Issue 8416: Section: 15.3.11 (uml2-rtf) Source: (, ) Nature: Revision Severity: Significant Summary: Attributes are derived and need this noted. Also add OCL notation to the derived attributes as per the "How to Read this Specification" (page 14)indicates will be done. isComposit=(region>1) - modified from page 14. isOrthogonal=(region>=2) ??? isSimple=((region=0) and (submachineState=0)) ??? isSubmachineState=(SubmachineState>0) I question the multiplicity of the association connection:ConnectionPointReference[*]. Shouldn't it be [0..*] because the association wouldn't exist if the state was simple or compound. Ths association also subsets ownedMember and that needs to be added to the definition. According to fig. 354, the multiplicity for connectionPoint:Pseudostate is 0..8 and this association subsets ownedElement. I question the multipliticy of the association deferrableTrigger:Trigger[*]. Do all state have MULTIPLE deferrable triggers? First paragraph on page 605 says "a state may specify a set or event types that may be deferred in that state." Associations doActivity:Behavior[0..1], entry:Behavior[0..1], and exit:Behavior[0..1] all subset ownedElement according to fig. 354. Association redefinedState:State[0..1] redefines redefinedElement. This needs stating in the definition. I question the multiplicity of region:Region[*]. If the state is a simple state it has no regions (page 600). Change the multiplicity to [0..*] here and in fig. 354. Association /redefinitionContext:Classifier[1] subsets redefinitionContext and needs mentioning in the definition. Add OCL notation to constraint [3]. OCL font format doesn't appear correct for constraint [4]. Constraint [7] repeats constraint [1] but is just worded and expressed slightly differently. Should bulleted statements on page 605 immediately above Entering a non-orthogonal state be added as constraints? Should an exit point be added to the ATM state machine in fig. 391? Resolution: Revised Text: (1) – Already fixed (2) – Accepted – text amended (3) – Accepted (4) – Accepted (5) – Accepted (6)- Accepted (7) – Accepted (8) – Accepted. (9) – Accepted (10) – Accepted. Constraint [1] is redundant and shall be deleted (11) – No. Those deal with dynamic semantics (12) – No, the ATM statemachine is consistent as it currently is in fig. 391 Revised Text: Change the multiplicity of the association connection:ConnectionPointReference[*] to [0..*] and add {subsets ownedMember}. Change the multiplicity for connectionPoint:Pseudostate to [0..*] and add “{subsets ownedElement}. Editor’s note: fixed by 8433 Change the multiplicity of deferrableTrigger:Trigger[*] to [0..*], both in association section and fig. 354 Editor’s note: figure not changed; * is used in the diagrams consistently Add to Associations doActivity:Behavior[0..1], entry:Behavior[0..1], and exit:Behavior[0..1] “{subset ownedElement}” Add to association redefinedState:State[0..1] “{redefines redefinedElement}”. Editor’s note: should be ‘subsets’; fixed by 9094 resolution Change the multiplicity of region:Region[*] to [0..*] also in abs. Syntax fig. 354. Editor’s note: figure not changed; * is used in the diagrams consistently Add to association /redefinitionContext:Classifier[1] “{subset redefinitionContext}” Editor’s note: should be ‘redefines; see 9094 resolution OCL [1] shall be removed. Add the following OCL notation to constraint [3]. self.isSubmachineState implies (self.connection->forAll (cp | cp.entry->forAll (p | p.statemachine = self.submachine) and cp.exit->forAll (p | p.statemachine = self.submachine))) OCL font format for constraint [4] shall be fixed: names regular tone and operators boldface. Actions taken: March 1, 2005: received issue August 23, 2006: closed issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 01 Mar 2005 11:57:52 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Jane Messenger Company: U. S. Geological Survey mailFrom: jmessenger@usgs.gov Notification: Yes Specification: Superstructure Section: 15.3.11 FormalNumber: ptc/04-10-02 Version: 2.0 Draft Adopted RevisionDate: 10/08/2004 Page: 599-614 Nature: Revision Severity: Significant HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; Q312461) Description Attributes are derived and need this noted. Also add OCL notation to the derived attributes as per the "How to Read this Specification" (page 14)indicates will be done. isComposit=(region>1) - modified from page 14. isOrthogonal=(region>=2) ??? isSimple=((region=0) and (submachineState=0)) ??? isSubmachineState=(SubmachineState>0) I question the multiplicity of the association connection:ConnectionPointReference[*]. Shouldn't it be [0..*] because the association wouldn't exist if the state was simple or compound. Ths association also subsets ownedMember and that needs to be added to the definition. According to fig. 354, the multiplicity for connectionPoint:Pseudostate is 0..8 and this association subsets ownedElement. I question the multipliticy of the association deferrableTrigger:Trigger[*]. Do all state have MULTIPLE deferrable triggers? First paragraph on page 605 says "a state may specify a set or event types that may be deferred in that state." Associations doActivity:Behavior[0..1], entry:Behavior[0..1], and exit:Behavior[0..1] all subset ownedElement according to fig. 354. Association redefinedState:State[0..1] redefines redefinedElement. This needs stating in the definition. I question the multiplicity of region:Region[*]. If the state is a simple state it has no regions (page 600). Change the multiplicity to [0..*] here and in fig. 354. Association /redefinitionContext:Classifier[1] subsets redefinitionContext and needs mentioning in the definition. Add OCL notation to constraint [3]. OCL font format doesn't appear correct for constraint [4]. Constraint [7] repeats constraint [1] but is just worded and expressed slightly differently. Should bulleted statements on page 605 immediately above Entering a non-orthogonal state be added as constraints? Should an exit point be added to the ATM state machine in fig. 391?