Issue 8446: Section: 15.3.7 (uml2-rtf) Source: (, ) Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor Summary: Inconsistent in the spelling of pre- and post-condition vs pre condition and post condition. Other sections use pre- and post-condition. Association postCondition:Constraint[0..1] subsets ownedElement and preCondition:Constraint[0..1] subsets guard according to fig 357. Question: Why doesn't association postCondition:Constraint subset guard instead or inaddition to ownedElement? For other concepts where pre- and post-conditions exist, they both subset guard Resolution: see above Revised Text: (1) No change required until official style is determined. (2) Page 587: Replace definition for association end “postCondition: Constraint[0..1]” (1 st bullet at top of page): “Specifies the post condition of the transition which is the condition that should be obtained once the transition is triggered. This post condition is part of the post condition of the operation connected to the transition.” with: “{subsets Element::ownedElement} Specifies the post condition of the transition which is the condition that should be obtained once the transition is triggered. This post condition is part of the post condition of the operation connected to the transition.” Editor’s note: Put subsets constraint at the end of the text to conform to standard format (3) Page 587: Replace definition for association end “preCondition: Constraint[0..1]” (2 nd bullet at top of page): “Specifies the precondition of the transition. It specifies the condition that should be verified before triggering the transition. This guard condition added to the source state will be evaluated as part of the precondition of the operation referred by the transition if any.” with: “{subsets Transition::guard} Specifies the precondition of the transition. It specifies the condition that should be verified before triggering the transition. This guard condition added to the source state will be evaluated as part of the precondition of the operation referred by the transition if any.” (4) No change required. Actions taken: March 3, 2005: received issue August 23, 2006: closed issue Discussion: (1) I was able find places where “pre-condition”, “pre condition”, and “precondition” (same for post) were used in Section 15. Not sure which format is considered official style. (2) Assocation end “postCondition: Constraint[0..1]” is shown subsetting “Element::ownedElement” on figure 358 on page 577. Update as suggested. (3) Assocation end “preCondition: Constraint[0..1]” is shown subsetting “Transition::guard” on figure 358 on page 577. Update as suggested. (4) I could not find any other references to pre- or post-conditions subsetting guard as association ends. End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 03 Mar 2005 13:46:51 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Jane Messenger Company: U. S. Geological Survey mailFrom: jmessenger@usgs.gov Notification: Yes Specification: Superstructure Section: 15.3.7 FormalNumber: ptc/04-10-02 Version: 2.0 Draft Adopted RevisionDate: 10/08/2004 Page: 586-589 Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; Q312461) Description Inconsistent in the spelling of pre- and post-condition vs pre condition and post condition. Other sections use pre- and post-condition. Association postCondition:Constraint[0..1] subsets ownedElement and preCondition:Constraint[0..1] subsets guard according to fig 357. Question: Why doesn't association postCondition:Constraint subset guard instead or inaddition to ownedElement? For other concepts where pre- and post-conditions exist, they both subset guard.