Issue 8387: Section: 8.3.1 (uml2-rtf) Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG (Mr. Tim Weilkiens, tim.weilkiens(at)oose.de) Nature: Revision Severity: Minor Summary: Fig. 87 on page 157 shows a composite structure diagram. Therefore the horizontal line below the component name is missing (see 9.3.13 for composite structure notation). Resolution: Discussion: This line is optional. Revised Text: N/A Disposition: Closed, no change Revised Text: Actions taken: February 27, 2005: received issue October 27, 2008: closed issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 27 Feb 2005 13:37:12 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Tim Weilkiens Company: oose.de GmbH mailFrom: tim.weilkiens@oose.de Notification: Yes Specification: UML 2.0 Superstructure Section: 8.3.1 FormalNumber: ptc/04-10-02 Version: 2.0 RevisionDate: October 8, 2004 Page: 157 Nature: Revision Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322) Description Fig. 87 on page 157 shows a composite structure diagram. Therefore the horizontal line below the component name is missing (see 9.3.13 for composite structure notation). Subject: Issue 8387 (RE: DRAFT Ballot 2) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:54:43 +0100 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Issue 8387 (RE: DRAFT Ballot 2) Thread-Index: AchaIW0nJy1X2KQISPqlAqKLq2rdHQJ5qR/Q From: "Tim Weilkiens" To: "Bran Selic" , X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id m0VCt4lG027411 > Summary: > Fig. 87 on page 157 shows a composite structure diagram. Therefore the horizontal line below the component name is missing (see 9.3.13 for composite structure notation). > > Discussion: > This line is optional. Sorry, I can't find that in the specification. For me it is a compartment that contains a diagram. In that case the line is not optional. Tim > -----Original Message----- > From: Bran Selic [mailto:bran.selic@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 11:24 PM > To: uml2-rtf@omg.org > Subject: DRAFT Ballot 2 > > Attached, please find the current draft of ballot #2. > > I included all the resolutions that I listed in my earlier > notification with the exception of the proposed resolution to > issue 10591 proposed by Nerijus. Unfortunately, the proposed > resolution only addresses one part of the full issue raised > (Nerijus, the issue text in the database had a lot more stuff > in there than what you included in the file you sent.) > > In addition, I proposed resolutions for another 25 issues > that are either no-brainers, duplicates, or were already > resolved by a previous RTF. > > So, we have a total of 32 proposed resolutions in this draft. > > Please DO review all the resolution proposals that I > submitted; they are supposed to be trivial, but maybe I > screwed up somewhere. > > You have 2 weeks to comment on these before we submit them to > a formal ballot. > > Have a good weekend everyone, > > Bran > > From: "Nerijus Jankevicius" To: "Tim Weilkiens" , "Bran Selic" , Subject: Re: Issue 8387 (RE: DRAFT Ballot 2) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 15:50:12 +0200 X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6000.16480 This diagram is misleading. Delegation direction is wrong also, I think. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Weilkiens" To: "Bran Selic" ; Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 2:54 PM Subject: Issue 8387 (RE: DRAFT Ballot 2) Summary: Fig. 87 on page 157 shows a composite structure diagram. Therefore the horizontal line below the component name is missing (see 9.3.13 for composite structure notation). Discussion: This line is optional. Sorry, I can't find that in the specification. For me it is a compartment that contains a diagram. In that case the line is not optional. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Bran Selic [mailto:bran.selic@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 11:24 PM To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: DRAFT Ballot 2 Attached, please find the current draft of ballot #2. I included all the resolutions that I listed in my earlier notification with the exception of the proposed resolution to issue 10591 proposed by Nerijus. Unfortunately, the proposed resolution only addresses one part of the full issue raised (Nerijus, the issue text in the database had a lot more stuff in there than what you included in the file you sent.) In addition, I proposed resolutions for another 25 issues that are either no-brainers, duplicates, or were already resolved by a previous RTF. So, we have a total of 32 proposed resolutions in this draft. Please DO review all the resolution proposals that I submitted; they are supposed to be trivial, but maybe I screwed up somewhere. You have 2 weeks to comment on these before we submit them to a formal ballot. Have a good weekend everyone, Bran DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=noQdb6RfcUaG5dy3MZfdU/ZN9uQFmeZAK9OHHOsJp90=; b=K64hW/bU7WVVnEfRjLKCaO04bs37zw7XIh41J5eqm9alG6Vawlz5K1nOuXBvFg/w0IrBjkwh/0iQDu+tnUTGG86kfoQeKf5L94KGqRd8pqn3CkEGiorzDlAuTiTMKAWlHxNpMUW9MLHSIWBqRPmdvjfNkjQI/rfUWNZFz7JzWWQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=k9O+3288so7Up3bOBO9WRHG3/iI049U5gqElngecUlOlZMr3Q3orJAZnUltD9z2gzWKDYM8Eeat5URIwLpKtPnj1BiPhuodtCRCCekCmiWKSqhY0vN+QEymbZhF9crEzE65BR0UVxgNCX/oINGL1HIl9zNiF3M/soqYPFTyCUDI= Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:13:37 -0500 From: "Bran Selic" To: "Tim Weilkiens" Subject: Re: Issue 8387 (RE: DRAFT Ballot 2) Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Well, there is a piece of text in the notation section for classifiers that is somewhat ambiguous: "The default notation for a classifier is a solid-outline rectangle containing the classifier's name, and optionally with compartments separated by horizontal lines containing features or other members of the classifier." It depends on how you interpret the meaning of "optionally" here. I happen to know from the early days of UML 1 that it was always optional to draw the compartment lines. This is particularly important now that we have introduced structured classes because the line will get in the way of delegation connectors joined to ports that might be drawn on top of the class boundary -- and yet you still want to include the name of the class in the box as well as any additional adornments such as stereotype labels. This was always the intent. Forcing the lines would result in many existing models looking pretty ugly all of a sudden. So, the solutions is definitely NOT to make the lines mandatory. So, if you don't mind raising a separate issue about the ambiguity of whether or not the lines are optional that would be much appreciated. If you don't agree, I guess I will have to raise the issue myself. Please tell me what you've decided. Thanks...Bran On Jan 31, 2008 7:54 AM, Tim Weilkiens wrote: > Summary: > Fig. 87 on page 157 shows a composite structure diagram. Therefore the horizontal line below the component name is missing (see 9.3.13 for composite structure notation). > > Discussion: > This line is optional. Sorry, I can't find that in the specification. For me it is a compartment that contains a diagram. In that case the line is not optional. Tim > -----Original Message----- > From: Bran Selic [mailto:bran.selic@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 11:24 PM > To: uml2-rtf@omg.org > Subject: DRAFT Ballot 2 > > Attached, please find the current draft of ballot #2. > > I included all the resolutions that I listed in my earlier > notification with the exception of the proposed resolution to > issue 10591 proposed by Nerijus. Unfortunately, the proposed > resolution only addresses one part of the full issue raised > (Nerijus, the issue text in the database had a lot more stuff > in there than what you included in the file you sent.) > > In addition, I proposed resolutions for another 25 issues > that are either no-brainers, duplicates, or were already > resolved by a previous RTF. > > So, we have a total of 32 proposed resolutions in this draft. > > Please DO review all the resolution proposals that I > submitted; they are supposed to be trivial, but maybe I > screwed up somewhere. > > You have 2 weeks to comment on these before we submit them to > a formal ballot. > > Have a good weekend everyone, > > Bran > > Subject: RE: Issue 8387 (RE: DRAFT Ballot 2) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 11:37:08 +0100 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Issue 8387 (RE: DRAFT Ballot 2) Thread-Index: AchkNSnTY/6/KUWVSgi3MuPUJykcVAAiH0qQ From: "Tim Weilkiens" To: "Bran Selic" Cc: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id m11AcInF018271 Bran, I didn't know the paragraph you've quoted from the specification. Now I agree that the line is optional. However I think that's a feature tool vendors don't like. Tim > -----Original Message----- > From: Bran Selic [mailto:bran.selic@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 7:14 PM > To: Tim Weilkiens > Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org > Subject: Re: Issue 8387 (RE: DRAFT Ballot 2) > > Well, there is a piece of text in the notation section for > classifiers that is somewhat ambiguous: > > "The default notation for a classifier is a solid-outline > rectangle containing the classifier's name, and optionally with > compartments separated by horizontal lines containing > features or other members of the classifier." > > It depends on how you interpret the meaning of "optionally" here. > > I happen to know from the early days of UML 1 that it was > always optional to draw the compartment lines. This is > particularly important now that we have introduced structured > classes because the line will get in the way of delegation > connectors joined to