UAF 1.1 RTF Avatar
  1. OMG Issue

UAF11 — Definition of FunctionAction is too tight

  • Key: UAF11-31
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Akademiska sjukhuset ( Hans Natvig)
  • Summary:

    Is it necessary for the definition of FunctionAction (and other actions as well) to extend CallBehaviorAction. What about other actions such as accept event action and wait time action? Could the stereotypes in UAFP which today extend the call behaviour action, be changed to extend the more general action instead?

  • Reported: UAF 1.0b2 — Fri, 8 Dec 2017 11:48 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — UAF 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No need to over-stereotype elements

    As UAFP is extension of SysML and SysML is extension of UML, all types of actions are allowed to be used to construct UAF processes views. Extending call Behaviour action in particular has a specific purpose to constraint its behaviour. Function Action for example is constrained to only Function to be used as its Behaviour. There is no need to extend elements if they do not have any modifications compared to the base class in UML. However, they can be used in the model and have the same semantics as UML defines.

  • Updated: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 17:49 GMT