Issue 8025: Associations between interfaces (uml2-rtf) Source: NIST (Dr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov) Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor Summary: Associations between interfaces The wording of the caption in Figure 56 implies that association between interfaces have implication on required and provided interfaces. My udisjoinnderstanding from mailing list discussion is that this is only an example, not a semantics. Should be clarified in the caption that this is an example of applying associations to interfaces. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: December 30, 2004: received issue October 24, 2006: closed issue Discussion: 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: 30 Dec 2004 15:24:33 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Conrad Bock Company: NIST mailFrom: conrad.bock@nist.gov Notification: No Specification: UML 2 Super Section: Classes FormalNumber: ptc/04-10-02 Version: 2.0 RevisionDate: 04-10-02 Page: - Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322) Description Associations between interfaces The wording of the caption in Figure 56 implies that association between interfaces have implication on required and provided interfaces. My udisjoinnderstanding from mailing list discussion is that this is only an example, not a semantics. Should be clarified in the caption that this is an example of applying associations to interfaces. Subject: RE: Ballot 3 Reissue -- discard old version Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 15:11:17 -0400 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Ballot 3 Reissue -- discard old version Thread-Index: AcVaWSyzkgs+AxtNTx+LUowyFWGtBwDBlQvg From: "Pete Rivett" To: "Branislav Selic" , X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at sentraliant.com Adaptive votes YES to all the issues except 8025, to which it ABSTAINs, and 8158 to which it votes NO. Issue 8025: The Discussion does not seem to match the Issue so I have no way of telling if it's resolved or not Issue 8158: Does not seem to address the issue which stated the need to use 'unlimitedNumber' to make clear that the special value 'unlimited' is allowed. Instead, all the resolution has done is replace 'positive integer'' by 'an integer greater than 0' which to my mind has no effect at all. Minor point: Issue 6493: Right to 'close no change', but the issue is wrong in saying that Constructs::Class inherits from Basic::Class which it no longer does. Amenable to editorial fix: Issue 8151: The resolution implies that the Notation heading is removed completely rather than preceded by some newlines. Issue 8164: For first change in revised text, Fig 144 is in section 11.2 not 11.3.20 Issue 8178: The first line of the block of additional text should include "is placed" rather than "is place" Pete Rivett (mailto:pete.rivett@adaptive.com) CTO, 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: Monday, May 16, 2005 9:33 PM To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Ballot 3 Reissue -- discard old version My apologies to all, but due to some belated input (and a screw up on my part), I have removed 4 proposed resolutions from Ballot 3. They are 6126, 6372, and 8161 (removed until Actions/Activities groups reach consensus on them) 6446 (removed because SysML raised objections to the current resolution) The new revised ballot is attached. Please discard the previous version. Regards, Bran Reply-To: Joaquin Miller X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.1.2 Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 11:12:09 -0700 To: UML-RTF From: Joaquin Miller Subject: Ballot 3 On UML 2 RTF 1 Ballot 3 as revised X-Change Technologies votes 8025: No The proposed resolution denies that there is a problem. We would vote yes for a resolution that replaced the present attempt to explain the drawing in the caption with a short caption and an explanation (less terse than that in the proposed resolution). 8158 : No The proposed resolution makes no substantive change. There is no difference between a positive integer and an integer greater than zero. We would vote yes for a substantive change, if one is called for. We would vote yes for a change that is not substantive but otherwise improves the text. The proposed resolution may miss the intent of the submitter. Both the current text and the proposed resolution suggest that the type of the argument (the insertAt pin) changes depending on whether the action is to insert or append the link. We would vote yes for a resolution that was clear that "The pin is of type UnlimitedNatural with multiplicity of 1..1," for example: The insertion point is an unlimited natural greater than 0 giving the position to insert the link, or unlimited, to insert at the end The "greater than 0" is useful: i can't find text in ptc/04-10-02 that is explicit about what we mean by 'natural.' All other issues: Yes www.joaquin.net www.joaquin.net