Issue 8468: Section: 16.3.6 (uml2-rtf) Source: (, ) Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor Summary: Delete sub-section Attributes or change wording to "None." For the associations include:Include[*] and extend:Extend[*], the "Specialized Classifier.feature" is not shown in fig. 401. Add OCL notation to constraints [2] and [3] or indicate the OCL notation is not available. Add an ending ")" to Additional Operation OCL notation--one missing. Typo - 1st sent. of para 3 of Semantics, change "describe" to "Describes." There is no association or navigable link between UseCase and Actor shown in fig. 401. Add appropriate link(s). Resolution: see above Revised Text: In fig. 401 update the following association annotations: Assocation from UseCase to Extend: Replace +extend {subsets ownedMember} with +extend {subsets ownedMember,feature} Assocation from UseCase to Include: Replace +include {subsets ownedMember} with Editor’s note: not done because neither ‘extend’ nor ‘include’ are kinds of Features! These two changes are incorrect. In constraints section of 16.3.6: Replace [2] UseCases can only be involved in binary Associations. [3] UseCases can not have Associations to UseCases specifying the same subject. with [2] UseCases can only be involved in binary Associations. OCL not available. [3] UseCases can not have Associations to UseCases specifying the same subject. OCL not available. In additional operations section of 16.3.6: Add missing ")" at the end of the OCL expression. Actions taken: March 4, 2005: received issue August 23, 2006: closed issue Discussion: The wording "No additional attributes. " in the attributes section is conform to our decision. It warns readers that there may be associations involving this concept that are defined somewhere else. The typo change "describe" to "describes" is already done. There is no need to define an association between UseCase and Actor. The relationship between both elements in a user model is a common association that is defined between their base class classifier. End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 04 Mar 2005 12:48:54 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Jane Messenger Company: U. S. Geological Survey mailFrom: jmessenger@usgs.gov Notification: Yes Specification: Superstructure Section: 16.3.6 FormalNumber: ptc/04-10-02 Version: 2.0 Draft Adopted RevisionDate: 10/08/2004 Page: 651-655 Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; Q312461) Description Delete sub-section Attributes or change wording to "None." For the associations include:Include[*] and extend:Extend[*], the "Specialized Classifier.feature" is not shown in fig. 401. Add OCL notation to constraints [2] and [3] or indicate the OCL notation is not available. Add an ending ")" to Additional Operation OCL notation--one missing. Typo - 1st sent. of para 3 of Semantics, change "describe" to "Describes." There is no association or navigable link between UseCase and Actor shown in fig. 401. Add appropriate link(s). Subject: RE: Draft ballot 10 Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 05:55:08 -0700 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Draft ballot 10 Thread-Index: AcW2aOQD6ZfxzYXAQZu1pJpSW7CuewAbw2MQ From: "Pete Rivett" To: "Branislav Selic" , Issue 8134: If DeployedArtifact does indeed inherit from 2 versions of Element (and this is not achieved via PackageMerge) then why can the diagram not show 2 classes Element (from kernel) and Element (from Dependencies)? Issue 8136: the same applies Issue 8139: the policy is NOT to have constraints on diagrams - we have had other issue resolutions explicitly removing them! Issues 8137, 8140: we should really use the style {subsets X} rather than the English text "This association specializes...". Maybe we want a separate resolution to clean all these up? There are some resolutions in this ballot that use (subsets X) and others that use {subsets X} Issue 8433 needs tidying - I think this was already spotted Issue 8457: should move the first section under Revised text to Discussion (since these are just general directions not detailed changes to the document), so that Revised text now starts with 'Superstructure'. Issue 8459: I disagree with the paragraph at the end of the resolution which states the following which I think is not at all justified by the spec which has keywords and stereotypes as quite separate things (albeit regrettably using the same notation).Since none of these standard stereotypes provides any new properties or associations, they can be regarded as keywords and therefore do not require profile capabilities in order to be applied to L1 models." Moreover this explanation appears under 'revised text' and it's not clear what Text it's revising - it seems to be making a (invalid IMHO) justification for 'no change' which should be under Discussion. If we really do want to allow stereotypes to be considered keywords at L1 then there should be some very clear text added to the spec. Issue 8460: I think we're hasty removing the constraint. The reason I can see for not allowing non-derived properties to redefine derived ones is that a non-derived property requires a slot. An implementation could work on the basis that a redefinition always reuses and never needs to obtain a new slot. Issue 8462: I object to removing the constraint on subsetting. To me