Issue 9834: Relationships (uml2-rtf) Source: No Magic, Inc. (Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius, nerijus(at)nomagic.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Why Transition, ActivityEdge, Message, Connector are not Relationships? At least Transition and ActivityEdge should be DirectedRelationships in my opinion. If this is done intentionally, please explain, otherwise please register an issue. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: June 20, 2006: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: "Nerijus Jankevicius" To: Subject: Relationships Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:04:27 +0300 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 Hello, Why Transition, ActivityEdge, Message, Connector are not Relationships? At least Transition and ActivityEdge should be DirectedRelationships in my opinion. If this is done intentionally, please explain, otherwise please register an issue. Regards, -- Nerijus Jankevicius Senior Programmer & System Analyst OMG-Certified UML Professional No Magic Lithuanian Development Center Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas P.O. box 2166, LT- 3000, Kaunas Phone: +370-37-324032 Fax: +370-37-320670 e-mail: nerijus@magicdraw.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com Subject: RE: Relationships Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 07:47:05 -0700 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Relationships Thread-Index: AcaUccGDZstk+nOOQV62xD5d/DaMwwAAHbTA From: "Pete Rivett" To: "Branislav Selic" , "Nerijus Jankevicius" Cc: Not sure what you mean by 'bulked up', Bran: the properties on (Directed)Relationship are derived unions and as such not serialized in XMI - so would have no XMI impact either on 'bulk' or on interoperability. Since frequently-used relationships such as Generalization and Dependency do inherit from DirectedRelationship it seems to me an oversight to not have these as (Directed)Relationships.Since we have these abstractions we should use them consistently for them to have any chance of being of value. Though they may be subsetted the derived unions on (Directed)Relationship can be used as accessors (in the same way the derived union ownedElement can be used to build generic tree views of models): and I can see value in this for tools that provide a generic level of impact/dependency (small 'd') analysis. So overall I would not share your confidence that such an issue would get rejected. Pete -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Branislav Selic [mailto:bselic@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 9:59 AM To: Nerijus Jankevicius Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Relationships Although all of these are conceptually relationships, from a practical viewpoint there was really not much that could actually be reused from general concept of DirectedRelationship for any of these things. Practically every feature of DirectedRelationship would have to be either redefined or subset -- thereby bulking up the size of models. Before we raise an issue -- which will likely get rejected by an RTF -- can you identify what is the concern behind your question? Is it merely a question of esthetics and symmetry or is there some practical user-visible problem behind the current situation? 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 "Nerijus Jankevicius" 06/20/2006 09:04 AM To cc Subject Relationships Hello, Why Transition, ActivityEdge, Message, Connector are not Relationships? At least Transition and ActivityEdge should be DirectedRelationships in my opinion. If this is done intentionally, please explain, otherwise please register an issue. Regards, -- Nerijus Jankevicius Senior Programmer & System Analyst OMG-Certified UML Professional No Magic Lithuanian Development Center Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas P.O. box 2166, LT- 3000, Kaunas Phone: +370-37-324032 Fax: +370-37-320670 e-mail: nerijus@magicdraw.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com From: "Nerijus Jankevicius" To: "Branislav Selic" Cc: Subject: Re: Relationships Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 17:48:23 +0300 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 Bran, The problem is that all relationships (conceptually) can't be used in the same way. From tool provider perspective, we should always use constructs like "Relationships + Transition, ActivityEdge, etc", we can't cast some "conceptual relationship" to Relationship type, it's not possible to collect and manage all "relationships" as such. The same situation from modeler perspective. As example, it is not possible to define stereotype for Relationship (for all "conceptual relationships"), not possible to run correct metrics and similar. We should always keep in mind , that some relationships are not Relationships! But why? Please note, that Transition description is : "A transition is a directed relationship between a source vertex and a target vertex. ", so it definitely should be subclass of DirectedRelationship! "source" and "target" should be subsets of "source" and "target" of DirectedRelationships (and renamed to sourceVertex and targetVertex or similar). The same situations is with ActivityEdge. Thanks for your time. -- Nerijus Jankevicius Senior Programmer & System Analyst OMG-Certified UML Professional No Magic Lithuanian Development Center Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas P.O. box 2166, LT- 3000, Kaunas Phone: +370-37-324032 Fax: +370-37-320670 e-mail: nerijus@magicdraw.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Branislav Selic To: Nerijus Jankevicius Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 4:58 PM Subject: Re: Relationships Although all of these are conceptually relationships, from a practical viewpoint there was really not much that could actually be reused from general concept of DirectedRelationship for any of these things. Practically every feature of DirectedRelationship would have to be either redefined or subset -- thereby bulking up the size of models. Before we raise an issue -- which will likely get rejected by an RTF -- can you identify what is the concern behind your question? Is it merely a question of esthetics and symmetry or is there some practical user-visible problem behind the current situation? 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 "Nerijus Jankevicius" 06/20/2006 09:04 AM To cc Subject Relationships Hello, Why Transition, ActivityEdge, Message, Connector are not Relationships? At least Transition and ActivityEdge should be DirectedRelationships in my opinion. If this is done intentionally, please explain, otherwise please register an issue. Regards, -- Nerijus Jankevicius Senior Programmer & System Analyst OMG-Certified UML Professional No Magic Lithuanian Development Center Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas P.O. box 2166, LT- 3000, Kaunas Phone: +370-37-324032 Fax: +370-37-320670 e-mail: nerijus@magicdraw.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com From: "Nerijus Jankevicius" To: Subject: Fw: Relationships Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 10:52:13 +0300 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 Please register this issue ----- Original Message ----- From: Nerijus Jankevicius To: Branislav Selic Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 5:48 PM Subject: Re: Relationships Bran, The problem is that all relationships (conceptually) can't be used in the same way. From tool provider perspective, we should always use constructs like "Relationships + Transition, ActivityEdge, etc", we can't cast some "conceptual relationship" to Relationship type, it's not possible to collect and manage all "relationships" as such. The same situation from modeler perspective. As example, it is not possible to define stereotype for Relationship (for all "conceptual relationships"), not possible to run correct metrics and similar. We should always keep in mind , that some relationships are not Relationships! But why? Please note, that Transition description is : "A transition is a directed relationship between a source vertex and a target vertex. ", so it definitely should be subclass of DirectedRelationship! "source" and "target" should be subsets of "source" and "target" of DirectedRelationships (and renamed to sourceVertex and targetVertex or similar). The same situations is with ActivityEdge. Thanks for your time. -- Nerijus Jankevicius Senior Programmer & System Analyst OMG-Certified UML Professional No Magic Lithuanian Development Center Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas P.O. box 2166, LT- 3000, Kaunas Phone: +370-37-324032 Fax: +370-37-320670 e-mail: nerijus@magicdraw.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Branislav Selic To: Nerijus Jankevicius Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 4:58 PM Subject: Re: Relationships Although all of these are conceptually relationships, from a practical viewpoint there was really not much that could actually be reused from general concept of DirectedRelationship for any of these things. Practically every feature of DirectedRelationship would have to be either redefined or subset -- thereby bulking up the size of models. Before we raise an issue -- which will likely get rejected by an RTF -- can you identify what is the concern behind your question? Is it merely a question of esthetics and symmetry or is there some practical user-visible problem behind the current situation? 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 "Nerijus Jankevicius" 06/20/2006 09:04 AM To cc Subject Relationships Hello, Why Transition, ActivityEdge, Message, Connector are not Relationships? At least Transition and ActivityEdge should be DirectedRelationships in my opinion. If this is done intentionally, please explain, otherwise please register an issue. Regards, -- Nerijus Jankevicius Senior Programmer & System Analyst OMG-Certified UML Professional No Magic Lithuanian Development Center Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas P.O. box 2166, LT- 3000, Kaunas Phone: +370-37-324032 Fax: +370-37-320670 e-mail: nerijus@magicdraw.