Issue 8145: Section: 11.3.1 (uml2-rtf) Source: (, ) Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor Summary: Add that retureInformation:OutputPin[1..1] is a specialization or subsets output as shown in fig. 152. Add OCL expression for constraint 1 or that the constraint cannot be expressed in OCL. Constraint [3] contains a typo in the 1st line "isUnmrashall" should be "isUnmarshall" Resolution: Missing OCL is a duplicate of 6452. Revised Text: In Section 11.3.1, under Associations, insert “{subsets Action::output}” at the beginning of the description of “returnInformation”: {subsets Action::output} Pin where a value is placed containing sufficient information to perform a subsequent reply and return control to the caller. The contents of this value are opaque. It can be passed and copied but it cannot be manipulated by the model. Editor’s note: put constraint at the end to conform to general practice In the first line of Constraint [3], replace “isUnmrashall” with “isUnmarshall”. Editor’s note: was fixed in formal copy edit Actions taken: January 27, 2005: received issue August 23, 2006: closed issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 27 Jan 2005 10:38:43 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Jane Messenger Company: U. S. Geological Survey mailFrom: jmessenger@usgs.gov Notification: Yes Specification: Superstructure Section: 11.3.1 FormalNumber: ptc/04-10-02 Version: 2.0 Draft Adopted RevisionDate: 10/08/2004 Page: 248 Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; Q312461) Description Add that retureInformation:OutputPin[1..1] is a specialization or subsets output as shown in fig. 152. Add OCL expression for constraint 1 or that the constraint cannot be expressed in OCL. Constraint [3] contains a typo in the 1st line "isUnmrashall" should be "isUnmarshall" Reply-To: From: "Conrad Bock" To: "Ed Seidewitz" , Subject: RE: Issues related to AcceptEventAction Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:04:22 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Hi Ed, > I only meant to send out the resolutions to issues 8145 and 8146 at > this time It looks like 8145 is well beyond the OCL and constraint clarification the issue asked for. Please file a new issue with your concerns, and propose a resolution to 8145 that is limited to the current one. I've attached comments anyway, for later discussion (would rather wait to see the new issue first). Your resolution to 8146 says it depends on the resolution of 8145, but I don't see how. Conrad From: "Ed Seidewitz" To: Subject: RE: Issues related to AcceptEventAction Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 18:33:39 -0400 Organization: Data Access Technologies X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 Thread-index: AcVLdYccPjT+wu0PRzKwfYqWXf2bJAAAl4Wg X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on mail4.opentransfer.com X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=12.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.64 X-Spam-Level: Conrad -- > It looks like 8145 is well beyond the OCL and constraint clarification > the issue asked for. Please file a new issue with your concerns, and > propose a resolution to 8145 that is limited to the current one. I've > attached comments anyway, for later discussion (would rather > wait to see > the new issue first). > > Your resolution to 8146 says it depends on the resolution of > 8145, but I > don't see how. Actually 8146 is the big change, and 8145 depends on 8146. I proposed removing a constraint in Section 11.3.1 that required the output pins of the AcceptCallAction to conform to the parameters of the operation, because this constraint would be inherited from AcceptEventAction. For this to work, though, it is necessary that the AcceptEventAction constraint be modified per my proposal for 8146 -- hence the dependency. In any case, I will submit a specific issue on my concerns. I will try to take your comments into account as I write up the issue. Reply-To: From: "Conrad Bock" To: Subject: RE: ,ac,Some action issues resolutions for working group review Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 17:57:32 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Hi Ed, Thanks for the resolutions. Comments below, I fixed them, see attached. Will include in the ballot 3 AA WG proposals. Conrad - Issue 8129 This should have been assigned to the Composite Structured WG. I'll let Bran know. - Issue 8145 the corrected spelling should be isUnmarshall. I'll fix it. - Issues 8146 unMarshall => isUnmarshall, section => sentence, will fix. - Issue 8150, 8151, 8173, 8178 The revised text should have the complete change specification. I'll add the section. - Issue 8178 place => placed Issue 8145: Section: 11.3.1 Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor Summary: Add that retureInformation:OutputPin[1..1] is a specialization or subsets output as shown in fig. 152. Add OCL expression for constraint 1 or that the constraint cannot be expressed in OCL. Constraint [3] contains a typo in the 1st line "isUnmrashall" should be "isUnmarshall" Discussion: Missing OCL is a duplicate of 6452. Revised Text: In Section 11.3.1, under Associations, insert .{subsets Action::output}. at the beginning of the description of .returnInformation.: {subsets Action::output} Pin where a value is placed containing sufficient information to perform a subsequent reply and return control to the caller. The contents of this value are opaque. It can be passed and copied but it cannot be manipulated by the model. In the first line of Constraint [3], replace .isUnmrashall. with .isUnmarshall.. Resolution: Resolved.