Issue 8164: Section: 11.3.20 (uml2-rtf) Source: (, ) Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor Summary: Superclass generalization is not written on fig. 144. Association argument:InputPin[0..*] multiplicity does not agree with fig. 144. Association argument:InputPin[0..*]in fig. 144 says it is ordered and subsets input. Add statements to the definition of the association. Under Constraints say none. Resolution: see above Revised Text: For “Association argument:InputPin[0..*] multiplicity does not agree with fig. 144.” => For me there is no pb. Revised Text: Section 11.3.20, p.234, Fig 144: add “NamedElement” and a generalization between “Action” and “NamedElement”. Editor’s note: This is not necessary as the generalization is shown in figure 11.2 Section 11.3.20, p.274 – Change “argument : InputPin [0..*] Specification of an argument value that appears during execution.” to “argument : InputPin [0..*] Specification of the ordered set of argument values that appears during execution.” Section 11.3.20, p.275 – add “None.” Under the constraint section. Editor’s note: the above change was not entered because it does not conform to the standard format Actions taken: January 27, 2005: received issue August 23, 2006: closed issue Discussion: For “Association argument:InputPin[0..*] multiplicity does not agree with fig. 144.” => For me there is no pb. End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 27 Jan 2005 17:07:08 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Jane Messenger Company: U. S. Geological Survey mailFrom: jmessenger@usgs.gov Notification: Yes Specification: Superstructure Section: 11.3.20 FormalNumber: ptc/04-10-02 Version: 2.0 Draft Adopted RevisionDate: 10/08/2004 Page: 274 Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; Q312461) Description Superclass generalization is not written on fig. 144. Association argument:InputPin[0..*] multiplicity does not agree with fig. 144. Association argument:InputPin[0..*]in fig. 144 says it is ordered and subsets input. Add statements to the definition of the association. Under Constraints say none. Issue 8164: Section: 11.3.20 Actions Source: Jane Messenger Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor Summary: Superclass generalization is not written on fig. 144. Association argument:InputPin[0..*] multiplicity does not agree with fig. 144. Association argument:InputPin[0..*]in fig. 144 says it is ordered and subsets input. Add statements to the definition of the association. Under Constraints say none. Discussion: For .Association argument:InputPin[0..*] multiplicity does not agree with fig. 144.. => For me there is no pb. Revised Text: Section 11.3.20, p.234, Fig 144: add .NamedElement. and a generalization between .Action. and .NamedElement.. Section 11.3.20, p.274 . Change .argument : InputPin [0..*] Specification of an argument value that appears during execution.. to .argument : InputPin [0..*] Specification of the ordered set of argument values that appears during execution.. Section 11.3.20, p.275 . add .None.. Under the constraint section. Resolution: Resolved 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