Service Oriented Architecture Modeling Language Avatar
  1. OMG Specification

Service Oriented Architecture Modeling Language — Open Issues

  • Acronym: SoaML
  • Issues Count: 74
  • Description: Issues not resolved
Open Closed All
Issues not resolved

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
SOAML11-73 Figure 95 uses UML ports without UML semantics SoaML 1.0b1 open
SOAML11-72 Figure 95 extends activity execution semantics SoaML 1.0b1 open
SOAML11-74 Title: Figure 95 uses instance keyword instead of part SoaML 1.0b1 open
SOAML11-3 Use of the service interface to define Participants SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-2 Figure 3: Interface SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-1 wrong figure in the document SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-71 SoaML Issue: Participant Architecture SoaML 1.0b1 open
SOAML11-70 Figures 34, 51, and others use UML interface realization without UML semantics SoaML 1.0b1 open
SOAML11-69 Section: Executive Overview SoaML 1.0b1 open
SOAML11-68 Ports on ServiceInterfaces SoaML 1.0.1 open
SOAML11-67 ParticipantArchitecture has been replaced by ServicesArchitecture SoaML 1.0.1 open
SOAML11-66 ServiceInterface extends UML Interface SoaML 1.0.1 open
SOAML11-65 Various stereotype attributes should have multiplicity 0..1 in the SoaML profile SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-64 Classes Service and Request SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-63 No values are specified for the XMI namespace URI or prefix SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-62 Category and CategoryValue SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-61 metamodel XMI does not contain the classes CapabilityRealization and CapabilityExposure which are shown in Figure 9.7 SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-60 Class Milestone and Expose SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-59 In the metamodel XMI the class Attachment has two Generalization elements both targeting Property SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-58 The references to the elements in the UML metamodel do not use the xmi:ids that are in the normative UML XMI file SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-57 Several properties are private not public as required by MOF SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-56 Several Associations and Properties are not named, as required by MOF SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-55 MotivationRealization.implementingClassifier should {redefine client}. SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-54 Service::protocol redefines Port::type so ServiceInterface::service should redefine typedElement. SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-53 BMMIntegration the property MotivationRealization.realizedMotivation {subsets supplier}. SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-52 There are several (seven to be precise) cases where {subsets} relationships are represented in the XMI as Constraints SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-51 RedefinableTemplateSignature is not part of MOF so should be removed from the metamodel SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-50 09-12-09 SoaML 1.0 Beta 2 figure 93 p. 149 SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-49 09-12-09 SoaML 1.0 Beta 2 figure 83 p. 141 SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-48 09-12-09 SoaML 1.0 Beta 2 figure 79 p. 136 SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-47 09-12-09 SoaML 1.0 Beta 2 figure 78 p. 135 SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-46 09-12-09 SoaML 1.0 Beta 2 Figure 20 p. 38 SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-45 09-12-90 SoaML 1.0 Beta 2 ServiceInterface Constraint [1] p. 94 SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-44 09-12-09 SoaML Beta 2 Fig 18 p. 36 SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-43 09-12-09 SoaML 1.0 beta 2 Figure 78 p. 135 SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-42 CSC missing as submitter SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-41 second bullet under the Scope section (ptc/2009-12-10) SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-40 Figure 96: Specification SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-39 Figure 93: Interfaces SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-38 Figure 92: Specification SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-37 Figure 91: Interface SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-36 Figure 89: Interface SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-35 Figure 88: Interfaces SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-34 Figure 87: Interface SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-33 Figure 86: Interfaces SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-32 Figure 85: [CBC5] comment and service interfaces SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-31 Figure 84: [CBC4] comment and stereotypes SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-30 Figure 83: [CBC3] comment SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-29 Figure 82: Service contract SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-28 Figure 81: Service contract SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-27 Figure 78: Participant architecture SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-26 Figure 56: Interface SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-25 Figure 51: Interfaces SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-24 Figure 50: Service interface SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-23 Figure 49: Service contract SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-22 Figure 44: Specification SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-21 7.1.14 Provider: Examples SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-20 Figure 41: Specification SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-19 Figure 40: Specification SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-18 Figure 39: Interfaces SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-17 Figure 37: Interfaces SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-16 7.1.8 Expose: [GBE2] comment SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-15 Figure 34: Interfaces and [CBC1] SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-14 7.1.5 Consumer: Examples SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-13 Figure 25: Service port SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-12 Figure 24: Service port SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-11 Figure 23: Interfaces and Service port. SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-10 Figure 22: Interfaces (same as figure 21) SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-9 Figure 21: Interfaces SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-8 Capabilities SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-7 Figure 16: Request port SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-6 Figure 15: Request port SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-5 Figure 8: Request port SoaML 1.0 open
SOAML11-4 Figure 5: Service and request ports SoaML 1.0 open