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com From: "Nerijus Jankevicius" To: "Juergen Boldt" Subject: Fw: Issue 9834: Relationships Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:53:58 +0200 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at omg.org Juergen, See email below. It was sent when you were away also, so please check it. Nerijus ----- Original Message ----- From: Nerijus Jankevicius To: Juergen Boldt Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 5:29 PM Subject: Issue 9834: Relationships Hello Juergen, Please check history of issue 9834 - all attached emails shall be included, but by some reasons all emails from Pete Rivett and Conrad Bock are not included. Please add all these emails to issue's archive. Thanks. --Nerijus JankeviciusSystem AnalystOMG-Certified UML ProfessionalNo Magic Lithuanian Development CenterSavanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 KaunasP.O. box 2166, LT- 3000, KaunasPhone: +370-37-324032 Fax: +370-37-320670e-mail: nerijus@magicdraw.comWWW: http://www.magicdraw.com Return-Path: Received: from amethyst.omg.org (amethyst.omg.org [192.67.184.64]) by www.nomagic.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge1) with ESMTP id k5KCxdsd010920 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 15:59:40 +0300 Received: from hobbit.omg.org (hobbit.omg.org [192.67.184.3]) by amethyst.omg.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k5KCqmEM017027 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 08:52:48 -0400 Received: from gate.nomagic.com [195.22.190.3] by hobbit.omg.org asmtp(4.3a1) id 611; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 08:45:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from voras (voras.nomagic.com [195.22.190.76]) by gate.nomagic.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CD9034294 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:05:44 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <951001c6946a$0fa78980$4cbe16c3@voras> From: "Nerijus Jankevicius" To: Subject: Relationships Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:04:27 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_950D_01C69483.34E0EB60" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.2/1550/Mon Jun 19 20:01:35 2006 on banginis X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on banginis.nomagic.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.5 required=3.5 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_50_60, HTML_MESSAGE,NOT_TO_NM_DOMAIN,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=no version=3.0.3 Hello, Why Transition, ActivityEdge, Message, Connector are not Relationships? At least Transition and ActivityEdge should be DirectedRelationships in my opinion. If this is done intentionally, please explain, otherwise please register an issue. Regards, -- Nerijus Jankevicius Senior Programmer & System Analyst OMG-Certified UML Professional No Magic Lithuanian Development Center Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas P.O. box 2166, LT- 3000, Kaunas Phone: +370-37-324032 Fax: +370-37-320670 e-mail: nerijus@magicdraw.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com Return-Path: Received: from e1.ny.us.ibm.com (e1.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.141]) by www.nomagic.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge1) with ESMTP id k5KDp1Lo017657 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:51:01 +0300 Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.234]) by e1.ny.us.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k5KDwfsQ005451 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:58:41 -0400 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (d01av04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.64]) by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.13.6/NCO/VER7.0) with ESMTP id k5KDwfBO131832 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:58:41 -0400 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k5KDwfHs005925 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:58:41 -0400 Received: from d25ml01.torolab.ibm.com (d25ml01.torolab.ibm.com [9.26.6.102]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k5KDwfng005895; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:58:41 -0400 In-Reply-To: <951001c6946a$0fa78980$4cbe16c3@voras> To: "Nerijus Jankevicius" Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Relationships X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF242 April 21, 2006 From: Branislav Selic Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:58:39 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML01/25/M/IBM(Release 6.5.4|March 27, 2005) at 06/20/2006 09:58:40, Serialize complete at 06/20/2006 09:58:40 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 004CC7B585257193_=" X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.2/1550/Mon Jun 19 20:01:35 2006 on banginis X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on banginis.nomagic.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=3.5 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_40_50, HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=failed version=3.0.3 Although all of these are conceptually relationships, from a practical viewpoint there was really not much that could actually be reused from general concept of DirectedRelationship for any of these things. Practically every feature of DirectedRelationship would have to be either redefined or subset -- thereby bulking up the size of models. Before we raise an issue -- which will likely get rejected by an RTF -- can you identify what is the concern behind your question? Is it merely a question of esthetics and symmetry or is there some practical user-visible problem behind the current situation? 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 "Nerijus Jankevicius" 06/20/2006 09:04 AM To cc Subject Relationships Hello, Why Transition, ActivityEdge, Message, Connector are not Relationships? At least Transition and ActivityEdge should be DirectedRelationships in my opinion. If this is done intentionally, please explain, otherwise please register an issue. Regards, -- Nerijus Jankevicius Senior Programmer & System Analyst OMG-Certified UML Professional No Magic Lithuanian Development Center Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas P.O. box 2166, LT- 3000, Kaunas Phone: +370-37-324032 Fax: +370-37-320670 e-mail: nerijus@magicdraw.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com Return-Path: Received: from amethyst.omg.org (amethyst.omg.org [192.67.184.64]) by www.nomagic.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge1) with ESMTP id k5KDr8Tv017987 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:53:09 +0300 Received: from hobbit.omg.org (hobbit.omg.org [192.67.184.3]) by amethyst.omg.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k5KDjkv4018087 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:45:46 -0400 Received: from e4.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.144] by hobbit.omg.org asmtp(4.3a1) id 2503; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:38:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e4.ny.us.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k5KDwfAB009296 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:58:44 -0400 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (d01av04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.64]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.6/NCO/VER7.0) with ESMTP id k5KDwfAK274736 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:58:41 -0400 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k5KDwfHu005925 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:58:41 -0400 Received: from d25ml01.torolab.ibm.com (d25ml01.torolab.ibm.com [9.26.6.102]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k5KDwfng005895; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:58:41 -0400 In-Reply-To: <951001c6946a$0fa78980$4cbe16c3@voras> To: "Nerijus Jankevicius" Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Relationships X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF242 April 21, 2006 From: Branislav Selic Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:58:39 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML01/25/M/IBM(Release 6.5.4|March 27, 2005) at 06/20/2006 09:58:40, Serialize complete at 06/20/2006 09:58:40 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 004CC7B585257193_=" X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.2/1550/Mon Jun 19 20:01:35 2006 on banginis X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on banginis.nomagic.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=3.5 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_40_50, HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=failed version=3.0.3 Although all of these are conceptually relationships, from a practical viewpoint there was really not much that could actually be reused from general concept of DirectedRelationship for any of these things. Practically every feature of DirectedRelationship would have to be either redefined or subset -- thereby bulking up the size of models. Before we raise an issue -- which will likely get rejected by an RTF -- can you identify what is the concern behind your question? Is it merely a question of esthetics and symmetry or is there some practical user-visible problem behind the current situation? 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 "Nerijus Jankevicius" 06/20/2006 09:04 AM To cc Subject Relationships Hello, Why Transition, ActivityEdge, Message, Connector are not Relationships? At least Transition and ActivityEdge should be DirectedRelationships in my opinion. If this is done intentionally, please explain, otherwise please register an issue. Regards, -- Nerijus Jankevicius Senior Programmer & System Analyst OMG-Certified UML Professional No Magic Lithuanian Development Center Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas P.O. box 2166, LT- 3000, Kaunas Phone: +370-37-324032 Fax: +370-37-320670 e-mail: nerijus@magicdraw.