UML22 — choice of terminolgy for TransitionKind is non-intuitive

The choice of terminolgy for TransitionKind is non-intuitive for many of us, and therefore leads to misuse. Specifically, one would expect the antonym pair "Internal" and "External" be applied to a conceptual pair such as "Exits the composite state" and "Does not exit the composite state". Instead the terms "External" and "Local" refer to these behaviors, respectively. Further, the term "Internal" is then used to describe a concept that has nothing to do with state transitions, but rather, is a reaction to a trigger. It appears to us that the transition and reaction concepts were generalized based on their members (trigger, guard, effect) and not on their behavior. We have found this approach to be a bad practice. Behavioral generalization is more intuitive, and therefore more appropriate. We suggest the following changes: "Internal implies that the transition, if triggered, will not exit the composite (source) state, but it will apply to any state within the composite state, and these will be exited and entered." "External implies that the transition, if triggered, will exit the composite (source) state." Move what is currently described as an "Internal Transition" to a separate concept named "Reaction".

Discussion
Although terminology is almost always contentious and a matter of taste, the submitter has a solid point that this
particular case can be particularly confusing. However, it has been around since UML 2.0, and changing it at this
point would likely lead to more confusion and have an impact existing implementations and texts. It seems better to
leave it unchanged at this point.
Disposition: Closed - No Change