Issue 8086: Section: 6.5.1: Error in example (uml2-rtf) Source: (, ) Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor Summary: Error in example. Text for /isComposite : Boolean A state with isComposite = True is said to be a composite state. A composite state is a state that contains at leas one region> BUT the OCL says IsComposite = (region >1) which translates to is greater than one. Use the is equal to or greater than symbol or change the number to 0. Resolution: see above Revised Text: Superstructure (ptc/04-10-02) Page 603 of section 15.3.11, change the OCL constraint for constraint [5] from: isSimple = content.isEmpty() to: isSimple = region.isEmpty() Page 603 of section 15.3.11, change the OCL constraint for constraint [6] from: isComposite = content.notEmpty() to: isComposite = region.notEmpty() Actions taken: January 14, 2005: received issue August 23, 2006: closed issue Discussion: This constraint was changed in the FTF. However, there seems to be an error in the OCL for the corresponding “fixed” constraints which refer to a feature called “content”. This should be replaced by the feature named “region”. End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 14 Jan 2005 12:24:17 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Jane Messenger Company: U. S. Geological Survey mailFrom: jmessenger@usgs.gov Notification: Yes Specification: Superstructure Section: 6.5.1 FormalNumber: ptc/04-10-02 Version: 2.0 Draft Adopted RevisionDate: 10/08/2004 Page: 14 Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; Q312461) Description Error in example. Text for /isComposite : Boolean A state with isComposite = True is said to be a composite state. A composite state is a state that contains at leas one region> BUT the OCL says IsComposite = (region >1) which translates to is greater than one. Use the is equal to or greater than symbol or change the number to 0. Subject: RE: Resolution proposals for Infrastructure/Classes area Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:34:28 -0700 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Resolution proposals for Infrastructure/Classes area Thread-Index: AcWo9WVm2zHXw+tDTVSx6dF6B7c6rQAGI/Ug From: "Pete Rivett" To: "Branislav Selic" , Here are some comments. I'm OK with the other proposals. Pete ----- Issue 8086 We need to be careful with 'association name' in the proposed phrase ", suggests a simple descriptive sentence with the association name serving as the verb" since although it is true, the UML2 spec itself consistently uses 'association' to refer to 'Property' (e.g. the list of 'Associations' for each metaclass in the spec). So maybe it should say '...with the name property of the Association serving as the verb'. The other question is whether the classifiers or the end names should be used in the constructed phrase. So for a reflexive Association on Person called 'is married to' with end names husband and wife, would the phrase be 'husband is married to wife' or 'Person is married to Person'? The example actually seems to be using the end names since player and year are lower case. --------- Issue 8100: I thought the different languages for an Expression were meant to be alternative formulations e.g. the same meaning depicted in English, Java and OCL. So that the list of languages needs to be the same length as the list of bodies with them being matched pair-wise. This is borne out by the original issue 3391 which made the attributes of Expression multivalued says: " For example, the Expression metaclass has an metaattribute for language and another for the uninterpreted string. This should be a set of such pairs. Then code generators can target multiple languages from the same model." ----- Issue 8226: I don;t think the new BNF is really tight enough - it allows arbitrary long expressions, repetition and inconsistency. e.g. it allows {ordered, ordered, unordered, unique, ordered} How about the following (changes from original spec in red) ::= [ .{. [ [.,. ] ] | [ [.,. ] ] .}. ] ::= [ .... ] ::= | ::= .*. | ::= .ordered. | .unordered. ::= .unique. | .nonunique. ...and likewise for the other changes. ------- Issue 8719 The instance diagram is interesting and could well be a useful addition to the spec - to help explain how the Instances model works. I think it reveals a weakness in the Instances metamodel in terms of how to represent Links - I think InstanceSpecification is not necessarily the right thing to use since an InstanceSpecification (in this case for ) cannot reference Slots it does not own. I created an extended Instances model in MOF to address this (see ptc/4-10-15 Figure 15) - though this is not part of the MOF metamodel but for defining constraints for MOF operations. I agree with the explanation of the original Issue but feel including the instance diagram could lead to misleading impressions about the Instances metamodel.. Regards Pete -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Branislav Selic [mailto:bselic@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 10:47 PM To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Resolution proposals for Infrastructure/Classes area Attached are proposals for 7 issue resolutions in the Infrastructure/Classes area. I would like to include them in the draft for ballot 9. Please review them if you care about this area. Cheers, Bran