Issue 8208: Section: 12.3.4 (uml2-rtf) Source: (, ) Nature: Revision Severity: Significant Summary: None of the multiplicities listed with the associations agree with the multiplicities diagrammed. Please correct either figures (probable) or the text. Associations in the text do not mention any subsets that are illustrated in the associated figures. There is no figure given for Activity in the IntermediateActivity Package but several references to that package (pg 343, 345. Please add a figure for that package for Activity or add Activity to one of the IntermediateActivity figures. Figure 211 is not discussed and appears to give no added value to the section unless figure 210 should contain an action to create a Trouble Ticket. Resolution: The multiplicities only differ in format. Revised Text: see ptc/2006-04-01 page192/193 Actions taken: February 1, 2005: received issue August 23, 2006: closed issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 01 Feb 2005 11:57:06 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Jane Messenger Company: U. S. Geological Survey mailFrom: jmessenger@usgs.gov Notification: Yes Specification: Superstructure Section: 12.3.4 FormalNumber: ptc/04-10-02 Version: 2.0 Draft Adopted RevisionDate: 10/08/2004 Page: 341-350 Nature: Revision Severity: Significant HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; Q312461) Description None of the multiplicities listed with the associations agree with the multiplicities diagrammed. Please correct either figures (probable) or the text. Associations in the text do not mention any subsets that are illustrated in the associated figures. There is no figure given for Activity in the IntermediateActivity Package but several references to that package (pg 343, 345. Please add a figure for that package for Activity or add Activity to one of the IntermediateActivity figures. Figure 211 is not discussed and appears to give no added value to the section unless figure 210 should contain an action to create a Trouble Ticket. Subject: RE: Draft ballot 9 Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 21:14:28 -0700 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Draft ballot 9 Thread-Index: AcWqh4MNCYn98KMqRxSBzpBmZwi15QBw8hIQ From: "Pete Rivett" To: "Branislav Selic" , 8154: very minor typo on last line of resolution: 'ad end of description' 8154: the resolution inserts text .(subsets Action:input). - should that not be .(subsets Action::input). (double colon)? If so the same change is needed in several other of the resolutions. 8192 - missing close parenthesis in: 'Generalization, replace .AcceptEventAction (from CompleteActions). with .Action (from BasicActions..' 8208 - the addition to diagram would benefit from multiplicities. Since it has no arrow on the line is it the case that both ends will be owned by the respective classes? If so there should be a name at both ends. 8746: In the case of a 'multi party protocol' I would exepct a class representign the protocol itself whoch would have the associatiosn to the interfaces for the roles. 8939 The issue refers to LoopNode as well as ConditionalNode needing this constraint. Should really have OCL for the constraint - as worded it seems somewhat open to interpretation. PS while looking at this I noticed that in section 12.3.40 there is no Generalizations section for OutputPin. Has this been picked up alreayd? Pete 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: Friday, August 26, 2005 10:45 PM To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Draft ballot 9 Here is the first draft of ballot 9 for soaking over the next week. It is the skinniest one we've ever put out (just 22 proposals), which is a bit embarassing for a team that nominally consists of 26 members. In my panic about this, I threw in 3 additional resolutions that I had not published before, so please review them carefully: 8696 8728 8746 Here are the changes from previously published versions of these same resolutions: 8066 -- accounted for Pete's and Conrad's comments and simplified the proposed text additions. 8084 -- Kenn pointed out that this problem was already resolved by the FTF. However, it turns out that the FTF resolution was not applied to the Infrastructure, even though it was supposed to be. So, I added the change to the infrastructure (perhaps this fix could be added to the "formal" version of the Infrastructure spec that Linda is working on). 8097 -- added a comma as per Conrad's recommendation (I actually disagree that this comma is necessary but decided that I cannot win any arguments with Conrad. I do not believe that every "which" should be preceded by a comma -- no matter what Microsoft Word says) 8100 -- Changed to reflect Pete's suggestions. (I too agree that the different language strings are meant to be alternatives, but I guess something in the way I wrote the "clarifications" text made Pete think otherwise, so I modified the text) 8226 -- Changed the BNF along the lines that Pete suggested with one modification (to prevent empty "{ }" pairs). However, even so, the BNF is still not tight enough and needs a constraint since it still allows duplicates such as {ordered, ordered}. But, this type of constraint cannot be expressed in BNF. I don't think it's an improvement, since the original problem could also have been solved with a constraint, but since I cannot seem to win any arguments with Pete, I gave in. 8719 -- removed the confusing example as per Pete's sugesstion and added a piece of clarifying text as per Conrad's suggestion. Please provide your feedback on these resolutions before the ballot is formally issued next Friday. Objections after that point are problematic and cause confusion. Cheers, Bran Reply-To: From: "Conrad Bock" To: "Pete Rivett" , "Branislav Selic" , Subject: RE: Draft ballot 9 Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 09:37:56 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Hi Pete, > 8208 - the addition to diagram would benefit from > multiplicities. Since it has no arrow on the line is it the case > that both ends will be owned by the respective classes? If so > there should be a name at both ends. My understanding is that only the changes from the more general association are shown on the the specific one. This is done in a number of other places. In this case, only one is being subsetted, everything is is the same. To: Branislav Selic Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Ballot 9 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.1CF1 March 04, 2003 From: Branislav Selic Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 16:22:51 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML01/25/M/IBM(Release 6.5.4|March 27, 2005) at 09/15/2005 16:22:52, Serialize complete at 09/15/2005 16:22:52 IBM votes YES to all proposed resolutions in ballot 9. Editorial change recommendation: 8208: the association added to figure 184 should have explicit multiplicities at its ends. Bran Selic IBM Distinguished Engineer IBM Rational Software 770 Palladium Drive Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2V 1C8 ph.: (613) 591-7915 fax: (613) 599-3912 e-mail: bselic@ca.ibm.com Branislav Selic/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA 09/02/2005 02:26 PM To uml2-rtf@omg.org cc Subject Ballot 9 Official Ballot 9 enclosed. Voting starts tonight at 6 pm EDT and closes on Sept. 16 at the same time. Regards, Bran Selic IBM Distinguished Engineer IBM Rational Software 770 Palladium Drive Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2V 1C8 ph.: (613) 591-7915 fax: (613) 599-3912 e-mail: bselic@ca.ibm.com[attachment "Ballot9.pdf" deleted by Branislav Selic/Ottawa/IBM] ubject: RE: Ballot 9 Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:08:22 -0700 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Ballot 9 Thread-Index: AcWv7AQVHEQuXrBWQyGZLGjw99XlowLFDegw From: "Pete Rivett" To: "Branislav Selic" , Adaptive votes YES to all proposed resolutions in Ballot 9, with the exception of Issue 8208 to which it votes NO and 8746 to which it ABSTAINS. This time I did comment on these resolutions in the draft. It's ironic that the resolution to Issue 8208 (which complained about diagram and text multiplicities being inconsistent), changes a diagram to add a new inconsistency: there is no multiplicity shown on the diagram for Activity::partition (which I complained about in the draft ballot) implying a default of 1..1, yet the text in section 12.3.4 has: Associations (IntermediateActivities) . partition : ActivityPartition [0..*] Top-level partitions in the activity. Neither does the resolution address the Issue that the text does not have {subsets} corresponding to the diagrams. Nor the point of Figure 211. ---------- Editorial (again I did point this out on the draft): 8192 - missing close parenthesis in: 'Generalization, replace .AcceptEventAction (from CompleteActions). with .Action (from BasicActions..' Pete 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: Friday, September 02, 2005 2:27 PM To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Ballot 9 Official Ballot 9 enclosed. Voting starts tonight at 6 pm EDT and closes on Sept. 16 at the same time. Regards, Bran Selic IBM Distinguished Engineer IBM Rational Software 770 Palladium Drive Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2V 1C8 ph.: (613) 591-7915 fax: (613) 599-3912 e-mail: bselic@ca.ibm.com Reply-To: From: "Conrad Bock" To: "Pete Rivett" , "Branislav Selic" , Subject: RE: Ballot 9 Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:15:16 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Pete, > It's ironic that the resolution to Issue 8208 (which complained > about diagram and text multiplicities being inconsistent), > changes a diagram to add a new inconsistency: there is no > multiplicity shown on the diagram for Activity::partition (which > I complained about in the draft ballot) implying a default of > 1..1, yet the text in section 12.3.4 has: > Associations (IntermediateActivities) > . partition : ActivityPartition [0..*] Top-level partitions in > the activity. This was intended to inherit the multiplicities from the specialized association, which I thought omitting the multiplicities does. > Neither does the resolution address the Issue that the text does > not have {subsets} corresponding to the diagrams. Nor the point > of Figure 211. It does, at least in the version I voted on. Conrad Subject: RE: Ballot 9 Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:53:13 -0700 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Ballot 9 Thread-Index: AcW7BCqNJPlWvM1oRBG5PQh3nZwseAAAGdIA From: "Pete Rivett" To: , "Branislav Selic" , X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id j8GMD3hh004738 > -----Original Message----- > From: Conrad Bock [mailto:conrad.bock@nist.gov] > Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 5:15 PM > To: Pete Rivett; Branislav Selic; uml2-rtf@omg.org > Subject: RE: Ballot 9 > > > Pete, > > > It's ironic that the resolution to Issue 8208 (which complained > > about diagram and text multiplicities being inconsistent), > > changes a diagram to add a new inconsistency: there is no > > multiplicity shown on the diagram for Activity::partition (which > > I complained about in the draft ballot) implying a default of > > 1..1, yet the text in section 12.3.4 has: > > Associations (IntermediateActivities) > > . partition : ActivityPartition [0..*] Top-level partitions in > > the activity. > > This was intended to inherit the multiplicities from the specialized > association, which I thought omitting the multiplicities does. AFAIK there is no such thing as inheritance applied to Properties. Nor anything in the notation for Property to say that the normal defaults of 1..1 do not apply if it happens to subset another Property. There are constraints on the multiplicity of a Property with respect to that which it subsets but that does not mean the multiplicity should not be specified. Furthermore section 6.5.2, diagramming conventions for the spec itself says only: "If no multiplicity is shown on an association end, it implies a multiplicity of exactly 1." Even if there were some sort of ability to do this, I think it's important, for clarity, that people can look at diagrams and understand what's depicted without having to hunt around for original definitions. If people have been making such an assumption about omitting information about subsetting properties, then perhaps we need to raise a more general issue to clean the diagrams up? > > > Neither does the resolution address the Issue that the text does > > not have {subsets} corresponding to the diagrams. Nor the point > > of Figure 211. > > It does, at least in the version I voted on. I was voting on the ballot sent out by Bran on 2 Sept. Looking at the diagram in question Figure 184, the following have subsets that are not reflected in text: ActivityEdge::guard Action::localPrecondition Action::localPostcondition I also noticed that ActivityPartition::containedNode and containedEdge are not documented at all in the text - these are redefines rather than subsets but the redefinition should IMHO still explicitly appear in the text to make explicit the nature of the redefinition - especially since we reversed our decision to make {redefines} mandatory on all diagrams: letting a name match suffice. I failed to spot the explanation for Figure 211 in the resolution, which had crept onto the following page. Cheers, Pete > > Conrad