Issue 8271: Section: 12.2 (uml2-rtf) Source: (, ) Nature: Revision Severity: Significant Summary: Fig. 196 shows no relationship between concepts immediately under Action (StructuredActivityNode and ActivityEdge) and any of the other concepts in the diagram. There are no connecting lines. If this is truly the case, break this single diagram into two or, as I think (after reading section 12.3.47) there should be some relationship shown between the concepts on the right side of the diagram and those on the extreme left, add lines to show the appropriate relationships. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: February 14, 2005: received issue August 23, 2006: closed issue Discussion: Only direct generalizations are shown between metaclasses, so none are shown between Action and ConditionalNode and LoopNode. The other relationships are in StructuredActivities and are available by the package merge. In general the metamodel diagrams are grouped by subject matter, including subject matter that might not be completely interconnected. Disposition: Closed, no change End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 14 Feb 2005 12:07:28 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Jane Messenger Company: U. S. Geological Survey mailFrom: jmessenger@usgs.gov Notification: Yes Specification: Superstructure Section: 12.2 FormalNumber: ptc/04-10-02 Version: 2.0 Draft Adopted RevisionDate: 10/08/2004 Page: 333 Nature: Revision Severity: Significant HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; Q312461) Description Fig. 196 shows no relationship between concepts immediately under Action (StructuredActivityNode and ActivityEdge) and any of the other concepts in the diagram. There are no connecting lines. If this is truly the case, break this single diagram into two or, as I think (after reading section 12.3.47) there should be some relationship shown between the concepts on the right side of the diagram and those on the extreme left, add lines to show the appropriate relationships. From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 14 Feb 2005 12:15:54 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Jane Messenger Company: U. S. Geological Survey mailFrom: jmessenger@usgs.gov Notification: Yes Specification: Superstructure Section: 12.2 FormalNumber: ptc/04-10-02 Version: 2.0 Draft Adopted RevisionDate: 10/08/2004 Page: 333 Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; Q312461) Description Please forgive me but I can't look at my last submission yet. If I mistyped the figure number I meant fig. 196 on page 333 not fig. 195. Reply-To: From: "Conrad Bock" To: "Branislav Selic" , , "Eran Gery" , Cc: Subject: RE: Draft ballot 10 Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 10:37:08 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Hi Bran, Thanks. Comments on comments, and updates attached. Conrad > 4448: needs to specify Infrastructure fixes See attached. Since infra has no behaviors so can't refer to actions accessing operations, etc, I generalized the wording a bit to omit reference to behaviors and actions. This might be just as well for super also, since the text is in the Clases chapter. > 6444: I agree that some of the things are unclear in this issue > text, but I think that the clarification sought under item (b) > is fairly clear and probably should be answered. There are so many definitions of "continuous" that it's hard to (summarize We identified a half-dozen relevant meanings during SysML development, which are explained in separate paper to appear later). Super FTF issue 6902 addressed one aspect briefly in section 6.3. I added reference to it in the attached update. > I think, though, that the clarifying text should be included in > section 6.3 and not in the activities (NB: in that case, a > corresponding Infrastructure fix would have to be included as well). Not sure if there was an infrastructure issue corresponding to Super FTF issue 6902 was filed, but I didn't see any of the 6902 resolution in ptc/04-10-14 (there isn't even a runtime semantics section in the infra). If the 6902 resolution should have been propagated to infrastructure, perhaps it can be taken as an editorial fix on the FTF product. > 8271: I think it would be helpful to add an explanation that the > submitter is making an incorrect assumption that a convention > exists such that all elements in a metamodel diagram are > necessarily connected. The diagrams represent groupings based on > subject matter, which does not always imply that the elements > are directly connected (e.g., the connections may occur at more > general levels). OK, see update. aawg-ballot-101.doc