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com Return-Path: Received: from DHOST001-50.DEX001.intermedia.net (dhost001-50.dex001.intermedia.net [64.78.21.197]) by www.nomagic.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge1) with ESMTP id k5KEdSEi027301 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 17:39:29 +0300 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C69478.80E6AE82" Subject: RE: Relationships X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 07:47:05 -0700 Message-ID: <674FC3679265A241ACB4BF58BA0EB3BE285D40@DHOST001-50.DEX001.intermedia.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Relationships Thread-Index: AcaUccGDZstk+nOOQV62xD5d/DaMwwAAHbTA From: "Pete Rivett" To: "Branislav Selic" , "Nerijus Jankevicius" Cc: X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.2/1550/Mon Jun 19 20:01:35 2006 on banginis X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on banginis.nomagic.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.1 required=3.5 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_50_60, HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_TAG_EXIST_TBODY,L_b_Generic,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=no version=3.0.3 Not sure what you mean by 'bulked up', Bran: the properties on (Directed)Relationship are derived unions and as such not serialized in XMI - so would have no XMI impact either on 'bulk' or on interoperability. Since frequently-used relationships such as Generalization and Dependency do inherit from DirectedRelationship it seems to me an oversight to not have these as (Directed)Relationships.Since we have these abstractions we should use them consistently for them to have any chance of being of value. Though they may be subsetted the derived unions on (Directed)Relationship can be used as accessors (in the same way the derived union ownedElement can be used to build generic tree views of models): and I can see value in this for tools that provide a generic level of impact/dependency (small 'd') analysis. So overall I would not share your confidence that such an issue would get rejected. Pete -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Branislav Selic [mailto:bselic@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 9:59 AM To: Nerijus Jankevicius Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Relationships Although all of these are conceptually relationships, from a practical viewpoint there was really not much that could actually be reused from general concept of DirectedRelationship for any of these things. Practically every feature of DirectedRelationship would have to be either redefined or subset -- thereby bulking up the size of models. Before we raise an issue -- which will likely get rejected by an RTF -- can you identify what is the concern behind your question? Is it merely a question of esthetics and symmetry or is there some practical user-visible problem behind the current situation? 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 "Nerijus Jankevicius" 06/20/2006 09:04 AM To cc Subject Relationships Hello, Why Transition, ActivityEdge, Message, Connector are not Relationships? At least Transition and ActivityEdge should be DirectedRelationships in my opinion. If this is done intentionally, please explain, otherwise please register an issue. Regards, -- Nerijus Jankevicius Senior Programmer & System Analyst OMG-Certified UML Professional No Magic Lithuanian Development Center Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas P.O. box 2166, LT- 3000, Kaunas Phone: +370-37-324032 Fax: +370-37-320670 e-mail: nerijus@magicdraw.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com Return-Path: Received: from amethyst.omg.org (amethyst.omg.org [192.67.184.64]) by www.nomagic.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge1) with ESMTP id k5KEjLoF032168 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 17:45:23 +0300 Received: from hobbit.omg.org (hobbit.omg.org [192.67.184.3]) by amethyst.omg.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k5KEakn4019995 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 10:36:47 -0400 Received: from gate.nomagic.com [195.22.190.3] by hobbit.omg.org asmtp(4.3a1) id 4480; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 10:29:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from voras (voras.nomagic.com [195.22.190.76]) by gate.nomagic.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 12C6042A0; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 17:49:41 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <95a101c69478$94c56a70$4cbe16c3@voras> From: "Nerijus Jankevicius" To: "Branislav Selic" Cc: References: Subject: Re: Relationships Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 17:48:23 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_959E_01C69491.B9E35510" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.2/1550/Mon Jun 19 20:01:35 2006 on banginis X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on banginis.nomagic.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.4 required=3.5 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_50_60, HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_TAG_EXIST_TBODY,NOT_TO_NM_DOMAIN,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=no version=3.0.3 Bran, The problem is that all relationships (conceptually) can't be used in the same way. From tool provider perspective, we should always use constructs like "Relationships + Transition, ActivityEdge, etc", we can't cast some "conceptual relationship" to Relationship type, it's not possible to collect and manage all "relationships" as such. The same situation from modeler perspective. As example, it is not possible to define stereotype for Relationship (for all "conceptual relationships"), not possible to run correct metrics and similar. We should always keep in mind , that some relationships are not Relationships! But why? Please note, that Transition description is : "A transition is a directed relationship between a source vertex and a target vertex. ", so it definitely should be subclass of DirectedRelationship! "source" and "target" should be subsets of "source" and "target" of DirectedRelationships (and renamed to sourceVertex and targetVertex or similar). The same situations is with ActivityEdge. Thanks for your time. -- Nerijus Jankevicius Senior Programmer & System Analyst OMG-Certified UML Professional No Magic Lithuanian Development Center Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas P.O. box 2166, LT- 3000, Kaunas Phone: +370-37-324032 Fax: +370-37-320670 e-mail: nerijus@magicdraw.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Branislav Selic To: Nerijus Jankevicius Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 4:58 PM Subject: Re: Relationships Although all of these are conceptually relationships, from a practical viewpoint there was really not much that could actually be reused from general concept of DirectedRelationship for any of these things. Practically every feature of DirectedRelationship would have to be either redefined or subset -- thereby bulking up the size of models. Before we raise an issue -- which will likely get rejected by an RTF -- can you identify what is the concern behind your question? Is it merely a question of esthetics and symmetry or is there some practical user-visible problem behind the current situation? 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 "Nerijus Jankevicius" 06/20/2006 09:04 AM To cc Subject Relationships Hello, Why Transition, ActivityEdge, Message, Connector are not Relationships? At least Transition and ActivityEdge should be DirectedRelationships in my opinion. If this is done intentionally, please explain, otherwise please register an issue. Regards, -- Nerijus Jankevicius Senior Programmer & System Analyst OMG-Certified UML Professional No Magic Lithuanian Development Center Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas P.O. box 2166, LT- 3000, Kaunas Phone: +370-37-324032 Fax: +370-37-320670 e-mail: nerijus@magicdraw.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com Return-Path: Received: from e1.ny.us.ibm.com (e1.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.141]) by www.nomagic.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge1) with ESMTP id k5KF8Efa012097 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:08:15 +0300 Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e1.ny.us.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k5KFFtTp030776 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:15:55 -0400 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (d01av04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.64]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.6/NCO/VER7.0) with ESMTP id k5KFFsU9246142 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:15:54 -0400 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k5KFFroo014488 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:15:53 -0400 Received: from d25ml01.torolab.ibm.com (d25ml01.torolab.ibm.com [9.26.6.102]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k5KFFrLU014459; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:15:53 -0400 In-Reply-To: <674FC3679265A241ACB4BF58BA0EB3BE285D40@DHOST001-50.DEX001.intermedia.net> To: "Pete Rivett" Cc: "Nerijus Jankevicius" , uml2-rtf@omg.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: Relationships X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF242 April 21, 2006 From: Branislav Selic Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:15:51 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML01/25/M/IBM(Release 6.5.4|March 27, 2005) at 06/20/2006 11:15:53, Serialize complete at 06/20/2006 11:15:53 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0053D8F085257193_=" X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.2/1551/Tue Jun 20 16:37:21 2006 on banginis X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on banginis.nomagic.