Express Metamodel Avatar
  1. OMG Specification

Express Metamodel — All Issues

  • Acronym: EXPRESS
  • Issues Count: 61
  • Description: All Issues
Open Closed All
All Issues

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
EXPRESS_-78 InstantiableType:fundamental-type should be derived EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-77 Correct indexing/selector text EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-76 Correct Figure references EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-75 Use consistent class diagram style EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-74 Correct UML qualified name syntax EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-73 SizeConstraint/LengthConstraint subset ParameterType:constraints EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-72 Literal:refers-to subsets Expression:evaluation EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-71 Wording of Redeclaration:lower-/upper-bound EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-70 Nature of InstantiableType EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-69 Text of Definition of RangeRole:range EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-68 Attribute:attribute-type is not a DataType EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-67 Figure 28 is the wrong figure EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-66 Distinguish AliasRef from VariableRef in text EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-65 Correct semantics of optional RETURN value EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-64 Correct the properties of Alias-binds-variable EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-63 Correct model of AliasStatement and AliasVariable EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-62 Statements can appear outside StatementBlocks EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-61 in 12.11 most values not specified as an instance object in the Instances package (Clause 9) EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-60 Indeterminate literal is not documented EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-59 Delete associations to Instance classes in 12.10 EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-58 PartialEntityConstructor attributes subset Expression attributes EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-57 Incorrect model of AggregateInitializer EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-56 AggInitializer:result-value subsets evaluation EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-55 12.8, Query expressions EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-54 Provide link for actual-referent EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-52 Correct text of Operations and FunctionCalls EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-51 AttributeRef/GroupRef:id subsets Expression:text EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-53 Clarify ActualParameter:inFunctionCall EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-50 Delete ParameterRef:id EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-49 id attributes in 12.3 subset Expression:text EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-45 id attributes in 12.3 subset Expression:text EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-44 GenericElement:source is not composite EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-48 GenericElement:source is not composite EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-47 Delete ParameterRef:id EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-46 Literal refers-to SimpleValue is not abstract EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-43 correct documentation of extent-within-population EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-42 Correct documentation of Extent:content EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-41 True, False and Unknown are not defined EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-40 Constrain of-type for SimpleValue subclasses EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-37 Remove instance-of-type EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-39 Correct derivation for value-of-EnumerationType EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-38 derivation of Redeclaration:refined-role EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-36 Derivation of redeclaration bounds EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-34 derivation of role bounds EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-35 remove "derivedFrom" dependency EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-32 Correct derivation of plays-domain-role EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-31 Scope of Attribute is not modeled EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-30 entity-has-attributes documentation EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-29 EnumerationType:values is derived EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-33 Parameter:explicit-role is not defined EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-28 Some ActualTypes have namespaces EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-27 Associations that should be composite EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-26 The metamodel doesn't seem to support a Schema -> Interface -> Schema relationship EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-25 Excess text in schema-interfaces-elements Definitions EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS_-24 Question on InvertibleAttribute subclass of ExplicitAttribute EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0 Resolved closed
EXPRESS-5 Choose a term for "referent" of VARExpression EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0b2 Resolved closed
EXPRESS-2 What is a GenericElement? EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0b2 Resolved closed
EXPRESS-1 Correct/explain the type model for InParameter EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0b2 Resolved closed
EXPRESS-4 Two Subtypes of ActualParameter EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0b2 Resolved closed
EXPRESS-3 AttributeRef/GroupRef:id subsets Expression:text EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0b2 Resolved closed
EXPRESS-6 EXPRESS MM issue: Correct definition of E EXPRESS 1.0b1 EXPRESS 1.0b2 Resolved closed

Issues Descriptions

InstantiableType:fundamental-type should be derived

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13929
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In clause 8.6.7.3, InstantiableType:fundamental-type has multiplicity 1..1. This is semantically correct, but it has the effect of requiring the fundamental-type association to be instantiated for every InstantiableType in every Schema, even though it is only used in evaluating Expressions involving SpecializedTypes. The EXPRESS rule is given in the Definition, and it can be considered to be a (recursive) derivation rule. Making the attribute "derived" in this way removes the requirement for it to be instantiated.

    Proposed change: Make InstantiableType:fundamental-type a derived association.

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Tue, 12 May 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    From a semantic point of view, it is a derived attribute, and the derivation rule is stated in the definition. So the change is appropriate in all cases.

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:54 GMT

Correct indexing/selector text

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13919
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    The introductory text of sections 12.4 and 12.5 is identical, but section 12.4 is about indexing operations, and 12.5 is about selectors. This should be cleaned up

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Tue, 5 May 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Rewrite the introductions to match the section content

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:54 GMT

Correct Figure references

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13918
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    All of the Figure references in the Beta-1 text are broken. They have been replaced by the section number in which the Figure is to be found. And in most cases, the reference immediately precedes the figure in that section. For example, on p.37, the second line of the first paragraph of section 8.5 (Remarks) reads: "8.5 depicts the Remark concept...". In the Alpha version it read: "Figure 5 depicts the Remark concept...".

    There are two other Figure reference errors: In 12.8, the reference is missing entirely; the second sentence begins "depicts...". In 10.5, paragraph 1, "yyy" should be a reference to Figure 30.

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Tue, 5 May 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Correct the references to Figures to match the Alpha text. The error in clause 12.8 is resolved by Issue 13701.

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:54 GMT

Use consistent class diagram style

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13917
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    The UML class diagrams were drawn with two different tools, with the consequence that the diagrams have two radically different styles. This causes the reader to wonder whether there is a meaning to the difference in style. Change all the class diagrams to use the same style

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Tue, 5 May 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    The appearance of the specification is improved by using a common diagram style. Replace all the large-font black and white figures that are not being updated by other issue resolutions, specifically Figures 1, 5, 6, 17, 18, 24, 35, 37, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50.

