Issue 8330: Section: 14.3.3 & 14.3.11 (uml2-rtf) Source: (, ) Nature: Enhancement Severity: Minor Summary: The Description for the concept Gate identifies the different roles gates play as formal, actual, and expression. Fig. 332 uses the terms formal and actual in the association names but not expression. I think expression is very descriptive and suggest changing the name of the association from cfragmentGateGate to expressionGate:Gate. This would require changing figure 332 and the text for CombinedFragment. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: February 23, 2005: received issue August 23, 2006: closed issue Discussion: I agree with the comment of the issue. In early versions of the metamodel during the submission period, the association had the name ‘expressionGate’, but it was deliberately changed at some point. We find that this decision should not be reversed only for minor explanatory reasons. Disposition: Closed, no change End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 23 Feb 2005 16:39:14 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Jane Messenger Company: U. S. Geological Survey mailFrom: jmessenger@usgs.gov Notification: Yes Specification: Superstructure Section: 14.3.3 & 14.3.11 FormalNumber: ptc/04-10-02 Version: 2.0 Draft Adopted RevisionDate: 10/08/2004 Page: 508 & 523 Nature: Enhancement Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; Q312461) Description The Description for the concept Gate identifies the different roles gates play as formal, actual, and expression. Fig. 332 uses the terms formal and actual in the association names but not expression. I think expression is very descriptive and suggest changing the name of the association from cfragmentGateGate to expressionGate:Gate. This would require changing figure 332 and the text for CombinedFragment. To: uml2-rtf@omg.org, oysteinh@ifi.uio.no Subject: Re: Draft ballot 8 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.1CF1 March 04, 2003 From: Branislav Selic Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 16:01:15 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML01/25/M/IBM(Release 6.5.4|March 27, 2005) at 08/15/2005 16:01:22, Serialize complete at 08/15/2005 16:01:22 A few comments on proposed resolutions in draft ballot 8 (I still have to review the resolutions associated with profiles). Except for the first one, I believe all of these relate to resolutions proposed by Oystein. 8094 -- needs a bit more explanation where the information requested can be found. 8327 - this really should include an OCL constraint. However, in looking at it, the constraint does not seem easy to write, so it may not be practical to do this now. (Note that there is an outstanding general issue about missing OCL constraints that will ensure the issue of the missing OCL will not get swept under the rug.) 8330 - The discussion claims that the FTF made a change that removed the term "expression" for an attribute of CombinedFragment. However, the FTF record shows no such change. 8340, 8343, 8345, 8346, 8351 - Each one of these makes the excuse that, by its own convention, the Interactions chapter does not provide the subsetting information in its description of association ends. However, this information is provided in every other chapter of the spec and, making an exception here will only confuse readers. This information must be included for every association end that subsets another. The preferred format is "Subsets ::". 8341- This resolution needs to include a change to figure 331 and not use a non-conformant subsection heading ("Literals") [I will make these changes in the proposed resolution -- there is no need to resubmit the resolution] 8343 - The revised text should refer to an "operation call" and not a "method call" (both operations and signals have corresponding methods, but only operations have reply messages) [I can fix this -- there is no need to resubmit the resolution] Cheers...Bran