Issues Descriptions

Figure 95 uses UML ports without UML semantics

  • Key: SOAML11-73
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14924
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Figure 95 isn't explained very well, but from other conversations it
    seems to assume partitions representing ports have (references to)
    external objects as runtime values, where the external objects are the
    ones at the other end of the connector coming into the port from
    outside. This is assumed so the invocation actions can send these
    external objects operation calls based on the partitions they are in (
    the partitions represent port properties, which means the runtime value
    of the ports must be the runtime input values of invocation actions in
    the partition).

    However, ports are composite properties, see constraint [2] on ports,
    which means external objects that are values of ports would be deleted
    with when the runtime owner of the port is. For example, deleting a
    buyer object would delete the seller object at runtime. In addition,
    it would be a very rare user of UML that would assume an externally
    connected port connector had as its value the object at the other end
    of the connector. This is very far from UML, with significant
    unintended consequences.

    soaML could define an extension of UML for port partitions to give the
    semantics of InvocationAction:onPort with input pin targeting "self".
    Then the operation calls would go through the port represented by the
    partition to the external object.

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0b1 — Wed, 6 Jan 2010 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Figure 95 extends activity execution semantics

  • Key: SOAML11-72
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14923
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Figure 95 isn't explained very well, but from other conversations it
    seems to assume the runtime target of invocation actions can be derived
    from the the partition. While port/part partitions require the target
    input of invocation actions to be the runtime value of a specific
    property represented by the partition, they do not have the execution
    semantics to assign the value. This could be described in soaML as an
    extension of UML semantics. Probably affected by next issue.

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0b1 — Wed, 6 Jan 2010 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Title: Figure 95 uses instance keyword instead of part

  • Key: SOAML11-74
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14922
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Figure 95 uses instance keyword, which isn't defined in UML. The
    figure isn't explained well, but perhaps it could use the part
    keyword, or extend UML with a port keyword

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0b1 — Wed, 6 Jan 2010 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Use of the service interface to define Participants

  • Key: SOAML11-3
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15317
  • Status: open  
  • Source: SINTEF ( Brian Elvesæter)
  • Summary:

    The Participant Manufacturer should be a stereotyped <<Participant>> Class and not a Component.

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Figure 3: Interface

  • Key: SOAML11-2
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15316
  • Status: open  
  • Source: SINTEF ( Brian Elvesæter)
  • Summary:

    The Scheduling interface should be stereotyped <<Provider>>.

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

wrong figure in the document

  • Key: SOAML11-1
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15135
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Odell)
  • Summary:

    Subject: FW: SoaML Beta 2 question - v2 - bis
    Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:35:37 -0500
    X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
    X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
    Thread-Topic: SoaML Beta 2 question - v2 - bis
    thread-index: AcrCGzfTouMfZVwkYEGlviuBN+fz/AAAZoigAACYR7EAAxmX4AAAEg7w
    From: "Cory Casanave" <cory-c@modeldriven.com>
    To: <soaml-ftf@omg.org>

    Note that there is a wrong figure in the document, see below.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From: Cory Casanave
    Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 4:35 PM
    To: 'James Odell'
    Cc: Ed Seidewitz
    Subject: RE: SoaML Beta 2 question - v2 - bis

    The first figure should be:

    However the doc numbers don’t match - the FTF report doc is 09-11-14

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From: James Odell email@jamesodell.com
    Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 3:04 PM
    To: Cory Casanave
    Subject: Re: SoaML Beta 2 question - v2 - bis

    In the downlodable doc, it’s Figs 15 and 16; on SoaML.docx, it Figs 17 and 18.