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:54 GMT

Correct UML qualified name syntax

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13916
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In many places, the specification uses the EXPRESS convention for qualified names (owner.element) instead of the UML convention (owner:element). These should be changed to use the UML convention

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Tue, 5 May 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Correct the text to use the UML convention in all cases

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:54 GMT

SizeConstraint/LengthConstraint subset ParameterType:constraints

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13904
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In clause 8.8.1.3 BinaryType:binary-length-constraint says that it refines InstantiableType.constraints. In clause 8.8.7.3 StringType:string-length-constraint says that it refines InstantiableType.constraints. In clause 8.9.1.3 AggregationType:lower-bound and :upper-bound say that they refine. InstantiableType.constraints.

    Actually, they all subset ParameterType:constraints and should be documented as such.

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Change documentation of BinaryType:binary-length-constraint, StringType:string-length-constraint, AggregationType:lower-bound, and AggregationType:upper-bound to specify them as “subsets: ParameterType:constraints”.
    Change Figures 9 and 10 to show the subset properties.

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:54 GMT

Literal:refers-to subsets Expression:evaluation

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13903
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In clause 12.3.2.3 EnumerationItem:refers-to says that it specializes Expression:evaluation. In clause 12.3.4.3 IndeterminateRef:refers-to says that it specializes Expression:evaluation. In clause 12.3.5.3 Literal:refers-to says that it specializes Expression:evaluation.

    These should be documented as "subsets: Expression:evaluation" instead of being derived from it.

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Change documentation of EnumerationItem:refers-to, IndeterminateRef:refers-to, and Literal:refers-to from a derivation to "subsets: Expression:evaluation". Figure 34 is correct.

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:54 GMT

Wording of Redeclaration:lower-/upper-bound

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13902
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In clause 8.13.1.3 under lower-bound, the Definition reads:
    "represents a restriction on the minimum cardinality of the role that is stated by the Redeclaration." And upper-bound is similarly defined. But the lower-bound represents the minimum cardinality, which is a restriction on the cardinality. It should be reworded: "represents the minimum cardinality of the role that is constrained by the Redeclaration." And similarly for upper-bound.

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Correct the wording

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:54 GMT

Nature of InstantiableType

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13901
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In clause 8.6, the 6th paragraph begins: "InstantiableTypes represent all of the data types that have actual Instances." This is incorrect, since PartialEntityValues are instances of PartialEntityTypes, which are DataTypes but not InstantiableTypes. Clause 8.6.7 correctly says that InstantiableTypes cover the data types of all objects and property values.

    In clause 8.6.7, the second sentence of the definition reads: "InstantiableType is a proper subtype of DataType (which includes classifiers that represent conformance rules for InstantiableTypes)." The parenthetical clause is wrong or at least misleading, and in any case the intent here was probably to mention PartialEntityTypes.

    The text of these two paragraphs should be corrected.

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Correct/clarify the text of 8.6 and 8.6.7.

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:54 GMT

Text of Definition of RangeRole:range

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13900
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In clause 8.12.2.3, the Definition of range ends "Derivation: range = .domain-view.attribute-type." This text should be struck. The correct derivation is given below.

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Delete the leftover text

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:54 GMT

Attribute:attribute-type is not a DataType

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13899
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In clause 8.11.1.3, the Definition of attribute-type says "represents the required DataType... The DataType is required to be ...".
    What is intended here is "data type" – the general concept – not DataType, which is a class in the metamodel, and it is the wrong one.

    Also, the second sentence could be less cryptic. When the Attribute is defined within the scope of an Algorithm, the attribute-type can be an ActualType. When the Attribute is an "abstract attribute", it's nominal attribute-type is always a GeneralizedType.

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Correct/clarify the Definition of Attribute:attribute-type.

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:54 GMT

Figure 28 is the wrong figure

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13880
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    Figure 28 is a duplicate of Figure 29. It does not depict the ActualType and its subtypes concepts that were in Figure 28 of the Alpha version of the specification.

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Replace Figure 28 with the ActualTypes Figure from the Alpha specification

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:54 GMT

Distinguish AliasRef from VariableRef in text

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13713
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In 13.10.4 AliasVariable, it should be stated that an AliasRef to an AliasVariable produces a different result from a VariableRef to an AliasVariable. The AliasRef produces the cell/variable/referent place, the VariableRef produces the value that is currently there. And for that reason, .refers-to may be a bad choice for the association end name (it is different from VariableRef:refers-to).

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add a Note to the effect that an AliasRef to a Variable produces a different result from a VariableRef to the same Variable.

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:54 GMT

Correct semantics of optional RETURN value

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13711
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In, 13.9.1.3 RETURNStatement:return-value, what is stated here for FunctionCalls is syntactically correct, but semantically incorrect. The semantic rule is, if the RETURN statement appears in a FUNCTION it always has a return-value. If the return-value is not specified in the syntax, it is (implicitly) a VariableRef to the FunctionResult.

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Correct the Definitions of ReturnStatement and result-value to state the semantic rule.

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:54 GMT

Correct the properties of Alias-binds-variable

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13710
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In 13.3.3, Alias-binds-variable, it is the alias-variable property of the AliasStatement that is composite, not the namespace property of the AliasVariable, and Figure 44 shows neither. This error is duplicated in 13.3.2.3 and 13.3.1.3.

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Figure 44 is corrected by Issue 13709. Change the association end properties in all occurrences in the text. Also, AliasStatement:body should be documented as composite.

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:54 GMT

Correct model of AliasStatement and AliasVariable

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13709
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In 13.3.1, AliasStatement, the text says the ALIAS statement binds the AliasVariable to a VARExpression called the "referent", but neither the diagram nor the documented associations relate a VARExpression to the AliasStatement. 13.3.2 shows the referent VARExpression as an attribute of AliasVariable. This association should certainly appear in the diagram in Figure 44. But the actual referent of the AliasVariable at any given time is what the VARExpression evaluates to when the AliasStatement is executed. The referent VARExpression should be associated with the AliasStatement, not with the AliasVariable. That other Variables have runtime values is a fact that does not seem to have an image in the metamodel (e.g., Variable does not have a current-value association); so the fact that an AliasVariable has a runtime referent should not have such a model, either.

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    The argument is correct. The “referent” expression should be associated with the AliasStatement, not with the AliasVariable.
    When correcting Figure 44, also correct the missing Composites for alias-binds-variable and alias-has-body.

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:54 GMT

Statements can appear outside StatementBlocks

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13708
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In 13.2.5.1, under AssociationEnd: in-block, the Note says that every statement that is not a StatementBlock occurs in a StatementBlock. But the model does not appear to support this. There is no such OCL rule. And, for example, the end class of IFStatement:then-actions is a Statement, not a StatementBlock. So the first sentence of the Note appears to be false and should be struck. (Or the corresponding OCL rule should be written.)

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Delete the first sentence of the Note in 13.2.5.1.

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:53 GMT

in 12.11 most values not specified as an instance object in the Instances package (Clause 9)

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13707
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In 12.11, each literal is said to represent some value. But none of these values, except for Indeterminate, is actually specified as an Instance object in the Instances package (Clause 9). Each of them should have a .refers-to link to an object that appears in Clause 9. And each of these objects should have a .text attribute value, specifying its representation.

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Issue 13683 is extended to add E and PI to the NamedValues package.
    Correct Figure 42 and the text to show the attributes of the BuiltInConstants

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:53 GMT

Indeterminate literal is not documented

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13706
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In 12.11 BuiltInConstants, the Indeterminate Literal ("?") appears in the diagram in Figure 42, but is not documented in the text.

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    The Indeterminate Literal (“?”) is modeled in clause 12.3.4 as IndeterminateRef, and is documented there. It is treated as a distinct kind of Primary, rather than as an instance of Literal, because it does not refer to a SimpleValue.
    Delete the Indeterminate object from the diagram in Figure 42, and add a Note to 12.3.4.
    Issue 13707 replaces Figure 42, implementing the deletion.

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:53 GMT

Delete associations to Instance classes in 12.10

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13705
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In 12.10 PartialEntityConstructor, Figure 41, the AttributeValue, SingleEntityValue, and PartialEntityValue objects are the result of evaluating the constructor at a particular runtime instant. They should not be part of this model - the results of other operations are not modeled. The associations that reflect runtime evaluation - AttributeBinding:to-value, and PartialEntityConstructor:result-value should be deleted from the model. (Some such diagram could be used to explain what is happening, but it would be descriptive, not normative. Or these relationships could be shown as some kind of stereotyped dependency.)

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    AttributeBinding:to-value should not be part of the model, and it isn’t documented; it only appears in Figure 41. And the use of AttributeValue and SingleEntityValue in the diagram are inappropriate.
    PartialEntityConstructor:result-value provides a means of linking a constant value to the constructor Expression when appropriate – it subsets Expression:evaluation.

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:53 GMT

PartialEntityConstructor attributes subset Expression attributes

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13704
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In 12.10 PartialEntityConstructor, the id value attribute should be documented as subsets Expression.text, and not as derived from it. And the result-value attribute should be documented as subsets: Expression.evaluation, and not as derived from it.

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Document PartialEntityConstructor:id as subsets Expression:text and remove the derivation. Note: Figure 41 is correct in this regard, but Figure 33 shows id as a derived attribute.
    Document PartialEntityConstructor:result-value as subsets Expression:evaluation and remove the derivation.

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:53 GMT

Incorrect model of AggregateInitializer

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13703
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In 12.9, AggregateInitializer, Figure 40, the use of ListMember is wrong. A MemberBinding in an AggregateInitializer binds to a virtual "slot" in a virtual GenericAggregate. It does not bind to a ListMember of a specific LISTValue until it is evaluated in a particular runtime occurrence. (For example, the same initializer could produce different values if it occurs within a REPEAT statement and some member-value expression depends on the control-variable.) So the model in Figure 40 is incorrect. MemberBinding:to-slot is not a ListMember. It is a GenericMember of "generic aggregate", which refers to the result of the AggregateInitializer itself. In the metamodel, each other Expression class denotes the abstraction of its evaluation – we don't explicitly model the result instance. So GenericAggregate, if that is what it models, is not an Instance; it is the abstract result of the AggregateInitializer. Each actual result value is an AggregateValue, but not necessarily a LISTValue.

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    The use of ListMember is wrong – the MemberBinding binds a member-value Expression to a virtual slot, not to an actual slot in a ListValue. The association MemberBinding:to-slot should be removed from the model.
    There is no need to model the “GenericMember”, since its properties may be totally dependent on the evaluation of RepeatCounts.
    According to ISO 10303-11 (clause 12.9), the nature of the Instance that is the evaluation of the AggregateInitializer Expression is a value of type AGGREGATE OF GENERIC. The class GenericAggregate models that concept, as specified in 9.4.6.

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:53 GMT

AggInitializer:result-value subsets evaluation

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13702
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In 12.9, AggregateInitializer, the result-value attribute should be documented as subsets Expression:evaluation, and not as derived from it.

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Document result-value as subsets Expression:evaluation and remove the derivation

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:53 GMT

12.8, Query expressions

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13701
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In 12.8, Query expressions, first paragraph, "depicts the concepts" should be at least "Figure 38 depicts the concepts." Further, some of the text erroneously appearing at the beginning of 12.7 might belong here. In EXPRESS, QUERY is a function.

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Replace the first paragraph of 12.8 with a description of the relationship to EXPRESS QUERY, and refer to Figure 39.

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:53 GMT

Provide link for actual-referent

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13700
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In 12.7.1.3, ActualParameter:actual-referent does not appear in Figure 38 above. There should be a reference here to Figure 48.

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add the reference in a Note

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:53 GMT

Correct text of Operations and FunctionCalls

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13697
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In 12.6 Operations and 12.7 Function Calls, the first two paragraphs of both sections are identical. The first sentence reads: "This section describes Operations, QueryExpressions and Function Calls." And then it goes on to describe them. But 12.6 only presents the model for Operations and 12.7 only presents the model for FunctionCalls. These two paragraphs need to be rewritten in both places.

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Rewrite the introduction to 12.6 and 12.7

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:53 GMT

AttributeRef/GroupRef:id subsets Expression:text

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13696
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In 12.5, the id attribute of AttributeRef and GroupRef should be documented as subsets Expression:text, and not as derived from it, in both the text and the class diagram (figure 36).

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    duplicates issue 13692
    Disposition: See issue 13692 for disposition

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:53 GMT

Clarify ActualParameter:inFunctionCall

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13699
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In 12.7.1 ActualParameter, there should be a Constraint that every ActualParameter is either inFunctionCall or inProcedureCall. In the text, it is not clear what "(always in a FunctionCall)" means in "When the corresponding formal Parameter is an InParameter (always in a FunctionCall), …". The intent is that in a FunctionCall, the corresponding formal parameter is always an InParameter, but the text appears to say that when the formal parameter is an InParameter it must be in a FunctionCall. So the text should be clarified and a corresponding Constraint should be stated.

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Clarify the text of the Definition, and add the suggested OCL constraint.

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:53 GMT

Delete ParameterRef:id

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13695
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In 12.3.6.2 ParameterRef:id is inherited from VariableRef and should not appear here.

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    duplicates issue 13691
    Disposition: See issue 13691 for disposition

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:53 GMT

id attributes in 12.3 subset Expression:text

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13694
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In 12.3, the .id attribute of ConstantRef, ExtentRef, EnumItemRef, VariableRef, AttributeRef, GroupRef should all be documented as "subsets Expression.text" and not as derived from it.

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    duplicates issue 13689
    Disposition: See issue 13689 for disposition

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:53 GMT

id attributes in 12.3 subset Expression:text

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13689
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In 12.3, the .id attribute of ConstantRef, ExtentRef, EnumItemRef, VariableRef, AttributeRef, GroupRef should all be documented as "subsets Expression.text" and not as derived from it.

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Correct the documentation of the “id” attributes in 12.3 and 12.5.
    Correct the Figure (36) in 12.5.

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:53 GMT

GenericElement:source is not composite

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13688
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In 10.4.11.3, GenericElement:source is documented as Properties: composite, but it is actually the (derived) ParameterType:contains association to the GenericElement that is the composite. And Figure 29 shows neither as composite. The text should be corrected, and the Figure should match.
    The GenericElement occurs in the syntactic specification of the ParameterType for the specified Parameter. It refers to the element of the type of the actual parameter that corresponds to that element of the type of the formal parameter. Trying to model this in detail in MOF is just not practical.

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Remove “Properties: composite” from GenericElement:source. Make the relationship navigable from Parameter and composite on that side.
    Also, make the GenericElement:namespace relationship navigable from Algorithm, and show that association end as ‘type-parameters’.
    The practicality issue is to be considered under Issue 13687

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:53 GMT

GenericElement:source is not composite

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13693
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In 10.4.11.3, GenericElement:source is documented as Properties: composite, but it is actually the (derived) ParameterType:contains association to the GenericElement that is the composite. And Figure 29 shows neither as composite. The text should be corrected, and the Figure should match.
    The GenericElement occurs in the syntactic specification of the ParameterType for the specified Parameter. It refers to the element of the type of the actual parameter that corresponds to that element of the type of the formal parameter. Trying to model this in detail in MOF is just not practical.

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    duplicates issue 13688
    Disposition: See issue 13688 for disposition

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:53 GMT

Delete ParameterRef:id

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13691
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In 12.3.6.2 ParameterRef:id is inherited from VariableRef and should not appear here.

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Remove ParameterRef:id.

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:53 GMT

Literal refers-to SimpleValue is not abstract

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13690
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In 12.3.5.3, Literal refers-to SimpleValue is not abstract. There are no documented subtypes of Literal. Should there be?

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    There is no need to model subtypes of Literal.
    The properties of “refers-to” are incorrect. Per Figure 34, refers-to subsets evaluation. It is neither derived nor abstract.

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:53 GMT

correct documentation of extent-within-population

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13685
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In 9.7.4, extent-within-population
    Population:extents is the composite association, not Extent:within-population.
    The attribute Population:extents is not documented in 9.7.2.3; it is documented as an inverse in 9.7.2.4, and 9.7.2.4 refers to Rules:Extent instead of Instances:Extent

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    In 9.7, show extent-within-population as composite in Figure 25.
    In 9.7.4.1, extent-within-population, move the “composite” property from within-population to extents.
    In 9.7.2 Population, delete the Other Roles entry for extents and create the correct entry under Associations, copying it from 9.7.4.1.

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:53 GMT

Correct documentation of Extent:content

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13684
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In 9.7.1.3, AssociationEnd: content
    The text says it is derived, but Figure 25 shows it (correctly) as subsets member-values.
    Modify the text to match the diagram.

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    as proposed

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:53 GMT

True, False and Unknown are not defined

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13683
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In 9.3, SimpleValues
    There is no instance package that defines the simple values True, False and Unknown. We cannot formally constrain BooleanValue to be True or False, since no Instance package defines those values.