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=3.5 tests=BAYES_00,CC_TO_NM_DOMAIN, HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE,NOT_TO_NM_DOMAIN autolearn=no version=3.0.3 > Not sure what you mean by 'bulked up', Bran: the properties on > (Directed)Relationship are derived unions and as such not serialized > in XMI - so would have no XMI impact either on 'bulk' or on interoperability. True. But it takes up space in the model repository. > Since frequently-used relationships such as Generalization and Dependency do > inherit from DirectedRelationship it seems to me an oversight to not > have these as (Directed)Relationships.Since we have these > abstractions we should use them consistently for them to have any > chance of being of value. It was not an oversight -- at least not in all cases. I distinctly recall that we made the explicit decision in case of Transition to NOT make it a kind of directed relationship. Bran Return-Path: Received: from amethyst.omg.org (amethyst.omg.org [192.67.184.64]) by www.nomagic.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge1) with ESMTP id k5KFB3kY012345 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:11:05 +0300 Received: from hobbit.omg.org (hobbit.omg.org [192.67.184.3]) by amethyst.omg.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k5KF2wrJ020578 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:02:59 -0400 Received: from e1.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.141] by hobbit.omg.org asmtp(4.3a1) id 5589; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 10:55:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.234]) by e1.ny.us.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k5KFFsXJ030770 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:15:55 -0400 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (d01av04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.64]) by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.13.6/NCO/VER7.0) with ESMTP id k5KFFsNw106766 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:15:54 -0400 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k5KFFroq014488 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:15:53 -0400 Received: from d25ml01.torolab.ibm.com (d25ml01.torolab.ibm.com [9.26.6.102]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k5KFFrLU014459; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:15:53 -0400 In-Reply-To: <674FC3679265A241ACB4BF58BA0EB3BE285D40@DHOST001-50.DEX001.intermedia.net> To: "Pete Rivett" Cc: "Nerijus Jankevicius" , uml2-rtf@omg.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: Relationships X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF242 April 21, 2006 From: Branislav Selic Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:15:51 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML01/25/M/IBM(Release 6.5.4|March 27, 2005) at 06/20/2006 11:15:53, Serialize complete at 06/20/2006 11:15:53 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0053D8F085257193_=" X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.2/1551/Tue Jun 20 16:37:21 2006 on banginis X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on banginis.nomagic.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=3.5 tests=BAYES_00,CC_TO_NM_DOMAIN, HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE,NOT_TO_NM_DOMAIN autolearn=no version=3.0.3 > Not sure what you mean by 'bulked up', Bran: the properties on > (Directed)Relationship are derived unions and as such not serialized > in XMI - so would have no XMI impact either on 'bulk' or on interoperability. True. But it takes up space in the model repository. > Since frequently-used relationships such as Generalization and Dependency do > inherit from DirectedRelationship it seems to me an oversight to not > have these as (Directed)Relationships.Since we have these > abstractions we should use them consistently for them to have any > chance of being of value. It was not an oversight -- at least not in all cases. I distinctly recall that we made the explicit decision in case of Transition to NOT make it a kind of directed relationship. Bran Return-Path: Received: from DHOST001-50.DEX001.intermedia.net (dhost001-50.dex001.intermedia.net [64.78.21.197]) by www.nomagic.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge1) with ESMTP id k5KHqkQH026166 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 20:52:47 +0300 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: Relationships X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:00:22 -0700 Message-ID: <674FC3679265A241ACB4BF58BA0EB3BE285D6C@DHOST001-50.DEX001.intermedia.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Relationships Thread-Index: AcaUfKJVCBM8thBeRY2I2+aFPDJoYAAAlGLw From: "Pete Rivett" To: "Branislav Selic" Cc: "Nerijus Jankevicius" , X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.2/1551/Tue Jun 20 16:37:21 2006 on banginis X-Virus-Status: Clean Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www.nomagic.com id k5KHqkQH026166 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on banginis.nomagic.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.7 required=3.5 tests=BAYES_00,CC_TO_NM_DOMAIN, NOT_TO_NM_DOMAIN,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=no version=3.0.3 RE_ Relationships.eml Return-Path: Received: from amethyst.omg.org (amethyst.omg.org [192.67.184.64]) by www.nomagic.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge1) with ESMTP id k5KHtnPB026367 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 20:55:51 +0300 Received: from hobbit.omg.org (hobbit.omg.org [192.67.184.3]) by amethyst.omg.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k5KHlZwt023486 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 13:47:36 -0400 Received: from dhost001-50.dex001.intermedia.net [64.78.21.197] by hobbit.omg.org asmtp(4.3a1) id 11667; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 13:39:57 -0400 (EDT) Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: Relationships X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:00:22 -0700 Message-ID: <674FC3679265A241ACB4BF58BA0EB3BE285D6C@DHOST001-50.DEX001.intermedia.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Relationships Thread-Index: AcaUfKJVCBM8thBeRY2I2+aFPDJoYAAAlGLw From: "Pete Rivett" To: "Branislav Selic" Cc: "Nerijus Jankevicius" , X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.2/1551/Tue Jun 20 16:37:21 2006 on banginis X-Virus-Status: Clean Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www.nomagic.com id k5KHtnPB026367 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on banginis.nomagic.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.7 required=3.5 tests=BAYES_00,CC_TO_NM_DOMAIN, NOT_TO_NM_DOMAIN,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=no version=3.0.3 RE_ Relationships1.eml Return-Path: Received: from harbor.mel.nist.gov (harbor.mel.nist.gov [129.6.70.12]) by www.nomagic.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge1) with ESMTP id k5KI4DH3027020 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 21:04:14 +0300 Received: from omega (omega.mel.nist.gov [129.6.32.179]) by harbor.mel.nist.gov (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k5KIBwJl029174; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 14:11:58 -0400 Reply-To: From: "Conrad Bock" To: "'Branislav Selic'" , "'Nerijus Jankevicius'" Cc: Subject: RE: Relationships Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 14:11:58 -0400 Message-ID: <004301c69495$05066160$b3200681@MEL.NIST.GOV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 Thread-Index: AcaUcf1j2c3QTuotQd6tp3c7sO3ENgAIkI6Q In-Reply-To: X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-MailScanner-From: conrad.bock@nist.gov X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.2/1551/Tue Jun 20 16:37:21 2006 on banginis X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on banginis.nomagic.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=3.5 tests=BAYES_20 autolearn=failed version=3.0.3 RE_ Relationships2.eml Return-Path: Received: from amethyst.omg.org (amethyst.omg.org [192.67.184.64]) by www.nomagic.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge1) with ESMTP id k5KI8eaW027365 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 21:08:42 +0300 Received: from hobbit.omg.org (hobbit.omg.org [192.67.184.3]) by amethyst.omg.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k5KHx7Zw023725 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 13:59:07 -0400 Received: from harbor.mel.nist.gov [129.6.70.12] by hobbit.omg.org asmtp(4.3a1) id 12089; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 13:51:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from omega (omega.mel.nist.gov [129.6.32.179]) by harbor.mel.nist.gov (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k5KIBwJl029174; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 14:11:58 -0400 Reply-To: From: "Conrad Bock" To: "'Branislav Selic'" , "'Nerijus Jankevicius'" Cc: Subject: RE: Relationships Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 14:11:58 -0400 Message-ID: <004301c69495$05066160$b3200681@MEL.NIST.GOV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 Thread-Index: AcaUcf1j2c3QTuotQd6tp3c7sO3ENgAIkI6Q In-Reply-To: X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-MailScanner-From: conrad.bock@nist.gov X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.2/1551/Tue Jun 20 16:37:21 2006 on banginis X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on banginis.nomagic.