Issue 8494: Add constraints on conditional, loop, sequence to rule out node contents (uml2-rtf) Source: NIST (Dr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov) Nature: Revision Severity: Minor Summary: Add constraints on conditional, loop, sequence to rule out node contents that are not in the sequence, or clause, setup/body part Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: March 6, 2005: received issue April 26, 2010: closed issue April 26, 2010: closed issue Discussion: 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. However, any executable nodes contained in a loop or conditional node should, indeed, be in a setup, test or body part within the loop or conditional node. For sequence nodes, the SequenceNode::executableNode association redefines StructuredActivityNode::node, so a sequence node can only contain executable nodes. Revised Text: The constraints introduced in the resolution of Issues 8492 (for loop nodes) or 8495 (for conditional nodes) cover the resolution of this issue, too. Disposition: Closed, No Change End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 06 Mar 2005 10:21:50 -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 Add constraints on conditional, loop, sequence to rule out node contents that are not in the sequence, or clause, setup/body part. Subject: Issue 8494 Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 07:06:20 -0700 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Issue 8494 thread-index: AcVcuXXeVFX/hnfcSlKqb75v1Gr2AgAixV9w From: "Baker, James D \(US SSA\)" To: "uml2rtf" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 May 2005 14:06:21.0420 (UTC) FILETIME=[19A382C0:01C55D45] Part of this issue deals with the Associations for Actor. Currently this sub-section reads .No additional associations.. This seems to be a liberally used phrase for other elements. I.m not sure what that phrase means. In addition to what? Please advise - what are the expected contents of this sub-section? J.D. Baker Systems Engineering Initiatives 858 592-5197 To: "Baker, James D \(US SSA\)" Cc: "uml2rtf" Subject: Re: Issue 8494 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.1CF1 March 04, 2003 From: Branislav Selic Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 10:50:55 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML01/25/M/IBM(Release 6.53HF247 | January 6, 2005) at 05/20/2005 10:50:59, Serialize complete at 05/20/2005 10:50:59 JD, The reason we use this phrase rather than "None" is because there may be associations that are inherited from a superclass or that may have been defined in a previous package merge increment. By saying "additional" instead of "none" the intent is to warn readers that there may be associations involving this concept that are defined somewhere else. Bran Selic IBM Distinguished Engineer IBM Rational Software 770 Palladium Drive Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2V 1C8 ph.: (613) 591-7915 fax: (613) 599-3912 e-mail: bselic@ca.ibm.com "Baker, James D \(US SSA\)" 05/20/2005 10:06 AM To "uml2rtf" cc Subject Issue 8494 Part of this issue deals with the Associations for Actor. Currently this sub-section reads .No additional associations.. This seems to be a liberally used phrase for other elements. I.m not sure what that phrase means. In addition to what? Please advise - what are the expected contents of this sub-section? J.D. Baker Systems Engineering Initiatives 858 592-5197 Reply-To: Joaquin Miller X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.1.2 Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 11:42:06 -0700 To: UML-RTF From: Joaquin Miller Subject: ,gi, "no additional" Part of this issue [8494] deals with the Associations for Actor. Currently this sub-section reads .No additional associations.. This seems to be a liberally used phrase for other elements. I.m not sure what that phrase means. In addition to what? I know it is a lot of additional work to deal with this, but ... This really is an unhelpful and often misleading phrase. If someone will volunteer to do the work, we ought to say what we mean each time. I won't volunteer for that, but i will try to find time to propose some changes to the introductory material that may help. Cordially, Joaquin www.joaquin.net eply-To: From: "Conrad Bock" To: "'Ed Seidewitz'" , Subject: RE: Proposed issue resolutions, Set 2: Activities -- Low and trivial effort changes Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:21:26 -0500 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcmE7lQ9kq9LsV5zRgKwNovhcAlo8AF80BGgAABdCqAACb53cAAAb66gAC5XnBA= X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-NISTMEL-MailScanner-ID: n1ALLQpQ017625 X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-MailScanner-From: conrad.bock@nist.gov X-MailScanner-Watermark: 1234905687.18769@8U+3j3AnqJjpjkR3yVmqPQ X-Spam-Status: No Ed, > In any case, the text of the resolution for what should have been > 8494 explains why there should _not_ be a constraint. It also > mentions the redefinition of the node property for SequenceNode, but > that is already in the model. It also suggests a constraint, that conditional, loop, sequence ncontents that are not in the sequence, or clause, setup/body part must not be executable. Subject: RE: Proposed issue resolutions, Set 2: Activities -- Low and trivial effort changes Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:17:13 -0500 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Proposed issue resolutions, Set 2: Activities -- Low and trivial effort changes thread-index: AcmE7lQ9kq9LsV5zRgKwNovhcAlo8AF80BGgAABdCqAACb53cAAAb66gAC5XnBAABBXLsA== From: "Ed Seidewitz" To: Cc: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id n1ANH2cj028400 Conrad -- > Ed, > > > In any case, the text of the resolution for what should have been > > 8494 explains why there should _not_ be a constraint. It also > > mentions the redefinition of the node property for SequenceNode, but > > that is already in the model. > > It also suggests a constraint, that conditional, loop, sequence > ncontents that are not in the sequence, or clause, setup/body part must > not be executable. Good point! To be honest, this didn't even occur to me, which is why I was confused about your comment. I agree that this constraint should be added. I will update the resolution. Conrad