Issue 8341: Section: 14.3.17 (uml2-rtf) Source: (, ) Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor Summary: Change the name of this enumeration to InteractionOperatorKind and add "break" to the list of Literals in the text Resolution: see above Revised Text: Substitute: InteractionOperator by InteractionOperatorKind including in Figure 331. This should only be done with the class name, and should not affect attribute names. Before (14.3.17 page 531) Literals • alt, opt, par, loop, critical, neg, assert, strict, seq, ignore, consider Revised text: InteractionOperatorKind is an enumeration of the following literal values: • alt, opt, break, par, loop, critical, neg, assert, strict, seq, ignore, consider Editor’s note: not done, the problem above was already dealt with in the FTF copy edit. Before (14.3.17 page 532) The value of the InteractionOperand is given as text in a small compartment in the upper left corner of the CombinedFragment frame. Revised text: The value of the InteractionOperatorKind is given as text in a small compartment in the upper left corner of the CombinedFragment frame. [Notice that the last correction assumes that the name substitution has taken place first] Editor’s note: also added a corresponding change to item ‘operatorKind’ in section 14.3.3 (Combinedfragment) Actions taken: February 24, 2005: received issue August 23, 2006: closed issue Discussion: For the sake of uniform terminology the name change should be carried out. The last typo correction in the resolution was found when considering this issue, but not really mentioned by it. End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 24 Feb 2005 12:15:22 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Jane Messenger Company: U. S. Geological Survey mailFrom: jmessenger@usgs.gov Notification: Yes Specification: Superstructure Section: 14.3.17 FormalNumber: ptc/04-10-02 Version: 2.0 Draft Adopted RevisionDate: 10/08/2004 Page: 504 & 531 Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; Q312461) Description Change the name of this enumeration to InteractionOperatorKind and add "break" to the list of Literals in the text. 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 To: Oystein Haugen Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Draft ballot 8 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.1CF1 March 04, 2003 From: Branislav Selic Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:08:07 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML01/25/M/IBM(Release 6.5.4|March 27, 2005) at 08/19/2005 10:08:08 Oystein, I have updated your resolution proposals in the official ballot (to be released later today). > Issue 8341: Changed the text such that the non-standard heading > "Literals" disappeared and this appears as any other enumeration. > (This was not really covered in the issue, but it is a reasonable > correction). Bran says that the metamodel figure should be changed, > but the literals are correct in Figure 331. My comment on figure 331 was that the name of the metaclass should be changed from InteractionOperator to InteractionOperationKind (I was not commenting on the literals). I have added text to your resolution to this effect. I am still very unhappy with your statements that identifying subsetting relationships between association ends is "not customary in the Interactions chapter". A reader should expect a document such as the spec to be consistent and not have to adjust to the idiosyncrasies of individual chapter writers. I will probably vote NO to those resolution proposals and also raise a general issue because, as you pointed out, there are several chapters in the spec which do not follow this convention. Regards....Bran Oystein Haugen 08/18/2005 05:52 AM To Branislav Selic/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject Re: Draft ballot 8 Bran Please find attached improvements to some of my resolutions for Draft Ballot 8. I have tried to take into account comments from yourself and Alan Moore (and implicitly from Conrad). Issue 7950: I tried to improve the explanation text in the Notation section of Message. Alan and Conrad have commented this. Issue 8330: I corrected the incorrect reference to FTF, but did not change the Closed conclusion Issue 8341: Changed the text such that the non-standard heading "Literals" disappeared and this appears as any other enumeration. (This was not really covered in the issue, but it is a reasonable correction). Bran says that the metamodel figure should be changed, but the literals are correct in Figure 331. Issue 8345: In Bran's comment this issue was referred as 8343. I changed "method" to "operation". Again the issue did not target this, but the change is obviously correct. I have not made any attempt to include the association end subsetting information as I understand this will come out of a general Issue. /Oystein Branislav Selic wrote: Oystein, As you say, there are numerous places where we are missing the subsetting information. (Until you pointed it