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=3.5 tests=BAYES_20 autolearn=failed version=3.0.3 From: "Nerijus Jankevicius" To: "Juergen Boldt" Subject: Issue 9834: Relationships Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 17:29:21 +0200 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at omg.org Hello Juergen, Please check history of issue 9834 - all attached emails shall be included, but by some reasons all emails from Pete Rivett and Conrad Bock are not included. Please add all these emails to issue's archive. Thanks. --Nerijus JankeviciusSystem AnalystOMG-Certified UML ProfessionalNo Magic Lithuanian Development CenterSavanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 KaunasP.O. box 2166, LT- 3000, KaunasPhone: +370-37-324032 Fax: +370-37-320670e-mail: nerijus@magicdraw.comWWW: http://www.magicdraw.com Return-Path: Received: from amethyst.omg.org (amethyst.omg.org [192.67.184.64]) by www.nomagic.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge1) with ESMTP id k5KCxdsd010920 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 15:59:40 +0300 Received: from hobbit.omg.org (hobbit.omg.org [192.67.184.3]) by amethyst.omg.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k5KCqmEM017027 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 08:52:48 -0400 Received: from gate.nomagic.com [195.22.190.3] by hobbit.omg.org asmtp(4.3a1) id 611; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 08:45:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from voras (voras.nomagic.com [195.22.190.76]) by gate.nomagic.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CD9034294 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:05:44 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <951001c6946a$0fa78980$4cbe16c3@voras> From: "Nerijus Jankevicius" To: Subject: Relationships Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:04:27 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_950D_01C69483.34E0EB60" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.2/1550/Mon Jun 19 20:01:35 2006 on banginis X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on banginis.nomagic.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.5 required=3.5 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_50_60, HTML_MESSAGE,NOT_TO_NM_DOMAIN,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=no version=3.0.3 Hello, Why Transition, ActivityEdge, Message, Connector are not Relationships? At least Transition and ActivityEdge should be DirectedRelationships in my opinion. If this is done intentionally, please explain, otherwise please register an issue. Regards, -- Nerijus Jankevicius Senior Programmer & System Analyst OMG-Certified UML Professional No Magic Lithuanian Development Center Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas P.O. box 2166, LT- 3000, Kaunas Phone: +370-37-324032 Fax: +370-37-320670 e-mail: nerijus@magicdraw.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com Return-Path: Received: from e1.ny.us.ibm.com (e1.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.141]) by www.nomagic.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge1) with ESMTP id k5KDp1Lo017657 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:51:01 +0300 Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.234]) by e1.ny.us.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k5KDwfsQ005451 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:58:41 -0400 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (d01av04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.64]) by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.13.6/NCO/VER7.0) with ESMTP id k5KDwfBO131832 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:58:41 -0400 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k5KDwfHs005925 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:58:41 -0400 Received: from d25ml01.torolab.ibm.com (d25ml01.torolab.ibm.com [9.26.6.102]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k5KDwfng005895; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:58:41 -0400 In-Reply-To: <951001c6946a$0fa78980$4cbe16c3@voras> To: "Nerijus Jankevicius" Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Relationships X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF242 April 21, 2006 From: Branislav Selic Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:58:39 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML01/25/M/IBM(Release 6.5.4|March 27, 2005) at 06/20/2006 09:58:40, Serialize complete at 06/20/2006 09:58:40 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 004CC7B585257193_=" X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.2/1550/Mon Jun 19 20:01:35 2006 on banginis X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on banginis.nomagic.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=3.5 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_40_50, HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=failed version=3.0.3 Although all of these are conceptually relationships, from a practical viewpoint there was really not much that could actually be reused from general concept of DirectedRelationship for any of these things. Practically every feature of DirectedRelationship would have to be either redefined or subset -- thereby bulking up the size of models. Before we raise an issue -- which will likely get rejected by an RTF -- can you identify what is the concern behind your question? Is it merely a question of esthetics and symmetry or is there some practical user-visible problem behind the current situation? 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 "Nerijus Jankevicius" 06/20/2006 09:04 AM To cc Subject Relationships Hello, Why Transition, ActivityEdge, Message, Connector are not Relationships? At least Transition and ActivityEdge should be DirectedRelationships in my opinion. If this is done intentionally, please explain, otherwise please register an issue. Regards, -- Nerijus Jankevicius Senior Programmer & System Analyst OMG-Certified UML Professional No Magic Lithuanian Development Center Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas P.O. box 2166, LT- 3000, Kaunas Phone: +370-37-324032 Fax: +370-37-320670 e-mail: nerijus@magicdraw.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com Return-Path: Received: from amethyst.omg.org (amethyst.omg.org [192.67.184.64]) by www.nomagic.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge1) with ESMTP id k5KDr8Tv017987 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:53:09 +0300 Received: from hobbit.omg.org (hobbit.omg.org [192.67.184.3]) by amethyst.omg.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k5KDjkv4018087 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:45:46 -0400 Received: from e4.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.144] by hobbit.omg.org asmtp(4.3a1) id 2503; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:38:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e4.ny.us.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k5KDwfAB009296 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:58:44 -0400 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (d01av04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.64]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.6/NCO/VER7.0) with ESMTP id k5KDwfAK274736 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:58:41 -0400 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k5KDwfHu005925 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:58:41 -0400 Received: from d25ml01.torolab.ibm.com (d25ml01.torolab.ibm.com [9.26.6.102]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k5KDwfng005895; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:58:41 -0400 In-Reply-To: <951001c6946a$0fa78980$4cbe16c3@voras> To: "Nerijus Jankevicius" Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Relationships X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF242 April 21, 2006 From: Branislav Selic Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:58:39 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML01/25/M/IBM(Release 6.5.4|March 27, 2005) at 06/20/2006 09:58:40, Serialize complete at 06/20/2006 09:58:40 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 004CC7B585257193_=" X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.2/1550/Mon Jun 19 20:01:35 2006 on banginis X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on banginis.nomagic.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=3.5 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_40_50, HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=failed version=3.0.3 Although all of these are conceptually relationships, from a practical viewpoint there was really not much that could actually be reused from general concept of DirectedRelationship for any of these things. Practically every feature of DirectedRelationship would have to be either redefined or subset -- thereby bulking up the size of models. Before we raise an issue -- which will likely get rejected by an RTF -- can you identify what is the concern behind your question? Is it merely a question of esthetics and symmetry or is there some practical user-visible problem behind the current situation? 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 "Nerijus Jankevicius" 06/20/2006 09:04 AM To cc Subject Relationships Hello, Why Transition, ActivityEdge, Message, Connector are not Relationships? At least Transition and ActivityEdge should be DirectedRelationships in my opinion. If this is done intentionally, please explain, otherwise please register an issue. Regards, -- Nerijus Jankevicius Senior Programmer & System Analyst OMG-Certified UML Professional No Magic Lithuanian Development Center Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas P.O. box 2166, LT- 3000, Kaunas Phone: +370-37-324032 Fax: +370-37-320670 e-mail: nerijus@magicdraw.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com Return-Path: Received: from DHOST001-50.DEX001.intermedia.net (dhost001-50.dex001.intermedia.net [64.78.21.197]) by www.nomagic.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge1) with ESMTP id k5KEdSEi027301 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 17:39:29 +0300 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C69478.80E6AE82" Subject: RE: Relationships X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 07:47:05 -0700 Message-ID: <674FC3679265A241ACB4BF58BA0EB3BE285D40@DHOST001-50.DEX001.intermedia.