    Proposed Resolution:
    Create an instance package in the Instances Package for the built-in LOGICAL constants TRUE, FALSE, UNKNOWN.

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add a NamedValues Instance Package to the Instances Package to include E, PI, TRUE, FALSE, UNKNOWN. (E and PI are added to address Issue 13707.)
    Constrain BooleanValue to TRUE and FALSE and LogicalValue to TRUE, FALSE and UNKNOWN.

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:53 GMT

Constrain of-type for SimpleValue subclasses

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13682
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In 9.3, SimpleValues
    Unlike all of the other abstract subtypes of Instance, SimpleValue has an of-type association and none of its subclasses have specific of-type associations. This is because some SimpleValues can be values of more than one SimpleType. Accordingly, each SimpleValue subclass should have a constraint on its of-type relationships:
    For LogicalValue: isIn(Core:BuiltinTypes:LOGICAL, self->of-type)
    For NumberValue: isIn(Core:BuiltinTypes:NUMBER, self->of-type)
    For RealValue: isIn(Core:BuiltinTypes:REAL, self->of-type)
    For IntegerValue: isIn(Core:BuiltinTypes:INTEGER, self->of-type)
    For StringValue: isIn(Core:BuiltinTypes:STRING, self->of-type)
    For BinaryValue: isIn(Core:BuiltinTypes:BINARY, self->of-type)

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    The type of LogicalValues is resolved by Issue 13683.
    For other SimpleValue objects, it is not a requirement that all of the possible “of-type” DataType relationships are modeled; it is only required that the “declared type” of the value is modeled. The proposed OCL rules would require that the declared type of each SimpleValue be the corresponding EXPRESS-defined SimpleType. The consensus is only to require that the value be an instance of an appropriate SimpleType: NumberValue ~ NumericType, BinaryValue ~ BinaryType, StringValue ~ StringType. These specific relationships replace the general relationship modeled as SimpleType:of-type.
    Figure 20 is replaced by Issue 13683

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:53 GMT

Remove instance-of-type

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13679
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In 8.14, Figure 16, the Association Instance-of-type is not documented. And it is not identified as the abstraction of the of-type associations in Clause 9. It should not appear in the figure.
    Proposed Resolution:
    In Figure 16, DELETE the Instance-of-type association.

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Instance-of-type is intended to be the abstraction of the of-type associations in Clause 9. Document instance-of-type in 8.14 and show the of-type associations as subsetting the general property

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:53 GMT

Correct derivation for value-of-EnumerationType

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13681
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In 9.2.3.3 and 9.2.8.1, AssociationEnd: of-type
    In 9.2.3.3 the value expression for 'derivation' is nonsense. In 9.2.8.1, it is missing. Following the text for the inverse relation described in 8.6.6.3, this is some kind of recursive derivation operation that should be described as an operation.

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    In 9.2.3.3 and 9.2.8.1, delete the tagged value derivation. Insert a paragraph that defines the derivation in both occurrences of the of-type Association End.

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:53 GMT

derivation of Redeclaration:refined-role

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13680
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In 8.13.1.3, AssocationEnd refined-role, the tagged value 'derivation' has no value expression. And the text makes the derivation clear.
    Proposed Resolution:
    In 8.13.1.3, AssocationEnd refined-role, DELETE the Tagged Values and derivation = paragraphs.

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    As proposed

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:53 GMT

Derivation of redeclaration bounds

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13678
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In 8.13.1.3, AssocationEnds: lower-bound, upper-bound, the tagged value 'derivation' has no value expression. And the text does not make the derivation clear. The intent is that, when the restricted-type is an AggregationType, the lower-/upper- bound is the lower-/upper-bound of that AggregationType.
    Proposed Resolution:
    In 8.13.1.3, Association End: lower-bound

    a. After the Definition paragraph, ADD a new paragraph:
    When the restricted-type is an AggregationType, the lower-bound SizeConstraint is the lower-bound of that AggregationType.

    b. DELETE the "Tagged Values" and "derivation =" paragraphs.

    In 8.13.1.3, Association End: upper-bound

    a. After the Definition paragraph, ADD a new paragraph:
    When the restricted-type is an AggregationType, the upper-bound SizeConstraint is the upper-bound of that AggregationType.

    b. DELETE the "Tagged Values" and "derivation =" paragraphs.

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    as proposed

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:53 GMT

derivation of role bounds

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13676
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In 8.12.4.3 AssocationEnds: lower-bound and upper-bound, the tagged value 'derivation' has no value expression. And none can be provided, because the derivation is different for DomainRole and RangeRole.
    Proposed Resolution:
    Delete the Tagged Value 'derivation'.
    For lower-bound, break the Definition paragraph before "The lower-bound on the Domain role..."
    For upper-bound (where the break already exists), make the paragraph normative/definitive: remove "Note: ".

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agreed. These corrections are editorial

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:53 GMT

remove "derivedFrom" dependency

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13677
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In 8.12.6 and 8.12.7 entity-plays-domain/range-role, the <<derivedFrom>> dependencies do not appear in Figure 12. It appears that this is just documentation of the derivation of the derived association, and it only documents one leg of the derivation path. All the other cases just define 'derivation', or express it in text.

    Proposed Resolution:
    Delete 8.12.6.1 and 8.12.7.1

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    These dependencies are not a useful part of the metamodel. They should be deleted.

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:53 GMT

Correct derivation of plays-domain-role

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13674
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In 8.11.3.3 and 8.12.6.2, AssociationEnd: plays-domain-role
    The derivation expression makes no sense. What is being defined here is a set of instances that are individually related by a derived path from a member of self->attributes.
    Proposed Resolution:
    Remove the Tagged value derivation and describe the operation that produces the derived result.