ports that might be drawn on top of the > class boundary -- and yet you still want to include the name > of the class in the box as well as any additional adornments > such as stereotype labels. This was always the intent. > Forcing the lines would result in many existing models > looking pretty ugly all of a sudden. So, the solutions is > definitely NOT to make the lines mandatory. > > So, if you don't mind raising a separate issue about the > ambiguity of whether or not the lines are optional that would > be much appreciated. If you don't agree, I guess I will have > to raise the issue myself. Please tell me what you've decided. > > Thanks...Bran > > > On Jan 31, 2008 7:54 AM, Tim Weilkiens wrote: > > > > Summary: > > Fig. 87 on page 157 shows a composite structure > diagram. Therefore the > horizontal line below the component name is missing > (see 9.3.13 for > composite structure notation). > > > > Discussion: > > This line is optional. > > Sorry, I can't find that in the specification. For me it is a > compartment that contains a diagram. In that case > the line is not optional. > > Tim > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bran Selic [mailto:bran.selic@gmail.com] > > Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 11:24 PM > > To: uml2-rtf@omg.org > > Subject: DRAFT Ballot 2 > > > > Attached, please find the current draft of ballot #2. > > > > I included all the resolutions that I listed in my earlier > > notification with the exception of the proposed resolution to > > issue 10591 proposed by Nerijus. Unfortunately, the proposed > > resolution only addresses one part of the full issue raised > > (Nerijus, the issue text in the database had a lot more stuff > > in there than what you included in the file you sent.) > > > > In addition, I proposed resolutions for another 25 issues > > that are either no-brainers, duplicates, or were already > > resolved by a previous RTF. > > > > So, we have a total of 32 proposed resolutions in this draft. > > > > Please DO review all the resolution proposals that I > > submitted; they are supposed to be trivial, but maybe I > > screwed up somewhere. > > > > You have 2 weeks to comment on these before we submit them to > > a formal ballot. > > > > Have a good weekend everyone, > > > > Bran > > > > > > > > Subject: RE: Issue 8387 (RE: DRAFT Ballot 2) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 11:37:51 +0100 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Issue 8387 (RE: DRAFT Ballot 2) Thread-Index: AchkEF2fv04vAPZRSnKvjGHXFCZKNwArg+fA From: "Tim Weilkiens" To: "Nerijus Jankevicius" , "Bran Selic" , X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id m11AcYd3018375 Nerijus, if the delegation direction is wrong, we have a new issue here. Tim > -----Original Message----- > From: Nerijus Jankevicius [mailto:nerijus@nomagic.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 2:50 PM > To: Tim Weilkiens; Bran Selic; uml2-rtf@omg.org > Subject: Re: Issue 8387 (RE: DRAFT Ballot 2) > > This diagram is misleading. Delegation direction is wrong > also, I think. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim Weilkiens" > To: "Bran Selic" ; > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 2:54 PM > Subject: Issue 8387 (RE: DRAFT Ballot 2) > > > >> Summary: > >> Fig. 87 on page 157 shows a composite structure diagram. > Therefore the > > horizontal line below the component name is missing (see 9.3.13 for > > composite structure notation). > >> > >> Discussion: > >> This line is optional. > > > > Sorry, I can't find that in the specification. For me it is a > > compartment that contains a diagram. In that case > > the line is not optional. > > > > Tim > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Bran Selic [mailto:bran.selic@gmail.com] > >> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 11:24 PM > >> To: uml2-rtf@omg.org > >> Subject: DRAFT Ballot 2 > >> > >> Attached, please find the current draft of ballot #2. > >> > >> I included all the resolutions that I listed in my earlier > >> notification with the exception of the proposed resolution to > >> issue 10591 proposed by Nerijus. Unfortunately, the proposed > >> resolution only addresses one part of the full issue raised > >> (Nerijus, the issue text in the database had a lot more stuff > >> in there than what you included in the file you sent.) > >> > >> In addition, I proposed resolutions for another 25 issues > >> that are either no-brainers, duplicates, or were already > >> resolved by a previous RTF. > >> > >> So, we have a total of 32 proposed resolutions in this draft. > >> > >> Please DO review all the resolution proposals that I > >> submitted; they are supposed to be trivial, but maybe I > >> screwed up somewhere. > >> > >> You have 2 weeks to comment on these before we submit them to > >> a formal ballot. > >> > >> Have a good weekend everyone, > >> > >> Bran > >> > >> >