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Relationships Thread-Index: AcaUccGDZstk+nOOQV62xD5d/DaMwwAAHbTA From: "Pete Rivett" To: "Branislav Selic" , "Nerijus Jankevicius" Cc: X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.2/1550/Mon Jun 19 20:01:35 2006 on banginis X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on banginis.nomagic.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.1 required=3.5 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_50_60, HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_TAG_EXIST_TBODY,L_b_Generic,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=no version=3.0.3 Not sure what you mean by 'bulked up', Bran: the properties on (Directed)Relationship are derived unions and as such not serialized in XMI - so would have no XMI impact either on 'bulk' or on interoperability. Since frequently-used relationships such as Generalization and Dependency do inherit from DirectedRelationship it seems to me an oversight to not have these as (Directed)Relationships.Since we have these abstractions we should use them consistently for them to have any chance of being of value. Though they may be subsetted the derived unions on (Directed)Relationship can be used as accessors (in the same way the derived union ownedElement can be used to build generic tree views of models): and I can see value in this for tools that provide a generic level of impact/dependency (small 'd') analysis. So overall I would not share your confidence that such an issue would get rejected. Pete -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Branislav Selic [mailto:bselic@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 9:59 AM To: Nerijus Jankevicius Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Relationships Although all of these are conceptually relationships, from a practical viewpoint there was really not much that could actually be reused from general concept of DirectedRelationship for any of these things. Practically every feature of DirectedRelationship would have to be either redefined or subset -- thereby bulking up the size of models. Before we raise an issue -- which will likely get rejected by an RTF -- can you identify what is the concern behind your question? Is it merely a question of esthetics and symmetry or is there some practical user-visible problem behind the current situation? 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 "Nerijus Jankevicius" 06/20/2006 09:04 AM To cc Subject Relationships Hello, Why Transition, ActivityEdge, Message, Connector are not Relationships? At least Transition and ActivityEdge should be DirectedRelationships in my opinion. If this is done intentionally, please explain, otherwise please register an issue. Regards, -- Nerijus Jankevicius Senior Programmer & System Analyst OMG-Certified UML Professional No Magic Lithuanian Development Center Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas P.O. box 2166, LT- 3000, Kaunas Phone: +370-37-324032 Fax: +370-37-320670 e-mail: nerijus@magicdraw.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com Return-Path: Received: from amethyst.omg.org (amethyst.omg.org [192.67.184.64]) by www.nomagic.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge1) with ESMTP id k5KEjLoF032168 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 17:45:23 +0300 Received: from hobbit.omg.org (hobbit.omg.org [192.67.184.3]) by amethyst.omg.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k5KEakn4019995 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 10:36:47 -0400 Received: from gate.nomagic.com [195.22.190.3] by hobbit.omg.org asmtp(4.3a1) id 4480; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 10:29:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from voras (voras.nomagic.com [195.22.190.76]) by gate.nomagic.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 12C6042A0; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 17:49:41 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <95a101c69478$94c56a70$4cbe16c3@voras> From: "Nerijus Jankevicius" To: "Branislav Selic" Cc: References: Subject: Re: Relationships Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 17:48:23 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_959E_01C69491.B9E35510" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.2/1550/Mon Jun 19 20:01:35 2006 on banginis X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on banginis.nomagic.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.4 required=3.5 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_50_60, HTML_MESSAGE,HTML_TAG_EXIST_TBODY,NOT_TO_NM_DOMAIN,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=no version=3.0.3 Bran, The problem is that all relationships (conceptually) can't be used in the same way. From tool provider perspective, we should always use constructs like "Relationships + Transition, ActivityEdge, etc", we can't cast some "conceptual relationship" to Relationship type, it's not possible to collect and manage all "relationships" as such. The same situation from modeler perspective. As example, it is not possible to define stereotype for Relationship (for all "conceptual relationships"), not possible to run correct metrics and similar. We should always keep in mind , that some relationships are not Relationships! But why? Please note, that Transition description is : "A transition is a directed relationship between a source vertex and a target vertex. ", so it definitely should be subclass of DirectedRelationship! "source" and "target" should be subsets of "source" and "target" of DirectedRelationships (and renamed to sourceVertex and targetVertex or similar). The same situations is with ActivityEdge. Thanks for your time. -- Nerijus Jankevicius Senior Programmer & System Analyst OMG-Certified UML Professional No Magic Lithuanian Development Center Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas P.O. box 2166, LT- 3000, Kaunas Phone: +370-37-324032 Fax: +370-37-320670 e-mail: nerijus@magicdraw.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Branislav Selic To: Nerijus Jankevicius Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 4:58 PM Subject: Re: Relationships Although all of these are conceptually relationships, from a practical viewpoint there was really not much that could actually be reused from general concept of DirectedRelationship for any of these things. Practically every feature of DirectedRelationship would have to be either redefined or subset -- thereby bulking up the size of models. Before we raise an issue -- which will likely get rejected by an RTF -- can you identify what is the concern behind your question? Is it merely a question of esthetics and symmetry or is there some practical user-visible problem behind the current situation? 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 "Nerijus Jankevicius" 06/20/2006 09:04 AM To cc Subject Relationships Hello, Why Transition, ActivityEdge, Message, Connector are not Relationships? At least Transition and ActivityEdge should be DirectedRelationships in my opinion. If this is done intentionally, please explain, otherwise please register an issue. Regards, -- Nerijus Jankevicius Senior Programmer & System Analyst OMG-Certified UML Professional No Magic Lithuanian Development Center Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas P.O. box 2166, LT- 3000, Kaunas Phone: +370-37-324032 Fax: +370-37-320670 e-mail: nerijus@magicdraw.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com Return-Path: Received: from e1.ny.us.ibm.com (e1.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.141]) by www.nomagic.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge1) with ESMTP id k5KF8Efa012097 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:08:15 +0300 Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e1.ny.us.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k5KFFtTp030776 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:15:55 -0400 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (d01av04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.64]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.6/NCO/VER7.0) with ESMTP id k5KFFsU9246142 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:15:54 -0400 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k5KFFroo014488 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:15:53 -0400 Received: from d25ml01.torolab.ibm.com (d25ml01.torolab.ibm.com [9.26.6.102]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k5KFFrLU014459; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:15:53 -0400 In-Reply-To: <674FC3679265A241ACB4BF58BA0EB3BE285D40@DHOST001-50.DEX001.intermedia.net> To: "Pete Rivett" Cc: "Nerijus Jankevicius" , uml2-rtf@omg.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: Relationships X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF242 April 21, 2006 From: Branislav Selic Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:15:51 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML01/25/M/IBM(Release 6.5.4|March 27, 2005) at 06/20/2006 11:15:53, Serialize complete at 06/20/2006 11:15:53 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0053D8F085257193_=" X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.2/1551/Tue Jun 20 16:37:21 2006 on banginis X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on banginis.nomagic.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=3.5 tests=BAYES_00,CC_TO_NM_DOMAIN, HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE,NOT_TO_NM_DOMAIN autolearn=no version=3.0.3 > Not sure what you mean by 'bulked up', Bran: the properties on > (Directed)Relationship are derived unions and as such not serialized > in XMI - so would have no XMI impact either on 'bulk' or on interoperability. True. But it takes up space in the model repository. > Since frequently-used relationships such as Generalization and Dependency do > inherit from DirectedRelationship it seems to me an oversight to not > have these as (Directed)Relationships.Since we have these > abstractions we should use them consistently for them to have any > chance of being of value. It was not an oversight -- at least not in all cases. I distinctly recall that we made the explicit decision in case of Transition to NOT make it a kind of directed relationship. Bran Return-Path: Received: from amethyst.omg.org (amethyst.omg.org [192.67.184.64]) by www.nomagic.