Issue 8692: Section: 7.3.36 (uml2-rtf) Source: oose Innovative Informatik GmbH (Mr. Tim Weilkiens, tim.weilkiens(at)oose.de) Nature: Revision Severity: Minor Summary: According to fig. 13 an operation is associated with a Datatype. That's not shown in the association section of the class description. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: April 10, 2005: received issue Discussion: Disposition: Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 10 Apr 2005 04:54:05 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Tim Weilkiens Company: oose.de GmbH mailFrom: tim.weilkiens@oose.de Notification: Yes Specification: UML 2 Superstructure Section: 7.3.36 FormalNumber: ptc/04-10-02 Version: 2.0 RevisionDate: 10/08/04 Page: 106 Nature: Revision Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322) Description According to fig. 13 an operation is associated with a Datatype. That's not shown in the association section of the class description. Subject: Issue 8692 (RE: DRAFT Ballot 2) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:02:50 +0100 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Issue 8692 (RE: DRAFT Ballot 2) Thread-Index: AchaIW0nJy1X2KQISPqlAqKLq2rdHQJ59wNw From: "Tim Weilkiens" To: "Bran Selic" , X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id m0VD3LqC029565 > Summary > According to fig. 7.13 an operation is associated with a Datatype. That's not shown in the association section of the class description. > > Discussion: > This must be based on an older version of the document; no such association between an Operation and Datatype exists any more. Discussion is not correct. The association is still there. And it is still missing in the association section. Tim > -----Original Message----- > From: Bran Selic [mailto:bran.selic@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 11:24 PM > To: uml2-rtf@omg.org > Subject: DRAFT Ballot 2 > > Attached, please find the current draft of ballot #2. > > I included all the resolutions that I listed in my earlier > notification with the exception of the proposed resolution to > issue 10591 proposed by Nerijus. Unfortunately, the proposed > resolution only addresses one part of the full issue raised > (Nerijus, the issue text in the database had a lot more stuff > in there than what you included in the file you sent.) > > In addition, I proposed resolutions for another 25 issues > that are either no-brainers, duplicates, or were already > resolved by a previous RTF. > > So, we have a total of 32 proposed resolutions in this draft. > > Please DO review all the resolution proposals that I > submitted; they are supposed to be trivial, but maybe I > screwed up somewhere. > > You have 2 weeks to comment on these before we submit them to > a formal ballot. > > Have a good weekend everyone, > > Bran > > DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=UrU70NeOsSQr7wGkuBn8/UgiupX2TJ8ok0z8Bgvy28A=; b=YpH5Q0GqyyPt0A4VKFyMU3l0sjuDof8HQrHwpaFc5MNsFbrWoZ16XnHDhPTdIbTfXHafzBUT/1nIRQv89SzwQM9+D1yYZnmuf/7OsT+kURz69CBb+BoKoY79cQlpGh3wbKy31a+vVxMuD9j+l0bCmijy3eMJIhI/enFyAXuFteM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=YSR5sbqCMHoPCwFEqwmH9aTbxLYhV5JdoFKzfrUGOeLTecMuOFE1hIka3xsXhWOsnSJeOCkDSw8pjudi+F8HwzQX7g8ZbfI9Q2YvCYAxrwKFcs4fhGbd6UxQeRWJCA/n82Ef+zRbd/eGwP/h3N/9ebzpZ9Q+na+BfgePsllx/Kc= Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:04:13 -0500 From: "Bran Selic" To: "Tim Weilkiens" Subject: Re: Issue 8692 (RE: DRAFT Ballot 2) Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Hi Tim, You are right that the discussion is incorrect -- thanks for spotting this. However, form what I see in the spec, the text is there. Please see page 61 on formal/07-02-05, where it says: ownedOperation: Operation[*] The Operations owned by the DataType. This is an ordered collection. Subsets Classifier::feature and Element::ownedMember Nevertheless, I will pull the resolution out of ballot 2 -- unless you are happy with the above explanation (in which case, i will change the discussion and close the issue). Cheers...Bran On Jan 31, 2008 8:02 AM, Tim Weilkiens wrote: > Summary > According to fig. 7.13 an operation is associated with a Datatype. That's not shown in the association section of the class description. > > Discussion: > This must be based on an older version of the document; no such association between an Operation and Datatype exists any more. Discussion is not correct. The association is still there. And it is still missing in the association section. Tim > -----Original Message----- > From: Bran Selic [mailto:bran.selic@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 11:24 PM > To: uml2-rtf@omg.org > Subject: DRAFT Ballot 2 > > Attached, please find the current draft of ballot #2. > > I included all the resolutions that I listed in my earlier > notification with the exception of the proposed resolution to > issue 10591 proposed by Nerijus. Unfortunately, the proposed > resolution only addresses one part of the full issue raised > (Nerijus, the issue text in the database had a lot more stuff > in there than what you included in the file you sent.) > > In addition, I proposed resolutions for another 25 issues > that are either no-brainers, duplicates, or were already > resolved by a previous RTF. > > So, we have a total of 32 proposed resolutions in this draft. > > Please DO review all the resolution proposals that I > submitted; they are supposed to be trivial, but maybe I > screwed up somewhere. > > You have 2 weeks to comment on these before we submit them to > a formal ballot. > > Have a good weekend everyone, > > Bran > > Subject: RE: Issue 8692 (RE: DRAFT Ballot 2) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 11:41:50 +0100 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Issue 8692 (RE: DRAFT Ballot 2) Thread-Index: AchkM9ky4jxEGeQ3TeqklGBtEKWgMQAivtiQ From: "Tim Weilkiens" To: "Bran Selic" Cc: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id m11AffgB019045 Bran, the other association end is missing in the association section of the operation at