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    as proposed

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:53 GMT

Scope of Attribute is not modeled

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13673
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In 8.11.1.3, AssociationEnd: of-entity, the text of the Note defines an unmodeled (derived) association that subsets the TypeElement.namespace association for Attribute. And the /owning-entity association end depicted in Figure 12 is not that association, since the inverse relationship defined in 8.11.3.3 (EntityType::attributes) includes the attributes of subtypes.
    As a consequence, the association that defines the namespace/scope of the Attribute as a TypeElement is not actually modeled.
    Proposed Resolution:
    Model the derived association: :of-entity->declared-in as ":namespace" explicitly in Figure 12 and in 8.11.1.3, and show it as subsets TypeElement:namespace.

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    The derived namespace association should be explicitly modeled for Attribute, essentially as indicated in the issue statement..

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:53 GMT

entity-has-attributes documentation

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13672
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In 8.11.1 and 8.11.3, the entity-has-attributes association depicted in Figure 12 is not properly documented. 8.11.1 does not document .owning-entity. In 8.11.3.3. .attributes does not show the parent association, and the parent association (entity-has-attributes) is not documented as an Association in 8.11.
    Proposed Resolution:
    Document the association in a new subclause of 8.11 and correct the corresponding elements of 8.11.1 and 8.11.3.

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Correct Figure 13 to show owning-entity.
    Document the association in a new subclause of 8.11 and correct the corresponding elements of 8.11.1 and 8.11.3.

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:53 GMT

EnumerationType:values is derived

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13671
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In 8.6.6.3, AssociationEnd: values is not marked Properties: derived, but it is a derived relation per the text. And the derivation expression is nonsense. The text defines a recursive operation.
    Proposed Resolution:
    Insert Properties: derived
    Delete the Tagged Value derivation, and state that the derivation is a recursive operation.

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    As proposed.

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:53 GMT

Parameter:explicit-role is not defined

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13675
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In 8.11.3.3 and 8.12.7.2, AssociationEnd: plays-range-role, In the derivation expression, ParameterType:explicit-role is not defined anywhere. The intended association is modeled as EntityType:used-in (InvertibleAttribute) in the text and in Figure 14.
    Proposed Resolution:
    In the derivation expression, REPLACE:
    ParameterType:explicit-role
    with:
    used-in
    (Note, however, that used-in is a set.)

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Because EntityType::used-in is multivalued, the derivation expression requires an iteration. Remove the derivation and replace it with a Note that explains the derivation.

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:53 GMT

Some ActualTypes have namespaces

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13670
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In 8.6.1.3 ActualType, the Note is incorrect. Two of the subtypes of ActualType are identified by "label" and they do have a namespace.
    Proposed Resolution:
    Delete the Note.

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    The Note in 8.6.1.3 is correct. The label on an ActualAGGREGATEType or an ActualGenericType is a reference to the label on a component of the parameter type of some formal parameter. The label on the GeneralizedType in that parameter type is the declaration of that label and has the namespace that is the Algorithm.
    The text should be revised to make this clear.

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:53 GMT

Associations that should be composite

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13669
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    Many associations in the specification should be specified as "composite", in order to facilitate XMI export and other implementation technologies. The following is a list of associations (by their end names) that are clearly 'composite' in intent, as their definitions indicate:

    (Core, clause 8)
    EntityType:unique-rules
    LocalScope:local-elements
    NamedType:type-elements
    NamedType:domain-rules
    Schema:schema-elements
    Schema:interfaces EntityType:declares
    SingleEntityType:declares
    SingleEntityValue:properties

    (Instances, clause 9)
    ARRAYValue:member-slot
    BAGValue:member-slot
    EnumerationType:declared-items
    LISTValue:member-slot

    (Algorithms, clause 10)
    Algorithm:formal-parameters
    Algorithm:actual-types
    Algorithm:body
    AlgorithmScope:variables
    Function:result
    Parameter:type-constraints
    Parameter:structure-constraints

    (Rules, clause 11)
    GlobalRule:supporting-body
    GlobalRule:contains-rules
    SupertypeRule:constraints

    (Expressions, clause 12)
    AggregateInitializer:bindings
    FunctionCall:actual-parameters
    PartialEntityConstructor:bindings
    QueryExpression:query-variable

    (Statements, clause 13)
    CaseAction:action
    CaseStatement:cases
    IfStatement:then-actions
    IfStatement:else-actions
    ProcedureCall:actual-parameters
    RepeatStatement:body
    RepeatStatement:control-variable
    StatementBlock:body-statements

    Proposed Resolution:
    For each of the above, modify the UML diagram to show the 'composition' association and modify the text specification of the association end by adding:
    Properties: composite

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Fri, 6 Mar 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    As proposed, and fix related association properties. In particular, Scope:named-elements, LocalScope:local-elements, NamedType:type-elements are composites and derived unions.
    Document ParameterType: constraints, which is also a composite derived union.
    Figures 2, 12, 19, 27, 29, 30, 44 are further modified by other issues.

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:53 GMT

The metamodel doesn't seem to support a Schema -> Interface -> Schema relationship

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13447
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: TopQuadrant ( David Price)
  • Summary:

    Issue Submitter: David Price, Eurostep

    Document: EXPRESS Metamodel, Alpha Version

    Issue:

    The metamodel doesn't seem to support a Schema -> Interface -> Schema
    relationship. I do see Schema -> InterfaceElement -> SchemaElement
    relationship in the metamodel but it's as often as not the entire Schema
    that gets interfaced.

    If I were using the metamodel in a tool to create EXPRESS, this seems to mean
    I can't establish schema interfaces beforehand (e.g. to split a domain being
    modeled into subdomains) unless I have elements in every schema. This seems
    like a gap in the metamodel.

