Issue 8498: Constrain conditional node to have body pins if there is a result pin. (uml2-rtf) Source: NIST (Dr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov) Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor Summary: Constrain conditional node to have body pins if there is a result pin. Constrain to be of the same number and compatible types Resolution: agreed Revised Text: In Subclause 12.3.18 (ControlNode), add the following constraint: [2] Each clause of a conditional node must have the same number of bodyOutput pins as the conditional node has result output pins, and each clause bodyOutput pin must be compatible with the corresponding result pin (by positional order) in type, multiplicity, ordering and uniqueness. Actions taken: March 6, 2005: received issue April 26, 2010: closed issue Discussion: Due to lack of time, the RTF/FTF agrees that the following are problems that need fixing, but decided to defer their resolution to a future RTF working on this specification. End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 06 Mar 2005 10:22:26 -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: Clarification Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322) Description Constrain conditional node to have body pins if there is a result pin. Constrain to be of the same number and compatible types. Subject: resolution 8498 ballot 5 (Activities) To: uml2-rtf@omg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 From: Maged Elaasar Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:14:40 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML03/25/M/IBM(Release 8.0.1|February 07, 2008) at 07/13/2009 17:14:42 The resolution is referring to 18.3.18 (ControlNode) where it should have been (ConditionalNode) It is asking to add a new constraint, but because of previous ballots, constraints fall under two heading now (Structured Activities) and (CompleteStructuredActivities). Which one the constraint here should be under? Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Senior Software Engineer, Rational Modeling Tools IBM Representative@OMG, CAS Research Staff Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab, +1 613 270 4651 Subject: RE: resolution 8498 ballot 5 (Activities) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:04:49 -0400 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: resolution 8498 ballot 5 (Activities) thread-index: AcoD/zz3kwMmc26QRu+Ty8wWKvKf0gABprvw From: "Ed Seidewitz" To: "Maged Elaasar" , Maged . It has to be CompleteStructuredActivities, since conditional nodes have result output pins only at that level. -- Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 5:15 PM To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: resolution 8498 ballot 5 (Activities) The resolution is referring to 18.3.18 (ControlNode) where it should have been (ConditionalNode) It is asking to add a new constraint, but because of previous ballots, constraints fall under two heading now (Structured Activities) and (CompleteStructuredActivities). Which one the constraint here should be under? Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Senior Software Engineer, Rational Modeling Tools IBM Representative@OMG, CAS Research Staff Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab, +1 613 270 4651