page 104 (datatype : DataType [0..1]). That's the issue. Tim > -----Original Message----- > From: Bran Selic [mailto:bran.selic@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 7:04 PM > To: Tim Weilkiens > Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org > Subject: Re: Issue 8692 (RE: DRAFT Ballot 2) > > Hi Tim, > > You are right that the discussion is incorrect -- thanks for > spotting this. However, form what I see in the spec, the text > is there. Please see page 61 on formal/07-02-05, where it says: > > ownedOperation: Operation[*] The Operations owned by the > DataType. This is an ordered collection. Subsets > Classifier::feature and Element::ownedMember > > Nevertheless, I will pull the resolution out of ballot 2 -- > unless you are happy with the above explanation (in which > case, i will change the discussion and close the issue). > > Cheers...Bran > > > On Jan 31, 2008 8:02 AM, Tim Weilkiens wrote: > > > > Summary > > According to fig. 7.13 an operation is associated > with a Datatype. > That's not shown in the association section of the > class description. > > > > Discussion: > > This must be based on an older version of the > document; no such > association between an Operation and Datatype exists any more. > > Discussion is not correct. The association is still > there. And it is > still missing in the association section. > > Tim > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bran Selic [mailto:bran.selic@gmail.com] > > Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 11:24 PM > > To: uml2-rtf@omg.org > > Subject: DRAFT Ballot 2 > > > > Attached, please find the current draft of ballot #2. > > > > I included all the resolutions that I listed in my earlier > > notification with the exception of the proposed resolution to > > issue 10591 proposed by Nerijus. Unfortunately, the proposed > > resolution only addresses one part of the full issue raised > > (Nerijus, the issue text in the database had a lot more stuff > > in there than what you included in the file you sent.) > > > > In addition, I proposed resolutions for another 25 issues > > that are either no-brainers, duplicates, or were already > > resolved by a previous RTF. > > > > So, we have a total of 32 proposed resolutions in this draft. > > > > Please DO review all the resolution proposals that I > > submitted; they are supposed to be trivial, but maybe I > > screwed up somewhere. > > > > You have 2 weeks to comment on these before we submit them to > > a formal ballot. > > > > Have a good weekend everyone, > > > > Bran > > > > > > > > DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=GFmM+ewIVty3/y+iQN/PiPt337vbkOw+VnqBR/4DpbY=; b=Ng+0nUi2+7bbRYYTPDvUdVJOfoTbeJfyJhTeNqyszIq8/0M0L/qgErBMUk/XoGVnA7ArfycsBXyEFba19Xut/8lfJYi3JL1CvhW0MiecuzVJHw2i7M5NqydTvPsXC3VGp3uO4JFSYsIySx+yaSgwbk2OpNfywLBODVPFBV7XbH0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=oSVVxUPMJRG+/WHlnSujVZtSbmUMyw762w8iiRADSOsXettZITM6Wunic/S6oZ2rDzRZ5tgcYKhsbn6+hPnErT/hT+zpu3X47jUdvSpazwV9SCP6hqTJ8GPzH2yNNlH09/z86KzY/j92jGjNt5KK/p+rH7HWpjBkOAQOjNMnYs4= Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 12:28:06 +0100 From: "Bran Selic" To: "Tim Weilkiens" Subject: Re: Issue 8692 (RE: DRAFT Ballot 2) Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Ah! Now I understand. Sorry for being so slow. I'll pull the issue from the ballot. Thanks...Bran On 2/1/08, Tim Weilkiens wrote: Bran, the other association end is missing in the association section of the operation at page 104 (datatype : DataType [0..1]). That's the issue. Tim > -----Original Message----- > From: Bran Selic [mailto:bran.selic@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 7:04 PM > To: Tim Weilkiens > Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org > Subject: Re: Issue 8692 (RE: DRAFT Ballot 2) > > Hi Tim, > > You are right that the discussion is incorrect -- thanks for > spotting this. However, form what I see in the spec, the text > is there. Please see page 61 on formal/07-02-05, where it says: > > ownedOperation: Operation[*] The Operations owned by the > DataType. This is an ordered collection. Subsets > Classifier::feature and Element::ownedMember > > Nevertheless, I will pull the resolution out of ballot 2 -- > unless you are happy with the above explanation (in which > case, i will change the discussion and close the issue). > > Cheers...Bran > > > On Jan 31, 2008 8:02 AM, Tim Weilkiens wrote: > > > > Summary > > According to fig. 7.13 an operation is associated > with a Datatype. > That's not shown in the association section of the > class description. > > > > Discussion: > > This must be based on an older version of the > document; no such > association between an Operation and Datatype exists any more. > > Discussion is not correct. The association is still > there. And it is > still missing in the association section. > > Tim > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bran Selic [mailto:bran.selic@gmail.com] > > Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 11:24 PM > > To: uml2-rtf@omg.org > > Subject: DRAFT Ballot 2 > > > > Attached, please find the current draft of ballot #2. > > > > I included all the resolutions that I listed in my earlier > > notification with the exception of the proposed resolution to > > issue 10591 proposed by Nerijus. Unfortunately, the proposed > > resolution only addresses one part of the full issue raised > > (Nerijus, the issue text in the database had a lot more stuff > > in there than what you included in the file you sent.) > > > > In addition, I proposed resolutions for another 25 issues > > that are either no-brainers, duplicates, or were already > > resolved by a previous RTF. > > > > So, we have a total of 32 proposed resolutions in this draft. > > > > Please DO review all the resolution proposals that I > > submitted; they are supposed to be trivial, but maybe I > > screwed up somewhere. > > > > You have 2 weeks to comment on these before we submit them to > > a formal ballot. > > > > Have a good weekend everyone, > > > > Bran > > > > > > > >