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge1) with ESMTP id k5KFB3kY012345 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:11:05 +0300 Received: from hobbit.omg.org (hobbit.omg.org [192.67.184.3]) by amethyst.omg.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k5KF2wrJ020578 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:02:59 -0400 Received: from e1.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.141] by hobbit.omg.org asmtp(4.3a1) id 5589; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 10:55:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.234]) by e1.ny.us.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k5KFFsXJ030770 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:15:55 -0400 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (d01av04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.64]) by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.13.6/NCO/VER7.0) with ESMTP id k5KFFsNw106766 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:15:54 -0400 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k5KFFroq014488 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:15:53 -0400 Received: from d25ml01.torolab.ibm.com (d25ml01.torolab.ibm.com [9.26.6.102]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k5KFFrLU014459; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:15:53 -0400 In-Reply-To: <674FC3679265A241ACB4BF58BA0EB3BE285D40@DHOST001-50.DEX001.intermedia.net> To: "Pete Rivett" Cc: "Nerijus Jankevicius" , uml2-rtf@omg.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: Relationships X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF242 April 21, 2006 From: Branislav Selic Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:15:51 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML01/25/M/IBM(Release 6.5.4|March 27, 2005) at 06/20/2006 11:15:53, Serialize complete at 06/20/2006 11:15:53 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0053D8F085257193_=" X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.2/1551/Tue Jun 20 16:37:21 2006 on banginis X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on banginis.nomagic.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=3.5 tests=BAYES_00,CC_TO_NM_DOMAIN, HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE,NOT_TO_NM_DOMAIN autolearn=no version=3.0.3 > Not sure what you mean by 'bulked up', Bran: the properties on > (Directed)Relationship are derived unions and as such not serialized > in XMI - so would have no XMI impact either on 'bulk' or on interoperability. True. But it takes up space in the model repository. > Since frequently-used relationships such as Generalization and Dependency do > inherit from DirectedRelationship it seems to me an oversight to not > have these as (Directed)Relationships.Since we have these > abstractions we should use them consistently for them to have any > chance of being of value. It was not an oversight -- at least not in all cases. I distinctly recall that we made the explicit decision in case of Transition to NOT make it a kind of directed relationship. Bran Return-Path: Received: from DHOST001-50.DEX001.intermedia.net (dhost001-50.dex001.intermedia.net [64.78.21.197]) by www.nomagic.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge1) with ESMTP id k5KHqkQH026166 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 20:52:47 +0300 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: Relationships X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:00:22 -0700 Message-ID: <674FC3679265A241ACB4BF58BA0EB3BE285D6C@DHOST001-50.DEX001.intermedia.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Relationships Thread-Index: AcaUfKJVCBM8thBeRY2I2+aFPDJoYAAAlGLw From: "Pete Rivett" To: "Branislav Selic" Cc: "Nerijus Jankevicius" , X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.2/1551/Tue Jun 20 16:37:21 2006 on banginis X-Virus-Status: Clean Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www.nomagic.com id k5KHqkQH026166 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on banginis.nomagic.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.7 required=3.5 tests=BAYES_00,CC_TO_NM_DOMAIN, NOT_TO_NM_DOMAIN,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=no version=3.0.3 RE_ Relationships.eml Return-Path: Received: from amethyst.omg.org (amethyst.omg.org [192.67.184.64]) by www.nomagic.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge1) with ESMTP id k5KHtnPB026367 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 20:55:51 +0300 Received: from hobbit.omg.org (hobbit.omg.org [192.67.184.3]) by amethyst.omg.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k5KHlZwt023486 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 13:47:36 -0400 Received: from dhost001-50.dex001.intermedia.net [64.78.21.197] by hobbit.omg.org asmtp(4.3a1) id 11667; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 13:39:57 -0400 (EDT) Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: Relationships X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:00:22 -0700 Message-ID: <674FC3679265A241ACB4BF58BA0EB3BE285D6C@DHOST001-50.DEX001.intermedia.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Relationships Thread-Index: AcaUfKJVCBM8thBeRY2I2+aFPDJoYAAAlGLw From: "Pete Rivett" To: "Branislav Selic" Cc: "Nerijus Jankevicius" , X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.2/1551/Tue Jun 20 16:37:21 2006 on banginis X-Virus-Status: Clean Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www.nomagic.com id k5KHtnPB026367 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on banginis.nomagic.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.7 required=3.5 tests=BAYES_00,CC_TO_NM_DOMAIN, NOT_TO_NM_DOMAIN,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=no version=3.0.3 RE_ Relationships1.eml Return-Path: Received: from harbor.mel.nist.gov (harbor.mel.nist.gov [129.6.70.12]) by www.nomagic.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge1) with ESMTP id k5KI4DH3027020 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 21:04:14 +0300 Received: from omega (omega.mel.nist.gov [129.6.32.179]) by harbor.mel.nist.gov (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k5KIBwJl029174; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 14:11:58 -0400 Reply-To: From: "Conrad Bock" To: "'Branislav Selic'" , "'Nerijus Jankevicius'" Cc: Subject: RE: Relationships Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 14:11:58 -0400 Message-ID: <004301c69495$05066160$b3200681@MEL.NIST.GOV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 Thread-Index: AcaUcf1j2c3QTuotQd6tp3c7sO3ENgAIkI6Q In-Reply-To: X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-MailScanner-From: conrad.bock@nist.gov X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.2/1551/Tue Jun 20 16:37:21 2006 on banginis X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on banginis.nomagic.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=3.5 tests=BAYES_20 autolearn=failed version=3.0.3 RE_ Relationships2.eml Return-Path: Received: from amethyst.omg.org (amethyst.omg.org [192.67.184.64]) by www.nomagic.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3sarge1) with ESMTP id k5KI8eaW027365 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 21:08:42 +0300 Received: from hobbit.omg.org (hobbit.omg.org [192.67.184.3]) by amethyst.omg.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k5KHx7Zw023725 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 13:59:07 -0400 Received: from harbor.mel.nist.gov [129.6.70.12] by hobbit.omg.org asmtp(4.3a1) id 12089; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 13:51:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from omega (omega.mel.nist.gov [129.6.32.179]) by harbor.mel.nist.gov (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k5KIBwJl029174; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 14:11:58 -0400 Reply-To: From: "Conrad Bock" To: "'Branislav Selic'" , "'Nerijus Jankevicius'" Cc: Subject: RE: Relationships Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 14:11:58 -0400 Message-ID: <004301c69495$05066160$b3200681@MEL.NIST.GOV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 Thread-Index: AcaUcf1j2c3QTuotQd6tp3c7sO3ENgAIkI6Q In-Reply-To: X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact postmaster@mel.nist.gov for more information X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-MailScanner-From: conrad.bock@nist.gov X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.2/1551/Tue Jun 20 16:37:21 2006 on banginis X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on banginis.nomagic.