Issue 8492: Section: Activities, LoopNode (uml2-rtf) Source: NIST (Dr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov) Nature: Revision Severity: Minor Summary: In LoopNode, setup, test, and body parts should be owned by the loop node (they were owned by clauses of loop node, which were owned by the loop node). Resolution: The setup, test and body parts of a loop node should all identify nodes that are contained within the loop node. Such nodes are already owned by the loop node via the node association inherited from StructuredActivityNode. However, a constraint needs to be added to ensure this containment, and to ensure that any all executable nodes contained in the loop node are, indeed, in the setup, test or body parts. Revised Text: In Section 12.3.35 (LoopNode), under Constraints, before the existing constraints, add: Package StructuredActivities [1] The union of the ExecutableNodes in the setupPart, test and bodyPart of a LoopNode must be the same as the subset of nodes contained in the LoopNode (considered as a StructuredActivityNode) that are ExecutableNodes. Actions taken: March 6, 2005: received issue February 20, 2015: closed issue Discussion: Discussion This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification. Disposition: Closed - No Change End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 06 Mar 2005 10:21:28 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Conrad Bock Company: NIST mailFrom: conrad.bock@nist.gov Notification: No Specification: UML 2 Superstructure Section: Activities FormalNumber: ptc/04-10-02 Version: RevisionDate: Page: Nature: Revision Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322) Description In LoopNode, setup, test, and body parts should be owned by the loop node (they were owned by clauses of loop node, which were owned by the loop node). Subject: Proposed issue resolutions, Set 2: Activities -- Low and trivial effort changes Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 23:25:51 -0500 X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Proposed issue resolutions, Set 2: Activities -- Low and trivial effort changes thread-index: AcmE7lQ9kq9LsV5zRgKwNovhcAlo8A== From: "Ed Seidewitz" To: Attached are proposed resolutions to 21 additional Activity issues that only required low or trivial effort changes (though there are a few that, on further analysis, I decided to propose to close or identified as duplicate). -- Ed UML 2.3 Resolutions 090201 Seidewitz 2.doc OMG Issue No: 8492 Title: Add constraints on conditional, loop, sequence to rule out node contents Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock@nist.gov conradb@nist.gov) Summary: Add constraints on conditional, loop, sequence to rule out node contents that are not in the sequence, or clause, setup/body part Resolution: The setup/test/body parts of loop nodes and the test/body parts of conditional node clauses are defined only in terms of executable nodes. However, in general, one also wants to be able to have non-executable nodes, such as control nodes, within a loop or conditional node. These will be contents of the loop or conditional node, but not specified to be in any setup/test/body part. For sequence nodes, the SequenceNode::executableNode association redefines StructuredActivityNode::node, so a sequence node can only contain executable nodes. Revised Text: None. Disposition: Closed, No Change Reply-To: From: "Conrad Bock" To: "'Ed Seidewitz'" , Subject: RE: Proposed issue resolutions, Set 2: Activities -- Low and trivial effort changes Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 13:09:47 -0500 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcmE7lQ9kq9LsV5zRgKwNovhcAlo8AF80BGg X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-ID: n19I9l23014847 X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-MailScanner-From: conrad.bock@nist.gov X-MailScanner-Watermark: 1234807787.66031@5P0ZI/GusCRbiXOpt80gLw X-Spam-Status: No Ed, Comments on the revised ACtivity 2 resolutions. Conrad Issue 8492 (Add constraints on conditional, loop, sequence to rule out node contents) Subject: RE: Proposed issue resolutions, Set 2: Activities -- Low and trivial effort changes Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 13:22:38 -0500 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Proposed issue resolutions, Set 2: Activities -- Low and trivial effort changes thread-index: AcmE7lQ9kq9LsV5zRgKwNovhcAlo8AF80BGgAABdCqA= From: "Ed Seidewitz" To: , X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id n19IM46b031733 Conrad -- I am afraid I don't understand your comment. You reference issue 8492, but give the title for issue 8494. The resolution of issue 8492 already states the required constraint be added. The point of the resolution of 8494 is that there should _not_ be a constraint, since that would prevent control nodes from being used within conditional and loop nodes. Is it 8494 that you disagree with? If so, could you elaborate? -- Ed > -----Original Message----- > From: Conrad Bock [mailto:conrad.bock@nist.gov] > Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 1:10 PM > To: Ed Seidewitz; uml2-rtf@omg.org > Subject: RE: Proposed issue resolutions, Set 2: Activities -- Low and > trivial effort changes > > > Ed, > > Comments on the revised ACtivity 2 resolutions. > > Conrad > > Issue 8492 (Add constraints on conditional, loop, sequence to rule out > node contents) >