Issue 7593: Wrong metamodel for internal transitions (uml2-superstructure-ftf)
Source: International Business Machines (Mr. Eran Gery, eran.gery(at)il.ibm.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary: Description: In the UML 2.0 statemachines an internal transition is modeled as a transition owned by a region. 

It is wrong that in order to specify an internal or local transition one needs

to instantiate a region. This makes any state with local transitions a composite state which is wrong.

Local/Internal transitions shall be owned directly by states and not via regions.


Resolution: 
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
July 16, 2004: received issue
Discussion: 

End of Annotations:=====

m: "Eran Gery" <erang@ilogix.co.il> 
To: "'Juergen Boldt'" <juergen@omg.org> 
Subject: An Issue for UML2.0 superstructure 
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 00:58:53 +0300 
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) 


Hi Juergen - an issue for UML2.0 FTF/superstructure/statemachines

Title: Wrong metamodel for internal transitions

Description: In the UML 2.0 statemachines an internal transition is modeled as a transition owned by a region. 

It is wrong that in order to specify an internal or local transition one needs

to instantiate a region. This makes any state with local transitions a composite state which is wrong.

Local/Internal transitions shall be owned directly by states and not via regions.

 

Thanks,

Eran Gery