    What I mean by this is that I should be able to take the EXPRESS metamodel,
    build an application that directly implements the classes it defines and then
    I should be able to create any and all valid EXPRESS schemas.

    Since:
    SCHEMA A;
    Â USE FROM X;
    END_SCHEMA;
    SCHEMA X;
    END_SCHEMA;

    is valid EXPRESS it seems to me the metamodel should support this. It doesn't
    seem to me that the distinction is purely syntactic if there are valid
    schemas that cannot be represented using the metamodel. I do agree with Ed
    Barkmeyers analysis of what the text in Part 11 says, it's just that the text
    appears to be incomplete in that it doesn't cover the A and X situation
    above.

    Related Discussion Summary:

    >From Ed Barkmeyer: I would say that USE FROM <schema>; is just a syntactic
    shorthand. Â What is actually interfaced is a specific collection of
    InterfacedElements. It is not clear that any additional semantic
    relationship is established between the two schemas. Â The only relationship
    between the two schemas is that some of the InterfacedElements in one Schema
    refer to SchemaElements defined in the other one.

    In the UML case, the relationship is package-to-package, and circular
    import/merge relationships are not valid. Â But EXPRESS is very clear that the
    relationship is schema-to-InterfacedElement, and circular references among
    the schemas themselves are permitted. Â Also in UML, importing a package
    doesn't change the local package namespace. Â In EXPRESS, interfacing elements
    adds identifiers to the local schema namespace. Â So Exp:Schema and
    UML:Package are only superficially similar.

    I guess we never discussed using the metamodel to "create EXPRESS", and
    I'm not quite sure what that means. Â But Bernd Wenzel pointed out at one point
    that certain purely syntactic information should be maintained in the
    metamodel to allow a reasonable approximation to the original EXPRESS
    schema to be constructed.

    My understanding was that EXPRESS was being treated as the legacy.
    So the intent of the metamodel was to capture the knowledge contained in
    a set of EXPRESS schemas, for the purpose of rendering that knowledge
    into more useful forms.

    It is not clear whether USE FROM X (<list of everything in X>); is a
    "reasonable approximation" to USE FROM X; . Â But it is certainly true
    that there is no way in the metamodel to represent USE FROM X; if X
    contains no declarations.

    Note also that, unlike USE FROM X;, what REFERENCE FROM X; interfaces is
    selective, and there you want the metamodel to capture the
    interpretation – the results of the algorithm described in clause 11 –
    not just the parse. Â So I would never want to see a metamodel population
    in which some schema-to-schema relationship was captured INSTEAD OF the
    collection of schema-to-InterfacedElement relationships that that syntax
    MEANS. Â (But the other experts may not share my view.)

    Proposed Resolution: No

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Fri, 6 Feb 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add Interface to clause 8.4 and Figure 2, with two associations: interfaced-schema, interfacing-schema and an isUSE attribute

  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 01:53 GMT

Excess text in schema-interfaces-elements Definitions

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13905
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In clause 8.4.7.3, at the end of the Definition of AssociationEnd: interfaced-elements, delete the text ".interfaced-elements=.interfaces.refers-to" It is the derivation below.

    In clause 8.4.18.1, at the end of the Definition of AssociationEnd: interfaced-elements, delete the text ".interfaced-elements=.interfaces.refers-to" It is the derivation below.

    In clause 8.4.18.1, at the end of the Definition of AssociationEnd: referenced-in, delete the text ".referenced-in=.referenced-as.interfacing-schema" It is the derivation below.

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Delete the text ".interfaced-elements=.interfaces.refers-to" from the entries for interfaced-elements in 8.4.7.3 and 8.4.18.1. Delete the text ".referenced-in=.referenced-as.interfacing-schema" from the Definition of referenced-in in 8.4.18.1. These corrections are included in the resolution of Issue 13447.
    Note: Issue 13447 was resolved in the FTF Report and thus in v1.0 of the specification, and these changes were made at that time.
    Revised Text:
    None.
    Disposition: See issue 13447 for disposition

  • Updated: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 14:33 GMT

Question on InvertibleAttribute subclass of ExplicitAttribute

  • Legacy Issue Number: 13870
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: TopQuadrant ( David Price)
  • Summary:

    It seems an odd thing to me to create a subclass of ExplicitAttribute to
    instantiate for Attributes that have the potential to have inverses. I don't
    understand the rationale. Seems like it would be simper to have a constraint
    on InverseAttribute about it being owned by an EntityType referenced in an
    ExplicitAttribute

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    The RTF agrees that the InvertibleAttribute subclass of ExplicitAttribute is inappropriate. Careful examination of Clause 9.2.1 of ISO 10303-11 indicates that all ExplicitAttributes can create Relationships. The InvertibleAttribute in Clause 8.11.6 was intended to capture formal relationships among entities, following the rules for InverseAttributes in EXPRESS, but it is not a proper model of the EXPRESS ‘relationship’ concept.
    Accordingly, the InvertibleAttribute subclass is removed and replaced in all appropriate usages by the superclass ExplicitAttribute.
    An OCL formulation of the EXPRESS rules for the permissible attribute types of an ExplicitAttribute that is invertible may not be possible. The restriction is captured using a Boolean “isInvertible” attribute.
    Removing InvertibleAttribute from the Relationships diagram also eliminates the last use of the <<implicit>> extension. The extension is removed from the model.
    Issue 19061 points out other implementation problems with the Relationships model, and the resolution to that issue (q.v.) describes model corrections that overlap with the changes made in resolving this issue. The changes for Issue 19061 are merged with the changes for this Issue below.

