Issue 8261: Section: 12.3.41 (uml2-rtf) Source: (, ) Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor Summary: The attribute effect:ParameterEffectKind[0..1] does not display this multiplicity in fig. 192. Reword the definition of attribute isStream:Boolean[1..1]=false to "Tells whether an input parameter may accept valuses or an output parameter post values while the behavior is executing." parameterSet:ParameterSet[0..*] listed as an attribute is an association. Please move it to the Association sub-section. The multiplicity for parameterSet:ParameterSet[0..*] does not agree with fig. 192. Add OCL notation to the constraints. Under sub-section Notation the last sent. says to "See notation for Operations." but gives no reference location. Is this supposed to be at page 105? Resolution: see above Revised Text: Change the multiplicity of parameterSet in fig. 192 from “*” to “0..*”. Editor’s note: the above change was not entered because it does not conform to the standard format and makes no semantic difference since * is equivalent to 0..* Actions taken: February 8, 2005: received issue August 23, 2006: closed issue Discussion: It’s not necessary to reword the definition of attribute isStream. The proposed rewording is just another verbalism and doesn’t introduce any important information. End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 08 Feb 2005 16:58:31 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Jane Messenger Company: U. S. Geological Survey mailFrom: jmessenger@usgs.gov Notification: Yes Specification: Superstructure Section: 12.3.41 FormalNumber: ptc/04-10-02 Version: 2.0 Draft Adopted RevisionDate: 10/08/2004 Page: 427-429 Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; Q312461) Description The attribute effect:ParameterEffectKind[0..1] does not display this multiplicity in fig. 192. Reword the definition of attribute isStream:Boolean[1..1]=false to "Tells whether an input parameter may accept valuses or an output parameter post values while the behavior is executing." parameterSet:ParameterSet[0..*] listed as an attribute is an association. Please move it to the Association sub-section. The multiplicity for parameterSet:ParameterSet[0..*] does not agree with fig. 192. Add OCL notation to the constraints. Under sub-section Notation the last sent. says to "See notation for Operations." but gives no reference location. Is this supposed to be at page 105? Subject: RE: Revised ballot 4 -- don't forget to vote Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 09:19:09 -0400 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Revised ballot 4 -- don't forget to vote Thread-Index: AcVnulzT3gEy2QyoQEWHdQAo1akkFgFO9sgw From: "Pete Rivett" To: "Branislav Selic" , X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at sentraliant.com Adaptive votes YES to all the resolutions, except issue 8241 and 8261 to which it votes NO and 8337, 8339, 8349 to which it ABSTAINS 8241: the resolution does not relate to the issue and is a duplicate of that for 8238. 8261: the resolution ignores most of the issue and makes a change which is not called for in the issue (replacing * with 0..* in the diagram - which makes it inconsistent with the other '*'s in that diagram - why not make them all 0..*). For example the issue rightly states that parameterSet is documented under Attributes but should be under Associations. The text change proposed in the issue for 'isStream' is another verbalism, but the point is that it corrects a grammatical error in the original text that makes it hard to read. And the issue legitimatey asks for a proper corss-reference to notation for Operations. 8337, 8339: the resolutions here (no change needed) is at variance with several other resolutions in this ballot which have gone to the trouble of adding {subsets...} to the text of property definitions to ensure they are consistent with the diagram. IMHO such changes can be treated as editorial anyway. 8349: IMHO 'EventOccurrence" is a clearer name than the very vague "OccurrenceSpecification" (occurrence of what?) - so I'd have preferred the name change to be the other way round Editorial changes 8302 needs an editorial change - the revised test should say 'subsets' rather than 'specializes' since the diagram has 'subsets' and there is no such syntax as 'specializes' for properties 8307 has the same problem except here the revised text should be 'redefines' instead of 'specializes' 8487: revised text should refer to Figure 261 not 26 As a style point, taking Issue 8292 as an example, I do not think it's useful or appropriate to include 'chat' in issue resolutions such as 'I'll update it tonight'. In the same way we do not include entire email threads. Also I'm confused from the discussion as to whether the multiplicity should be shown as 0..* (as implied by the Discussion) or '*' as in the Revised Text. The 'Discussion' section should IMHO be official text (though not destined for the spec) to say how/why it has been agreed that the FTF will address the issue - and provides the ability to explain the reasoning, and possibly alternatives considered. It should not be a record of intermediate conversations along the way. 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: Thursday, June 02, 2005 10:12 PM To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Revised ballot 4 -- don't forget to vote At Conrad's request and Thomas acquiescence, the proposed resolution to issue 8029 has been withdrawn from the ballot. Nothing else on the ballot has changed. If you have already voted on ballot 4, you do not need to revote (unless you want to change your vote on some of the other issues). If you have not voted yet, please do so. The vote closes on Friday, June 3 (6 pm EDT). Cheers, Bran