it's as simple as this - in order for a property C.P1 to subset a property P2 then P2 must be accessible/in the namespace of C: either directly owned by C or inherited. (C here is the Classifier that owns P1). Issue 8468: The last changes to constraints [2] and [3] would have been better to provide the OCL than adding 'OCL not available' On a more general note I think we should have a policy for when/whether to reference the finalized spec ptc/04-10-02 or the newly available formal spec. Pete -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Branislav Selic [mailto:bselic@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2005 8:34 PM To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Draft ballot 10 Just 31 proposed resolutions. Apologies for the messay state of the draft ballot, but I did not have time to clean it up fully. Thought it better to have it out on time. Also, I have not yet had a chance to actually review the proposed resolutions. Please review them carefully and comment on anything that you feel is controversial or needs fixing -- the official ballot will be sent out on Friday. Regards, Bran Selic IBM Distinguished Engineer IBM Rational Software 770 Palladium Drive Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2V 1C8 ph.: (613) 591-7915 fax: (613) 599-3912 To: "Tim Weilkiens" Cc: "Pete Rivett" , uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Draft ballot 10 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.1CF1 March 04, 2003 From: Branislav Selic Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 15:07:22 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML01/25/M/IBM(Release 6.5.4|March 27, 2005) at 09/14/2005 15:07:23, Serialize complete at 09/14/2005 15:07:23 Tim, In figure 12 on page 29, you can navigate from Type (which is what a Use case would be in case when it is the end of an Association) back to the Association -- remember that in OCL 2.0 you can flow against the navigability arrow. Since that end does not have a name you have to use the OCL convention for referring to unnamed association ends (in this case it would be "association"). So, for constraint [2], you would write self.association->forAll(a | a.memberEnd->size() = 2) Cheers, Bran "Tim Weilkiens" 09/14/2005 01:57 PM To "Pete Rivett" , Branislav Selic/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA, cc Subject RE: Draft ballot 10 > Issue 8468: The last changes to constraints [2] and [3] > would have been better to provide the OCL than adding 'OCL > not available' I didn't find an appropriate way to navigate from a use case to the association in an OCL expression. If someone has an idea we could add the OCL. Or to postpone this we can refer to the duplicate OCL issue. Tim To: "Tim Weilkiens" Cc: "Pete Rivett" , uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Draft ballot 10 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.1CF1 March 04, 2003 From: Branislav Selic Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 15:48:40 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML01/25/M/IBM(Release 6.5.4|March 27, 2005) at 09/14/2005 15:48:41, Serialize complete at 09/14/2005 15:48:41 It can be empty for sure. However, I am not sure that we need to check for that condition, since "forAll" should work on an empty set as far as I am concerned. Bran "Tim Weilkiens" wrote on 09/14/2005 03:33:25 PM: > Bran, > > > remember that in OCL 2.0 you can flow against the navigability arrow. > > Sorry. I always forget this as I think it is a little bit strange. From > my point > of view the owner of the constraint is responsible that the constraint > is always > true. But for example the use case has no chance to keep care since the > use case > doesn't know the association. > However that's beyond this issue. > > > self.association->forAll(a | a.memberEnd->size() = 2) > > What is multiplicity of self.association? Couldn't it be empty? > > Tim > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Branislav Selic [mailto:bselic@ca.ibm.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 9:07 PM > > To: Tim Weilkiens > > Cc: Pete Rivett; uml2-rtf@omg.org > > Subject: RE: Draft ballot 10 > > > > > > Tim, > > > > In figure 12 on page 29, you can navigate from Type (which is > > what a Use case would be in case when it is the end of an > > Association) back to the Association -- remember that in OCL > > 2.0 you can flow against the navigability arrow. Since that > > end does not have a name you have to use the OCL convention > > for referring to unnamed association ends (in this case it > > would be "association"). So, for constraint [2], you would write > > > > self.association->forAll(a | a.memberEnd->size() = 2) > > > > Cheers, > > Bran > > > > > > > > > > "Tim Weilkiens" > > > > 09/14/2005 01:57 PM To > > "Pete Rivett" , Branislav > > Selic/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA, > > cc > > Subject > > RE: Draft ballot 10 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Issue 8468: The last changes to constraints [2] and [3] > > > would have been better to provide the OCL than adding 'OCL > > > not available' > > > > I didn't find an appropriate way to navigate from a use case to > > the association in an OCL expression. If someone has an idea > > we could add the OCL. > > > > Or to postpone this we can refer to the duplicate OCL issue. > > > > Tim > > > > > >