  • Updated: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 14:33 GMT

Choose a term for "referent" of VARExpression

  • Key: EXPRESS-5
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13712
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In 13.10 VARExpressions, there does not seem to be a consistent term for the "referent" of a VAR-expression, what EXPRESS calls a "variable" and C calls an "lvalue" - an identifiable place that holds a value. It is the analog to the "evaluation" of an Expression, which is an Instance. In the metamodel, the term Variable here seems to have a more restricted meaning, and the term "referent" is used in multiple ways, most egregiously in the definition of AliasRef:refers-to. Some term should be chosen and used consistently for this purpose, and any conflicting use in the metamodel should be renamed. It appears that the term being used in this section (only) is "Cell". For consistency with Part 11, the term should be "Variable", but using that term might also be confusing.

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    There is no inconsistency in the use of "referent"; the inconsistency is in the term for the thing that is a "referent" - "object", "place", "variable", "cell", etc. All of these will be changed to "cell".
    AliasRef:refers-to can be changed to "referent", although the text is clear that the referent of the AliasRef is self->refers-to->referent, and the "refers-to" contrasts with VariableCell:referent.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

What is a GenericElement?

  • Key: EXPRESS-2
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13687
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In 10.4.11 Generic Element
    Is every GenericType or AGGREGATEType that has a type_label a GenericElement? It seems that that is the rule, but the definition in 10.4.11 is not clear on this point.

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    GenericElements are syntactically represented as parts of a data type specification, but they are not GenericTypes or AGGREGATETypes. They are separate semantic concepts that are related to type specifications. A data type represented as GENERIC:tag, for example, is a reference to the GENERIC type, and it also represents an ActualDataType whose id is the "tag".
    For each syntactic occurrence of GENERIC, GENERIC_ENTITY or AGGREGATE that defines a type_label, there is a corresponding GenericEntity that has that type_label. Other syntactic occurrences with that type_label represent ActualTypes and ActualTypeConstraints that refer to that GenericEntity.
    The model of GenericElements will be corrected in this regard. The relationship between GenericElements and GeneralizedTypes is dealt with more extensively in the resolution to Issue 14068, and the model elements that can have GeneralizedTypes and GenericElements are corrected in Issue 14194.
    Revised Text:
    The corresponding model and text changes are included under Issue 14194.

    Disposition: Merged into Issue 14194

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Correct/explain the type model for InParameter

  • Key: EXPRESS-1
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13686
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In Figure 26, InParameter inherits :formal-parameter-type (ParameterType) from Parameter. In Figure 27, InParameter inherits variable-type (VariableType) from NamedVariable. InParameter cannot have both.
    Proposed Resolution:
    Actually it can. The problem is that InParameter has two faces: the formal parameter has a ParameterType, but the corresponding internal Variable in each invocation has a VariableType - any GeneralizedType becomes the ActualType of the actual parameter. And VARParameter has the same behavior - the Parameter can have a GeneralizedType, but each instantiation refers to a "variable" that has an ActualType. Modify the text to explain this better.

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    After some discussion of elaborating the model, the FTF concluded to adopt the proposed resolution and modify the text to explain the two relationships for InParameter.
    But VARVariables do not have variable-types; VARVariables only have referents. Also, ControlVariables are Variables (they can be passed to VAR Parameters, even though they cannot be assigned to). This all means that variable-type should be an attribute of Variable instead of NamedVariable. QueryVariables do have variable-types, and in order to simplify the model, they are to become a subclass of Variable, instead of NamedVariable, although it is syntactically impossible for a QueryVariable to be the referent of a VARCell.
    Finally, 10.2.5.3 documents Parameter:variable, an association that no longer exists with the Beta-2 model of InParameter and VARParameter. This will also be corrected.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Two Subtypes of ActualParameter

  • Key: EXPRESS-4
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13698
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In 12.7 Function Calls and 13.7 Procedure Calls, it becomes clear that ActualParameter (12.7.1) is an abstraction of two distinct concepts: One associates an Expression with an InParameter (and behaves like an Assignment) and the other associates a VARExpression with a VARParameter (and behaves more like an AliasStatement). Procedures have both, but Functions have only InParameters, and thus only associations of the first kind. Splitting this concept into its two subclasses would simplify clause 12.7 and clarify clause 13.7.

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    There is consensus that explicitly modeling "call by value" and "call by reference", which are the two concepts to which the issue refers, is a minor technical change. This change is an improvement in the model that removes a (compliance point) packaging problem, simplifies the text and assists in mappings.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

AttributeRef/GroupRef:id subsets Expression:text

  • Key: EXPRESS-3
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13692
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. Edward J. Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    In 12.5, the id attribute of AttributeRef and GroupRef should be documented as subsets Expression:text, and not as derived from it, in both the text and the class diagram (figure 36).

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merged into Issue 13689

    Disposition: See issue 13689 for disposition

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

EXPRESS MM issue: Correct definition of E

  • Key: EXPRESS-6
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14071
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Hugues Vincent)
  • Summary:

    Clause 9.8.2 I don't know what the "Napierian exponential function" is. Perhaps it is more usual to native English speaker? Yet I didn't find anything worthwhile when I googlized it (is Google anyway a reference?). I just know the "exponential function" and the "naperian logarithm function" which is the inverse of the preceding.
    Yet defining e from one of these functions whose definitions are, AFAIK, based on e itself doesn't make sense.
    I'd recommand to use the original Euler's definition: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_(mathematical_constant)#History
    If agreed, that could be handled through an issue for the 2nd FTF.

  • Reported: EXPRESS 1.0b1 — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — EXPRESS 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The definition of E in the specification was taken verbatim from ISO 10303-11 Clause 14.2. However, the issue is correct: Napier published a table of natural logarithms, but the exponential function is credited to Euler. The specification should use one of Euler's definition (based on the area under the curve 1/x), or Bernoulli's definition (the limit of (1+1/n)n).

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT