Reusable Asset Avatar
  1. OMG Specification

Reusable Asset — Open Issues

  • Acronym: RAS
  • Issues Count: 11
  • Description: Issues not resolved
Open Closed All
Issues not resolved

Issues Descriptions

All single query operations in the spec defined in OCL invalid ?

  • Key: UML241-44
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7550
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    This seems rather serious, but perhaps some OCL FTF person will reassure me that it's not:

    The UML 2 Superstructure spec defines additional query operations for a number of metaclasses. For example, the following query is defined for the metaclass Element:

    Element::allOwnedElements(): Set(Element);
    allOwnedElements = ownedElement->union(ownedElement->collect(e | e.allOwnedElements()))

    Another example is the query defined for ProtocolTransition:

    context Region::belongsToPSM () : Boolean
    result = if not stateMachine->isEmpty() then
    oclIsTypeOf(ProtocolStateMachine)
    else if not state->isEmpty() then
    state.container.belongsToPSM ()
    else false

    Notice the different forms used to define these two queries. The first one uses the name of the operation to store the result while the second uses the OCL reserved word "result". In the spec, there many queries that use the first form and only three cases of the latter form.

    A review of the OCL spec with respect to this issue – as far as I can tell – indicates that there are three valid ways of specifying a query as shown by the following two examples:

    (1) using body expressions (note the 'body:' prefix in the second line):

    context Element::allOwnedElements(): Set(Element);
    body: ownedElement->union(ownedElement->collect(e | e.allOwnedElements()))

    (2) using postconditions (note the use of the reserved word 'result' following the 'post:' prefix):

    context Element::allOwnedElements(): Set(Element);
    post: result = ownedElement->union(ownedElement->collect(e | e.allOwnedElements()))

    (3) using auxilliary definitions (note the 'def:' prefix in the second line):

    context Element
    def: allOwnedElements(): Set(Element) = ownedElement->union(ownedElement->collect(e | e.allOwnedElements()))

    Unfortunately, neither of the two forms used in the spec conform to any of these formats, which seems to imply that every single query operation in the spec that is defined in OCL is invalid! There are 73 such queries at the moment.

    Can someone from the OCL team shed light on this?

  • Reported: RAS 2.0b1 — Thu, 17 Jun 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 14:12 GMT

Issue in UML 2 Lifeline class

  • Key: UML241-31
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7447
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Independent ( Marc-Philippe Huget)
  • Summary:

    p. 386, it is written: "To depict method activations we apply a thin grey or white rectangle that covers the Lifeline line". Figure 8-144 p. 372 presents several sizes of grey rectangles. Particularly, does it mean that method activation is performed all along the Lifeline ob1:C1? A temporal vertical axis will be added to allow several sizes of rectangles and duration of method activation.

  • Reported: RAS 2.0b1 — Wed, 9 Jun 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 14:12 GMT

Issue in UML 2 Interaction class : Local attributes

  • Key: UML241-29
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7445
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Independent ( Marc-Philippe Huget)
  • Summary:

    It is possible to represent local attributes to an Interaction (see Figure 8-148 p. 380) but it is not written how these attributes are treated: are they public to all the lifelines? Is it possible to have private attributes and in this case to which lifelines? Are they local to the Interaction? What happens if one of the lifeline is self? Does it mean that these parameters are owned by the self lifeline?

  • Reported: RAS 2.0b1 — Wed, 9 Jun 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 14:12 GMT

Issue in UML 2 Interaction package

  • Key: UML241-30
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7443
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Independent ( Marc-Philippe Huget)
  • Summary:

    In the UML 2 Interaction package specification (UML
    2 spec, dated 2003/04/10): p. 381, it is written that
    "InteractionFragment is an abstract notion of the most general
    interaction unit. An interaction fragment is a piece of an interaction.
    Each interaction fragment is conceptually like an interaction by itself".

    InteractionFragment is described as an abstract notion and Interaction
    is defined as a specialization of InteractionFragment. Don't we define
    normally in the other way around: the InteractionFragment is the
    abstract notion and is called Interaction and the interaction is called
    InteractionFragment? We can have the definition for Interaction
    (previously called InteractionFragment): "Interaction is an abstract
    notion of the most general interaction unit. An Interaction is composed
    of at least an InteractionFragment".

    Usual semantics for fragments refers to something within something else
    but here, the something else is undefined.

  • Reported: RAS 2.0b1 — Wed, 9 Jun 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 14:12 GMT

Composite structures/Unspecified connector features

  • Key: UML241-34
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7430
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Softeam ( Philippe Desfray)
  • Summary:

    Composite structures/Unspecified connector features between ports having multiple interfaces. What happens when ports have multiple interfaces, that in addition can mix
    required and provided interfaces? This is not specified. In particular, a
    connector could connect two ports using only a specified subset of the
    interfaces from both ports.

    Recommendation:
    Extend the metamodel to allow the specification of the interfaces used for a
    connector between ports having several interfaces.

    or

    Provide a default rule for that situation, such as the connector uses the
    compatible interfaces between the interfaces of both ports.

  • Reported: RAS 2.0b1 — Wed, 2 Jun 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 14:12 GMT

Issue in UML 2 Continuation

  • Key: UML241-26
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7451
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Independent ( Marc-Philippe Huget)
  • Summary:

    Is it not possible to have a symbol for the setting? That could help reading the diagram.

  • Reported: RAS 2.0b1 — Wed, 9 Jun 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 14:12 GMT

Issue in UML 2 Interaction class: Lifeline ordering

  • Key: UML241-28
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7446
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Independent ( Marc-Philippe Huget)
  • Summary:

    Lifelines are associated to Interaction but it is not possible to save the ordering contrary to the fragments.

  • Reported: RAS 2.0b1 — Wed, 9 Jun 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 14:12 GMT

Issue on UML 2 Interaction class

  • Key: UML241-27
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7444
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Independent ( Marc-Philippe Huget)
  • Summary:

    It is not possible to represent that an Interaction frame represents a design pattern with unbound parameters

  • Reported: RAS 2.0b1 — Wed, 9 Jun 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 14:12 GMT

RAS ptc/04-06-06 ID in Defaultcomponentprofile and Defaultwebserviceprofile

  • Key: RAS22-1
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8283
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Caterpillar ( Wayne Wulfert)
  • Summary:

    Associated Profile Issue:

    I expected to find the GUID ID for the Defaultcomponentprofile and the
    Defaultwebserviceprofile in the respective xsd files. However, I don't
    find any ID or reference to an ID

  • Reported: RAS 2.0b1 — Mon, 14 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Issue with RAS ptc/04-06-06 Defaultcomponentprofile

  • Key: RAS22-3
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8285
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Caterpillar ( Wayne Wulfert)
  • Summary:

    Associated xsd's:

    There is an error when I try to load "Defaultcomponentprofile.xsd" as
    shown below. It is possible that I don't have the lastest version of the
    file.

  • Reported: RAS 2.0b1 — Mon, 14 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Issue with RAS ptc/04-06-06 Defaultwebserviceprofile

  • Key: RAS22-2
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8284
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Caterpillar ( Wayne Wulfert)
  • Summary:

    Associated xsd's:

    There is an error when I try to load "Defaultwebserviceprofile.xsd" as
    shown below. It is possible that I don't have the lastest version of the
    file.

  • Reported: RAS 2.0b1 — Mon, 14 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT