Issue 8256: Profiles:Extension End (uml2-rtf) Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Profiles:Extension End - the spec needs to be clear on the behaviour of the {required} property of an extension if the extending stereotype in question has subclasses. Are those sub-stereotypes also required? Resolution: Revised Text: IsRequired is a property of "Extension", not "ExtensionEnd". But yes, we can be more specific. Revised Text: In 18.3.2 Extension – Semantics in ptc/04-10-02 and 13.1.2 in ptc/04-11-16: After 1 st paragraph (A required … isRequired is true.) Add If the extending stereotype has subclasses, then at one instance of the stereotype or one of its subclasses is required. Actions taken: February 8, 2005: received issue August 23, 2006: closed issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: "Moore, Alan" To: "'issues@omg.org'" Subject: UML2 Superstructure Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 17:16:39 -0000 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2658.3) Profiles:Extension End - the spec needs to be clear on the behaviour of the {required} property of an extension if the extending stereotype in question Issue 8256: Profiles:Extension End Click here for this issue's archive. Source: ARTISAN Software Tools (Mr. Alan Moore, mailto:%20alan.moore@artisansw.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Profiles:Extension End - the spec needs to be clear on the behaviour of the {required} property of an extension if the extending stereotype in question has subclasses. Are those sub-stereotypes also required? Discussion: IsRequired is a property of "Extension", not "ExtensionEnd". But yes, we can be more specific. Revised Text: In 18.3.2 Extension . Semantics, After 1st paragraph (A required . isRequired is true.) Add If the extending stereotype has subclasses, then at least one instance of the stereotype extension graph is required. Resolution: Resolved Subject: RE: [Profile] - set of issue resolution Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 15:46:38 -0400 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Profile] - set of issue resolution Thread-Index: AcVbBYj0t8dIUYKARSixD5NEYkQzcwAB/2SQ From: "Pete Rivett" To: , X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at sentraliant.com Here are some comments by issue number.... In general where there are changes made to the document they should be applied to the equivalent section in Infrastructure also. Issue 8256: I think the phrase 'at least one instance of the stereotype extension graph' is a bit cryptic: I suggest 'at least one instance of the stereotype or one of its subclasses' Issue 8449: I am not sure about Image inheriting from Element: I see Image as more of a Data value. I think this needs more discussion. If it does inherit from Element then it should be "InfrastructureLibrary::Constructs::Element" rather than from Abstractions. Issue 8453: Also needs the diagram (Figure 446) to be updated to show the redefined 'lower' property on ExtensionEnd. Issue 8596: It would be helpful to correct the start of the issue text and clarify that it is referring to the 'isRequired' attribute in section 18.3.2. I think the text of the spec needs correcting by replacing "The attribute value is derived from the multiplicity of Extension::ownedEnd" by "The attribute value is derived from the multiplicity of the Property referenced by Extension::ownedEnd". Adding OCL would be even better. Also the issue has a point about Figure 448: it could be made clearer by indicating that's it's an instance diagram (at the MOF level which is what it's about). Just change the names in the boxes to: Interface:CMOF::Class and Home:CMOF::Stereotype. The diagram change in the current resolution should be to add "{redefines ownedEnd}" as opposed to "{subsets ownedEnd}". This is already reflected in 18.3.2 so the 2nd change is not necessary at all. Issue 8598: the '/' indicates that the Association is derived so I do not see any reason to remove it. This is official notation for a derived Assoaiction (see 2nd bullet on p39). Isue 8600: "{subsets type}" should be "{redefines type}" as in the Issue and as in the text of 18.3.3. hence the change " In ExtensionEnd, Association, type Add subsets TypedElement::type." is redundant and wrong. Rather than deleting "which was 1" completely, it might be useful to replace it by "which normally, for MultiplicityElements, evaluates to 1 if empty" Issue 8601: I disagree with removing the notation option of allowing '1' instead of {required}. This is not fixing a real problem and introducing such incompatibilities (it invalidates some diagrams, and tools, which are currently valid) is not something an RTF should be doing in the absence of a compelling reason. Issue 8603: rather than addign text "OCL is not available", why not add the OCL? 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Desfray [mailto:Philippe.Desfray@softeam.fr] > Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 6:07 PM > To: uml2-rtf@omg.org > Subject: [Profile] - set of issue resolution > > Dear all, > For the next resolution thread, and to the particular attention of the > Profile WG > > Here is the thread of numerous and easy issues (typos, light > issues) for > profiles. The remaining issues will stem from the teleconf > of the 20th on > Profile. > > To be integrated in the Ballot 4 if everyone is enthousiast with these > resolutions. > Best regards > > ==================================== > Philippe Desfray > VP for R&D - SOFTEAM > Tel: (33) 01 53968400 > Fax: (33) 01 53968401 > 144 Av. des champs Elysées 75008 PARIS > www.softeam.com > www.objecteering.com > 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 Subject: RE: Ballot 5: start of ballot Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 09:28:41 -0400 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Ballot 5: start of ballot Thread-Index: AcVuEA4Z4/9FcU0/RJ6vMvS7goSeDQNBxyvA From: "Pete Rivett" To: "Branislav Selic" , X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at sentraliant.com Adaptive votes YES to all the proposed resolutions. As an editorial change the document number of Infrastructure should be corrected (in several places) from ptc/04-11-16 to ptc/04-10-14. Also editorially in issue 8256 there is a word missing in: ", then at one instance " which should be "then at least one instance" (my fault - I suggested the wording!) And again editorially in issue 8619: the last paragraph should be preceded by the heading "Revised text". 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, June 10, 2005 11:39 PM To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Ballot 5: start of ballot Here is ballot 5 voting starts at 6 PM EDT today (Friday, June 10). Notes on the ballot: Exceptionally, the voting period for this ballot is 3 weeks rather than 2. This is due to some connectivity problems that I will likely be having over the next few weeks. See Pete Rivett's recommendations on suggested changes to the ballot and my follow-up reply. Most of those have been implemented. Issues 8027, 8031, and 8449 were withdrawn due to objections raised by RTF members Issue 8601 was withdrawn because I noticed that the resolution text had nothing to do with the issue text. There seems to have been an editorial error in Philippe's proposals. Regards, Bran has subclasses. Are those sub-stereotypes also required?