Issue 9236: constraints owned by these properties have no context (uml2-rtf) Source: (, ) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: A similar issue exists with ParameterSet::condition, State::stateInvariant, Extend::condition, Action::localPrecondition, Action::localPostcondition, StateInvariant::invariant, i.e. constraints owned by these properties have no context. This raises the question of whether a constraint must always have a context (note that some of these owners are not namespaces)... Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: December 22, 2005: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== c: Branislav Selic , uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Draft of ballot 12 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.1CF1 March 04, 2003 From: Kenneth Hussey Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 17:42:24 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML03/25/M/IBM(Release 6.5.4|March 27, 2005) at 12/22/2005 17:42:23, Serialize complete at 12/22/2005 17:42:23 A similar issue exists with ParameterSet::condition, State::stateInvariant, Extend::condition, Action::localPrecondition, Action::localPostcondition, StateInvariant::invariant, i.e. constraints owned by these properties have no context. This raises the question of whether a constraint must always have a context (note that some of these owners are not namespaces)... Cheers, Kenn Hussey Eclipse UML2 Project Lead Rational Software, IBM Software Group 770 Palladium Drive Kanata, Ontario, K2V 1C8 T: (613) 599-3980 F: (613) 599-3912 Kenneth Hussey/Ottawa/IBM 12/22/2005 05:23 PM To Branislav Selic/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject Re: Draft of ballot 12Link Bran, I just noticed that ProtocolTransition (a specialization of Transition) has properties preCondition and postCondition which must also subset Namespace::ownedRule so that the associated constraints will have a namespace. This should be done as part of the resolution to 9196. Cheers, Kenn Hussey Eclipse UML2 Project Lead Rational Software, IBM Software Group 770 Palladium Drive Kanata, Ontario, K2V 1C8 T: (613) 599-3980 F: (613) 599-3912 Branislav Selic/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA 12/20/2005 04:39 PM To uml2-rtf@omg.org cc Subject Draft of ballot 12 Dear RTF victims: Attached, please find the first draft of ballot 12. My apologies for getting this out just before the holidays, but it was really not possible to do it earlier. With a few exceptions, all of these issues pertain to XMI generation. Namely, when we got down to producing the XMI, we found numerous inconsistencies in the spec that prevented a consistent XMI from being produced. Therefore, we had to introduce a number of fixes -- most of them minor technical points (such as the need to define default values for some meta-attributes, ensuring proper subsetting rules for specialized association ends, removing extraneous and incorrect redefinitions, etc.). These are things that matter to metamodelers but not to users. But, you can judge for yourself by examining teh proposed resolutions. In addition to these, two last-minute priority fixes were added. Specifically: 8894: resolves a problem with TimeExpression (it did not actually specify a time value, which made it pretty useless) 8956: an explicit notation for association ends owned by associations (this was originally proposed in ballot 11 but was then withdrawn to allow further discussion -- the new proposal seems acceptable to all those who cared) Note that there may be one or two more resolutions added to the final version of the ballot, but I thought it better to send out what we have now rather so that people can look at this before the holidays. Finally, we already think that resolutions to issue 9182 and 9188 are likely to be changed before the final ballot. The current plan is to allow the draft ballot(s) to soak until after the new year (Jan. 6) and then to have a quick vote that ends on Jan. 13 (1 week). These are pretty hard deadlines since we are due to produce our final report by January 23. The ten days will be necessary to generate the report as well as the convenience document. So, please take the time to review these resolutions and provide feedback if you have any concerns or suggestions. Once again apologies for this rather cramped ballot -- it will require everyone to do a little extra. The good news is that we will have finished this RTF then and, even better, that we will finally have the elusive XMI that we have been seeking for so long. Happy holidays to all! Bran [attachment "Ballot 12.draft.051220.pdf" deleted by Kenneth Hussey/Ottawa/IBM] Subject: potential issue from UML 2 RTF Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 07:13:20 -0800 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: potential issue from UML 2 RTF Thread-Index: AcYHSUhbyNUM0mLDSl+vqBIs0NpsbwAieycw Priority: Urgent From: "Karl Frank" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Dec 2005 15:13:22.0213 (UTC) FILETIME=[69DB9550:01C607D3] FYI. Reference is to the finalized UML 2 Superstructure. Karl Frank -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth Hussey [mailto:khussey@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 5:42 PM To: Kenneth Hussey Cc: Branislav Selic; uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Draft of ballot 12 Importance: High A similar issue exists with ParameterSet::condition, State::stateInvariant, Extend::condition, Action::localPrecondition, Action::localPostcondition, StateInvariant::invariant, i.e. constraints owned by these properties have no context. This raises the question of whether a constraint must always have a context (note that some of these owners are not namespaces)... Cheers, Kenn Hussey Eclipse UML2 Project Lead Rational Software, IBM Software Group 770 Palladium Drive Kanata, Ontario, K2V 1C8 T: (613) 599-3980 F: (613) 599-3912 Kenneth Hussey/Ottawa/IBM 12/22/2005 05:23 PM To Branislav Selic/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject Re: Draft of ballot 12Link Bran, I just noticed that ProtocolTransition (a specialization of Transition) has properties preCondition and postCondition which must also subset Namespace::ownedRule so that the associated constraints will have a namespace. This should be done as part of the resolution to 9196. Cheers, Kenn Hussey Eclipse UML2 Project Lead Rational Software, IBM Software Group 770 Palladium Drive Kanata, Ontario, K2V 1C8 T: (613) 599-3980 F: (613) 599-3912 Branislav Selic/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA 12/20/2005 04:39 PM To uml2-rtf@omg.org cc Subject Draft of ballot 12 Dear RTF victims: Attached, please find the first draft of ballot 12. My apologies for getting this out just before the holidays, but it was really not possible to do it earlier. With a few exceptions, all of these issues pertain to XMI generation. Namely, when we got down to producing the XMI, we found numerous inconsistencies in the spec that prevented a consistent XMI from being produced. Therefore, we had to introduce a number of fixes -- most of them minor technical points (such as the need to define default values for some meta-attributes, ensuring proper subsetting rules for specialized association ends, removing extraneous and incorrect redefinitions, etc.). These are things that matter to metamodelers but not to users. But, you can judge for yourself by examining teh proposed resolutions. In addition to these, two last-minute priority fixes were added. Specifically: 8894: resolves a problem with TimeExpression (it did not actually specify a time value, which made it pretty useless) 8956: an explicit notation for association ends owned by associations (this was originally proposed in ballot 11 but was then withdrawn to allow further discussion -- the new proposal seems acceptable to all those who cared) Note that there may be one or two more resolutions added to the final version of the ballot, but I thought it better to send out what we have now rather so that people can look at this before the holidays. Finally, we already think that resolutions to issue 9182 and 9188 are likely to be changed before the final ballot. The current plan is to allow the draft ballot(s) to soak until after the new year (Jan. 6) and then to have a quick vote that ends on Jan. 13 (1 week). These are pretty hard deadlines since we are due to produce our final report by January 23. The ten days will be necessary to generate the report as well as the convenience document. So, please take the time to review these resolutions and provide feedback if you have any concerns or suggestions. Once again apologies for this rather cramped ballot -- it will require everyone to do a little extra. The good news is that we will have finished this RTF then and, even better, that we will finally have the elusive XMI that we have been seeking for so long. Happy holidays to all! Bran [attachment "Ballot 12.draft.051220.pdf" deleted by Kenneth Hussey/Ottawa/IBM]