out, I did not realize that we were missing this information in the case of Actions. This is probably because actions were ferried over from the old 1.5 spec where the concept did not exist.) However, this is due to omission and not intent. But, your responses indicated that this was something that was at the discretion of the individual chapter (author). I don't think it should be. Therefore, I will raise an issue, similar ot the general "missing OCL" issue to ensure that this is eventually handled consistently throughout the document. (Both the FTF and, subsequently, Linda and I put in a lot of effort trying to give a consistent look and feel to the document, but there is a lot of work still left.) On 8330, please suggest what you think is the right solution. I have no strong opinion about this -- it seems like a question of taste. Unless there is a consistency issue at hand, I believe the cost of changing this type of thing in the metamodel is not warranted. Thanks, Bran Oystein Haugen 08/15/2005 04:46 PM To Branislav Selic/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject Re: Draft ballot 8 Bran Thanks for the comments, I will reformulate according to incoming comments. Here I would just like to comment on two of your comments: As for the subsetting information, when this issue came up through the review of Messenger, I looked into other chapters and I have looked at some of the more central chapters (resembling Interactions) now. I found the following. Chapters on Actions and Activities do not in general give the subsetting information given in the metamodel diagrams. Common Behavior does give the subsetting information. State Machines tries to give the information, but I found at least one place (out of 3 checks) where it failed to give the information. The best situation is of course if the full information about the association is also present in the text. In Interactions you know that it is not there at all. In State Machines you believe it is there, but it is not always. In Activities I found it one place, but in general not there. I guess that if we decide to go for this, it will also affect other chapters that have not successfully done it? As for Issue 8330, you are correct. My memory failed me, the change was made prior to the FTF. Sorry. The question remains, however, should we change it again? I still go for closing the issue. Regards, Oystein Branislav Selic wrote: 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 -- Dr. Oystein Haugen Associate Professor Department of Informatics, University of Oslo P.O. Box 1080 Blindern N-0316 Oslo Norway Tel: +47 22 85 27 37 (office) Tel: +47 913 90 914 (mobile) http://folk.uio.no/oysteinh -- Dr. Oystein Haugen Associate Professor Department of Informatics, University of Oslo P.O. Box 1080 Blindern N-0316 Oslo Norway Tel: +47 22 85 27 37 (office) Tel: +47 913 90 914 (mobile) http://folk.uio.no/oysteinh Issue7950-050818-hau1.doc Issue8345-050818-hau1.doc Issue8341-050818-hau1.doc Issue8330-050818-hau1.doc Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 16:41:40 +0200 From: Oystein Haugen User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Branislav Selic CC: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Draft ballot 8 X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-7.059, required 12, autolearn=disabled, ALL_TRUSTED -2.82, AWL 0.44, HTML_40_50 0.09, HTML_MESSAGE 0.00, HTML_TAG_EXIST_TBODY 0.23, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL -5.00) Bran I totally agree that the document should be consistent. That is why I declined putting subsetting in in the first place. They exist neither in Activities nor in Actions and in State Machines they are not correctly put in. These are the chapters with which I thought Interactions should be consistent. And my "research" made me think that this was not a uniform rule. In my last revisions (see quoted below) I say that I do not put in subsetting in the resolutions because I expect a more general Issue to take of this. I did not mean this to be negative. For Interactions the lack of subsetting is probably not only where the issues have pointed it out, but a number of other places as well. Therefore to fix this through a general editing Issue, I thought was a lot better. I have a concern it is hard to do without errors, and that it is hard to maintain, but I am not against that this information can also be found in the text. /Oystein Branislav Selic wrote: Oystein, I have updated your resolution proposals in the official ballot (to be released later today). > Issue 8341: Changed the text such that the non-standard heading > "Literals" disappeared and this appears as any other enumeration. > (This was not really covered in the issue, but it is a reasonable > correction). Bran says that the metamodel figure should be changed, > but the literals are correct in Figure 331. My comment on figure 331 was that the name of the metaclass should be changed from InteractionOperator to InteractionOperationKind (I was not commenting on the literals). I have added text to your resolution to this effect. I am still very unhappy with your statements that identifying subsetting relationships between association ends is "not customary in the Interactions chapter". A reader should expect a document such as the spec to be consistent and not have to adjust to the idiosyncrasies of individual chapter writers. I will probably vote NO to those resolution proposals and also raise a general issue because, as you pointed out, there are several chapters in the spec which do not follow this convention. Regards....Bran Oystein Haugen 08/18/2005 05:52 AM To Branislav Selic/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject Re: Draft ballot 8 Bran Please find attached improvements to some of my resolutions for Draft Ballot 8. I have tried to take into account comments from yourself and Alan Moore (and implicitly from Conrad). Issue 7950: I tried to improve the explanation text in the Notation section of Message. Alan and Conrad have commented this. Issue 8330: I corrected the incorrect reference to FTF, but did not change the Closed conclusion Issue 8341: Changed the text such that the non-standard heading "Literals" disappeared and this appears as any other enumeration. (This was not really covered in the issue, but it is a reasonable correction). Bran says that the metamodel figure should be changed, but the literals are correct in Figure 331. Issue 8345: In Bran's comment this issue was referred as 8343. I changed "method" to "operation". Again the issue did not target this, but the change is obviously correct. I have not made any attempt to include the association end subsetting information as I understand this will come out of a general Issue. /Oystein Branislav Selic wrote: Oystein, As you say, there are numerous places where we are missing the subsetting information. (Until you pointed it out, I did not realize that we were missing this information in the case of Actions. This is probably because actions were ferried over from the old 1.5 spec where the concept did not exist.) However, this is due to omission and not intent. But, your responses indicated that this was something that was at the discretion of the individual chapter (author). I don't think it should be. Therefore, I will raise an issue, similar ot the general "missing OCL" issue to ensure that this is eventually handled consistently throughout the document. (Both the FTF and, subsequently, Linda and I put in a lot of effort trying to give a consistent look and feel to the document, but there is a lot of work still left.) On 8330, please suggest what you think is the right solution. I have no strong opinion about this -- it seems like a question of taste. Unless there is a consistency issue at hand, I believe the cost of changing this type of thing in the metamodel is not warranted. Thanks, Bran Oystein Haugen 08/15/2005 04:46 PM To Branislav Selic/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject Re: Draft ballot 8 Bran Thanks for the comments, I will reformulate according to incoming comments. Here I would just like to comment on two of your comments: As for the subsetting information, when this issue came up through the review of Messenger, I looked into other chapters and I have looked at some of the more central chapters (resembling Interactions) now. I found the following. Chapters on Actions and Activities do not in general give the subsetting information given in the metamodel diagrams. Common Behavior does give the subsetting information. State Machines tries to give the information, but I found at least one place (out of 3 checks) where it failed to give the information. The best situation is of course if the full information about the association is also present in the text. In Interactions you know that it is not there at all. In State Machines you believe it is there, but it is not always. In Activities I found it one place, but in general not there. I guess that if we decide to go for this, it will also affect other chapters that have not successfully done it? As for Issue 8330, you are correct. My memory failed me, the change was made prior to the FTF. Sorry. The question remains, however, should we change it again? I still go for closing the issue. Regards, Oystein Branislav Selic wrote: 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 -- Dr. Oystein Haugen Associate Professor Department of Informatics, University of Oslo P.O. Box 1080 Blindern N-0316 Oslo Norway Tel: +47 22 85 27 37 (office) Tel: +47 913 90 914 (mobile) http://folk.uio.no/oysteinh -- Dr. Oystein Haugen Associate Professor Department of Informatics, University of Oslo P.O. Box 1080 Blindern N-0316 Oslo Norway Tel: +47 22 85 27 37 (office) Tel: +47 913 90 914 (mobile) http://folk.uio.no/oysteinh -- Dr. Oystein Haugen Associate Professor Department of Informatics, University of Oslo P.O. Box 1080 Blindern N-0316 Oslo Norway Tel: +47 22 85 27 37 (office) Tel: +47 913 90 914 (mobile) http://folk.uio.no/oysteinh Subject: RE: Ballot 8 - revised (sans 4448 and 8449) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 05:33:36 -0700 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Ballot 8 - revised (sans 4448 and 8449) Thread-Index: AcWqYeX118Yq0N86SpirjWA9gueHfwFRh5Fg From: "Pete Rivett" To: "Branislav Selic" Cc: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id j82Cpmhh009145 Adaptive votes YES to all the proposed resolutions, except 6692 to which it ABSTAINS and 8341, 8706 to which it votes NO. 8341: I agree with the sentiment of uniform terminology but don't think it justifies the break in compatibility with the finalized UML 2.0 by changing the Enumeration name. No problem though with adding the extra literal. Interestingly issue 8348 in this same ballot (rightly IMHO) rejects a virtually identical (in spirit) proposed name change: we should have a consistent line on this sort of thing. 8706: I've commented on this before and assumed it would be fixed - and had not noticed it getting into the Ballot until now. The principle is OK but the current text needs more work. I suggest people really try to read and follow what's proposed. Overall if we adopt this resolution it will come back to bite us - with a slew of further issues. - the phrase 'the most detailed namespace" does not have a meaning - the following clause totally loses me however many times I try to read it "only the referenced elements which owned elements are not referenced are filtered (shown) by the profile." - I'm totally confused as to whether you <> an element to show it or hide it. The latter seems counter-intuitive and at odds with the description of Profile::metamodelreference "References a package containing (directly or indirectly) metaclasses that may be extended." - The explanation as a whole is not helped the seeming use of 'filtered' to mean 'shown' (normally 'filtered' is used as in 'filtered out') - I just don't understand what makes Metaclass1 'hidden' in the example given that myProfile as a whole has an import/reference to its package myMetamodel. - What's more Metaclass1 has a stereotype explicitly attached - so how can the stereotype ever be applied to an instance of Metaclass1 if those instances are hidden (apparently instances of Metaclass1 are not hidden if the stereotype has already been applied - but how would anyone apply a stereotype to an instance that is hidden). - The Notation section of Profile should be updated to reflect the use of <> I suggest the cleanest approach rather than struggling with English is to define a helper function 'Profile::availableMetamodelElements()' which explicitly via OCL specifies which elements are available (we should avoid the term 'visible' which has a quite separate meaning). 6692: as previously commented I agree with the 'closed no change' but not the detail of the explanation describing when to use derived attributes and which IMHO does not really answer the issue. ---------- Comments not affecting my vote: Issue 8327 is interesting since the constraint is expressed in terms of diagram (refers to 'above') rather than the metamodel. Though I have not voted against since it is consistent with the existing DestructionEvent. I guess this will get picked up if/when we try to do these in OCL! 8340: Discussion is quite wrong when it says "The specializations of associations are not normally mentioned in the text. ". The document invariably DOES have "{subsets X}" or the incorrect "(Specialized from X)" in the text for Associations as well as in the diagrams. 8345 has it more accurate when it says 'in the Interactions chapter' However I'm not comfortable with closing such quite reasonable issues 'closed no change' in this way. Maybe we should have a general issue 'for Properties add subsets to text and replace specializes by subsets' so that we can close specific issues as a duplicate of this and do the general cleanup at editor convenience. ----------- Editorial fixes --------- 8038: the issue text starts with an odd "done)". I checked and it was in the original from Juergen. I suggest just deleting the "done)" to avoid others having to make the same checks for inadvertently deleted text. 8147: replace 'specialized from' by 'subsets' (unless we're letting these go and cleaning them all up with a global replace) 8152: ditto 8170: 2nd change 'remove MultiplicityElement increment' is a bit unclear: suggest replacing by 'remove MultiplicityElement from Figure 143' or similar 8706: there should not be a paragraph break at the end of the main block of new text - between "For example, he can" and "build a specific..." 8706: the first column in table at end should say "PackageImport" not "PackagedImport", and the 3rd column "metaclassReference" not "metaclasReference" 8706: The Notation should update Table 24 not Table 23 8706: there are grammatical typos which could do with being fixed editorially if we adopt this resolution (which I hope we do not in its current form) 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