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=3.5 tests=BAYES_20 autolearn=failed version=3.0.3 X-YMail-OSG: Q672j7kVM1nWlOgMaRYHrl3EDhrq_HU2zod6SWSN.ihmUFSCfcceWj5y1cvWD3X38w-- Reply-To: From: "Thomas Weigert" To: "'Nerijus Jankevicius'" , "'Tim Weilkiens'" , Cc: "'Branislav Selic'" , "'Pete Rivett'" Subject: RE: updated resolutions for UML 2.2 Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 21:14:02 -0500 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-Index: Acfr32xEUYI+MSCISnigJyjbz2KUlwAXY+yw Regarding issue 9834, I believe the submitter has a much broader interpretation of "Relationship" than the UML. I believe that the term is used for "structural" semantic connections between elements (e.g., generalization, association, etc.) but not for behavioral connections (transitions, message, information flow, etc.). The submitter motivates the proposed change by, for example, claiming that the users are inconvenienced by transitions not being relationships, as it is difficult to write a nice formula that computes metrics. I find it hard to imagine what kind of metric the user would have in mind that throws generalization and messages into a single pot. Probably there is no harm done by the proposed change, but I cannot see much good either of adding unnecessary generalizations. Th. > -----Original Message----- > From: Nerijus Jankevicius [mailto:nerijus@nomagic.com] > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 9:42 AM > To: Tim Weilkiens; uml2-rtf@omg.org > Cc: Branislav Selic; Pete Rivett > Subject: Re: updated resolutions for UML 2.2 Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 14:51:23 +0300 From: Andrius Strazdauskas User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) To: weigert@umr.edu Cc: "'Nerijus Jankevicius'" , "'Tim Weilkiens'" , uml2-rtf@omg.org, "'Branislav Selic'" , "'Pete Rivett'" Subject: Re: updated resolutions for UML 2.2 Thomas, I see your point, however please imagine such situation: You need to collect dependencies between elements (not UML Dependencies). So you have couple of cases: Element is used as property value Element is a client/supplier of Relationship Element is a client/supplier of Transition Element is a client/supplier of ActivityEdge etc This clearly shows, that UML lacks proper structure, and this is just one possible case. So, from the tool vendor perspective, this is a huge issue. -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Lithuanian Development Center Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple Thomas Weigert wrote: Regarding issue 9834, I believe the submitter has a much broader interpretation of "Relationship" than the UML. I believe that the term is used for "structural" semantic connections between elements (e.g., generalization, association, etc.) but not for behavioral connections (transitions, message, information flow, etc.). The submitter motivates the proposed change by, for example, claiming that the users are inconvenienced by transitions not being relationships, as it is difficult to write a nice formula that computes metrics. I find it hard to imagine what kind of metric the user would have in mind that throws generalization and messages into a single pot. Probably there is no harm done by the proposed change, but I cannot see much good either of adding unnecessary generalizations. Th. -----Original Message----- From: Nerijus Jankevicius [mailto:nerijus@nomagic.com] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 9:42 AM To: Tim Weilkiens; uml2-rtf@omg.org Cc: Branislav Selic; Pete Rivett Subject: Re: updated resolutions for UML 2.2 To: "Nerijus Jankevicius" Cc: "Pete Rivett" , uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: updated resolutions for UML 2.2 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 From: Branislav Selic Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 08:26:44 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML01/25/M/IBM(Release 7.0.2HF446 | March 16, 2007) at 09/04/2007 08:26:44, Serialize complete at 09/04/2007 08:26:44 Thank you very much, Nerijus, for taking the initiative to propose resolutions to these issues. I've already commented a bit on some of the proposed resolutions, but here is my complete list of comments to each of your resolutions. I believe that we will need more discussions on these issues in the next few weeks. ====================================================================== Issue 11240: Indeed there seems to be redundancy between TemplateParameter::default and ClassifierTemplateParameter::defaultClassifier, but there are numerous examples of this in the spec. It allows polymorphism, so that software dealing with TemplateParameters in general can ignore which type of specialization is in question. Redefinition would prevent that capability. What is the motivation behind this issue and resolution? Is it implementation optimization, metamodel consistency, or something else? What effect will this have on users and existing models, if any? Issue 11244: Same comment as 11240 Issue 11243: Seems OK, except that the text needs to be fixed a bit to ensure correct English usage; here is a suggestion (italics are words that I changed from your original): . constrainingClassifier : Classifier [0..*] The classifiers that constrain the argument that can be used for the parameter. If the allowSubstitutable attribute is true, then any classifier that is compatible with any of these constraining classifiers can be substituted; otherwise, it must be either one of these classifiers or their respective subclasses. If this property is empty, there are no constraints on the classifier that can be used as an argument. Issue 11239: Agreed. The statement should read: "make ValueSpecification::duration and ValueSpecification::timeExpression composites" Issue 10591: The issue seems quite valid, but is ValueSpecification (instead of Action) general enough? We need Oystein to comment on the thinking behind this one. I believe that the intent was to point to an action instance that had the necessary values specified; if so, it is a rather vague and indirect way to specify arguments. Issue 10820: I think that the real problem here is that the semantics of ports providing/requiring multiple interfaces are highly ambiguous. A much better solution to this problem is to limit the number to at most one required and/or provided interface per port. This will remove the ambiguity in both the connection and the semantics of ports. This issue needs to be addressed in depth. Issue 9003: Agreed, but we need to understand the impact of this on implementations on users and existing tools. Issue 9834: Although this proposal sounds reasonable, it should be clear that this is merely an optimization intended to make the jobs of tool builders easier; it is transparent to UML modelers. Therefore, a change like this should be assessed in terms of its impact on existing models and tools. For example, if the impact is backward compatibility issues between models of different versions or to bulking up of models due to additional data per model element, then I dont think it is worth the effort. I am also concerned with the possibility of introducing additional semantic conflicts between the current definition of these elements and the new generalization. How can we be confident that such conflicts will not be created? Unless we have reassurances of this type, it seems to me that this is more trouble than it's worth. Issues 8077, 9961, 9962: These too look like optimizations that are really only of benefit to tool builders, and not necessarily all of them. Modeler's can create links in their model currently and are not overly concerned with whether the repository names the result Link or InstanceSpecification. This may not be worth the disruption that it introduces. Issue 10819: I have already commented on this one. I agree that there are problems here that need to be resolved; but, as I said, I think that this is a key architectural issue that should be addressed in a systematic manner, rather than as some kind of local fix. Issue 10821: I agree that something needs to be done about this. However, I have concerns that the proposed resolution is too loose, since it allows any element to be named as a reference. It would be nice if this could be tightened in some way. I think we need to discuss this one further. ====================================================================== 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 "Nerijus Jankevicius" 08/24/2007 11:22 AM To cc Branislav Selic/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA, "Pete Rivett" Subject updated resolutions for UML 2.2 Hello, See attached updated list of resolutions of some important UML 2.1.1 issues. Some issues requires quite important metamodel changes, so please start discussions on that. Any feedback is welcome. Thanks in advance, -- Nerijus Jankevicius Senior System Analyst No Magic Lithuanian Development Center[attachment "resolutions of UML2.2 issues.doc" deleted by Branislav Selic/Ottawa/IBM] Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 21:33:10 +0300 From: Andrius Strazdauskas User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) To: weigert@umr.edu Cc: "'Nerijus Jankevicius'" , "'Tim Weilkiens'" , uml2-rtf@omg.org, "'Branislav Selic'" , "'Pete Rivett'" Subject: Re: updated resolutions for UML 2.2 Thomas, this is a late response, but anyway, it is worth mentioning. In the UPDM (UML Profile for DoDAF/MODAF) submission, an InformationFlow can be realized by Association, Connector, ControlFlow and Message. So the model queries/OCL rules will be problematic. Do you still think that it is a bad idea to have a common ancestor for those elements? Andrius -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Lithuanian Development Center Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple Thomas Weigert wrote: Regarding issue 9834, I believe the submitter has a much broader interpretation of "Relationship" than the UML. I believe that the term is used for "structural" semantic connections between elements (e.g., generalization, association, etc.) but not for behavioral connections (transitions, message, information flow, etc.). The submitter motivates the proposed change by, for example, claiming that the users are inconvenienced by transitions not being relationships, as it is difficult to write a nice formula that computes metrics. I find it hard to imagine what kind of metric the user would have in mind that throws generalization and messages into a single pot. Probably there is no harm done by the proposed change, but I cannot see much good either of adding unnecessary generalizations. Th. -----Original Message----- From: Nerijus Jankevicius [mailto:nerijus@nomagic.com] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 9:42 AM To: Tim Weilkiens; uml2-rtf@omg.org Cc: Branislav Selic; Pete Rivett Subject: Re: updated resolutions for UML 2.2