction and the interaction is called InteractionFragment? We can have the definition for Interaction (previously called InteractionFragment): "Interaction is an abstract notion of the most general interaction unit. An Interaction is composed of at least an InteractionFragment". Usual semantics for fragments refers to something within something else but here, the something else is undefined. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: June 9, 2004: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== te: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 15:21:44 +0200 From: Marc-Philippe Huget User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS sun4u; fr-FR; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020921 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: fr-fr, fr To: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org, issues@omg.org, oystein.haugen@ifi.uio.no Subject: Issue in UML 2 Interaction package X-IMAG-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-IMAG-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information In the UML 2 Interaction package specification (UML 2 spec, dated 2003/04/10): p. 381, it is written that "InteractionFragment is an abstract notion of the most general interaction unit. An interaction fragment is a piece of an interaction. Each interaction fragment is conceptually like an interaction by itself". InteractionFragment is described as an abstract notion and Interaction is defined as a specialization of InteractionFragment. Don't we define normally in the other way around: the InteractionFragment is the abstract notion and is called Interaction and the interaction is called InteractionFragment? We can have the definition for Interaction (previously called InteractionFragment): "Interaction is an abstract notion of the most general interaction unit. An Interaction is composed of at least an InteractionFragment". Usual semantics for fragments refers to something within something else but here, the something else is undefined. Dr Marc-Philippe Huget Leibniz-IMAG/MAGMA