Issue 8263: Section: 12.3.44 (uml2-rtf) Source: (, ) Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor Summary: Add package name to first Constraint sub-section. Left fig of fig. 295 needs an "s" on end. Shouldn't exception handler edges also be used in figures 296 and 303? If not, please clarify that the execption pin notation takes the place of the notation for the exception handler notation. Resolution: see above Revised Text: In Activities, Pin, Notation, Figure 295, on the left, in the text underneath the subfigure, replace “end” with “ends”. Actions taken: February 9, 2005: received issue August 23, 2006: closed issue Discussion: The first subsection is taken to be for the lowest package. Exception handlers are a different construct from exception parameters. See Parameter and ExceptionHandler classes in Activity chapter. End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 09 Feb 2005 12:18:08 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Jane Messenger Company: U. S. Geological Survey mailFrom: jmessenger@usgs.gov Notification: Yes Specification: Superstructure Section: 12.3.44 FormalNumber: ptc/04-10-02 Version: 2.0 Draft Adopted RevisionDate: 10/08/2004 Page: 432-437 Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; Q312461) Description Add package name to first Constraint sub-section. Left fig of fig. 295 needs an "s" on end. Shouldn't exception handler edges also be used in figures 296 and 303? If not, please clarify that the execption pin notation takes the place of the notation for the exception handler notation. Reply-To: From: "Conrad Bock" To: "uml2rtf" Subject: RE: Draft ballot 1 Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 18:42:05 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Bran, > Here is the consolidated set of resolution proposals for ballot > 1 consisting of Per Joaquin's message in 8263, replace the first occurrence of "Exception parameters" with "Exception handlers". I'll abstain from whether to pull 8232 and 8258. There are other issues on the ballot, from Eran, I think, that indicate "None" for empty attribute sections. We should make a decision for the spec in general on this, and whether * and [0..*} can be used interchangeably. I personally think it's fine as is. Reply-To: Joaquin Miller X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.1.2 Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 15:16:32 -0700 To: UML-RTF From: Joaquin Miller Subject: Re: Activity/action WG resolutions for ballot 1 Issue 8232 . 'None' is standard in specification document. There are none in the specialized class. It does not exclude that there are attributes, associations, and constraints in the super-classes.. So let's say that. It is a bit of work for our most excellent editor. But it will help readers. And we will be saying what we mean. In the present text Attributes None. does not mean there are no attributes. It means that there are no new attributes, that none are added. It does not exclude that there are attributes, associations, and constraints in the super-classes. It does not exclude that this very class has those same attributes, associations, and constraints. So, why not say so: Attributes No new. or None added. or something like that. ......................... ......................... Issue 8258 .The multiplicities '*' and '[0..*]' mean the same thing.. So good style dictates that we use one or the other, not sometimes one and sometimes the other. I don't want to make extra work: it will actually be less work to make the changes as they are suggested, rather than explain that they mean the same thing. ......................... ......................... Issue 8263 .Exception parameters are a different construct from exception parameters.. Is that because of the importance of capitalization, as in class name versus object name. Sorry. Just having fun. No offense. This must be an editorial error by the author of the resolution. ......................... ......................... Cordially, Joaquin www.joaquin.net