Issue 8187: Section: 11.3.43 (uml2-rtf) Source: (, ) Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor Summary: Association target:inputPin[1] subsets input from BasicActions according to figure 145 Resolution: Revised Text: In section 11.3.43, Associations,: Replace: • target: InputPin [1] The target object to which the object is sent. With: • target: InputPin [1] The target object to which the object is sent {subsets Action::/input} Actions taken: January 31, 2005: received issue August 23, 2006: closed issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 31 Jan 2005 12:05:11 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Jane Messenger Company: U. S. Geological Survey mailFrom: jmessenger@usgs.gov Notification: Yes Specification: Superstructure Section: 11.3.43 FormalNumber: ptc/04-10-02 Version: 2.0 Draft Adopted RevisionDate: 10/08/2004 Page: 301 Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; Q312461) Description Association target:inputPin[1] subsets input from BasicActions according to figure 145. Subject: RE: Second version of draft 5 ballot Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 12:49:21 -0400 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Second version of draft 5 ballot Thread-Index: AcVqDi4LnbIGtvCzTnu2ZkZCe2GoggDuTiyQ Priority: Urgent From: "Pete Rivett" To: "Branislav Selic" , X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at sentraliant.com See below. Quite a few comments but all minor except for issue 8449 which I think should be pulled. 7756 The heading 'Discussion' should be replaced by 'Revised Text'. The issue replaces several paragraphs so instead of "change the paragraph " should say "replace the following text". The corresponding text in Infra also needs updating. 7756: the English for the new text could be improved, and I think 'a usual class' is not clear. Also 'navigable' is used in the old sense not the new sense: I presume the intention is the old sense (that there is a property on the Stereotype) Here is suggested new text (my changes in red) Stereotypes can participate in associations. The opposite class can be another stereotype, a non-Stereotype class that is owned by a profile, or a metaclass of the reference metamodel. For these associations there must be a property owned by the Stereotype to navigate to the opposite class. The opposite property must be owned by the Association itself rather than the other class/metaclass. Issue 8031: I don't think the interaction between Conrad and Bran belongs in the discussion. See my proposed guidance in my vote on Ballot 4 (earlier today). Issue 8117: ditto. Issue 8187, 8239, 8262: Would be better to use the proper syntax to express the 'subsets' Issue 8225, 8262, others: Was it intentional to replace [0..*] by [*]? I thought the preferred style was the former. More generally, we seem to be spending a lot of cycles faffing around with issues related to * and 0..* - do people not realize that they are identical? Issue 8234: ditto Issue 8256: Use of 'at least' implies than more than one instance of stereotype may be attached to a single element. Suggested rewording: "If the extending stereotype has subclasses, then at one instance of the stereotype or one of its subclasses is required." Issue 8301: Should say 'increased clarity' not 'increased clarify'. Issue 8449: As I said in the discussion within the Profiles group I think Image should be a PrimitiveType. Even if Image is an instance of DataType rather than PrimitiveType the proposed resolution does not reflect this and in fact makes no sense as it stands since it is at the wrong metalevel: it would allow a Stereotype to refer, as an image to an actual datatype in the UML metamodel (or a user model) - for example 'Integer' or 'AddressType'! I will follow up with more detailed email but I think this issue must be pulled from ballot for now. Issue 8608: The Revised text says ", replace .intended. by the word .intended." - the first 'intended' should be 'intedded' The disposition should be 'Resolved' not 'closed no change' Issue 8619: I think a portion of the 'Discussion' could be added to clarify the diagram in Appendix F. I propose the following: Revised Text: Add the following to the end of the first (and only) paragraph in Appendix F The .classes. in this diagram that do not have superclasses are actually merge increments. Their superclasses can be inferred from any increment that actually has a superclass. Putting those in the diagram would not add any information but would simply clutter the diagram. Issue 8824: Did we not already address this in Ballot 4 with issue 8349 ( I have not checked the detail though)? 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: Sunday, June 05, 2005 9:17 PM To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Second version of draft 5 ballot I am having problems with my mailer that is having trouble sending larger files. It looks like my previous post of the ballot 5 draft did not get through. So, I'm sending this new ZIPPED version (however, to get around the OMG aversion to Zipped files, I have given it a "zap" suffix -- which you should change bck to "zip" when you receive the file.) For those who may have received the original version, this one is different in that it has added Tim Weilkins' fix to issue 8467. Bran