    -Jim

    On 3/12/10 2:48 PM, "Cory Casanave" indited:

    Jim,
    Which document are you looking at ? In SoaML.docx this is not figure a6.
    -Cory

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From: James Odell email@jamesodell.com
    Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 2:36 PM
    To: Cory Casanave
    Subject: SoaML Beta 2 question - v2

    Cory,

    Sorry, I included the wrong images on the last one.
    Now, Figs 15 and 16 are identical, but the text describing Fig 16 does not jibe with figure. Can you tell me what Fig 16 should look like?

    Thanks,

    Jim

    Real Fig. 15

    Real Fig. 16

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

SoaML Issue: Participant Architecture

  • Key: SOAML11-71
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13333
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Cory Casanave)
  • Summary:

    Since a participant architecture must be the architecture of a participant the Participant Architecture stereotype should specialize the participant stereotype. Currently both stereotypes must be applied independently.

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0b1 — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Figures 34, 51, and others use UML interface realization without UML semantics

  • Key: SOAML11-70
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14925
  • Status: open  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Figures 34, 51, and others use UML interface realization notation
    (hollow headed arrowhead, dashed line) but has an external protocol on
    the tail of the arrow, rather than an implementation of the interface
    (ie, methods for the operations defined in the interface).

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0b1 — Wed, 6 Jan 2010 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Section: Executive Overview

  • Key: SOAML11-69
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13194
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MITRE ( R.S. Johnson)
  • Summary:

    Participants may also delegate service implementations to parts in their internal structure which represent an assembly of other service participants connected together to provide a complete solutions, perhaps specified by, and realizing a services architecture. verb noun agreement "to provide a complete solutions,... should read "to provide complete solutions" or "to provide a complete solution"

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0b1 — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Ports on ServiceInterfaces

  • Key: SOAML11-68
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18244
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Gebhart Quality Analysis (QA) 82 ( Michael Gebhart)
  • Summary:

    My issue concerns Figure B.9 ("Relating services architecture as service contracts").

    Even though this is a very good illustration, I want to discuss the Ports attached to the ServiceInterfaces. For example, "Buyer" has two Ports, one of type "Orderer" and one of type "InvoiceReceiver" (btw. typed wrong).

    In the entire document there is no explanation about Ports on ServiceInterfaces. In the describing paragraph of this Figure we can find this sentence:

    "These service interfaces each have two ports because Purchasing Service is a compound service contract - the service interfaces have a port for each nested service: OrderService & InvoicingService, respectively."

    In my opinion the purpose of this information is not clearly described to the reader.

    If we also take Figure B.5 into consideration that is also part of this scenario: This is nothing you will implement, because it is not possible to realize it. A service interface ("Seller") cannot be broken down into several internal service interfaces as part of an implementation. What the reader has to understand is, that we are working with different kinds of abstraction within the document.

    The first is the (de-)composition of participants. A participant is composed of other participants. But the service interface remains the same and maybe is realized by an orchestration of other services.

    The second one is the abstraction of service contracts, thus service interfaces. This is not an abstraction concerning the realization of a service, it is an abstraction concerning the entire scenario. That is, what we have in this case.

    After thinking about the Ports on the ServiceInterfaces for a while, I came to the following conclusion that should be added (correct me if I am wrong):

    Whilst the decomposition of Participants is something hidden from the service consumer, the decomposition of service contracts is something that is visible and has to be known by the consumer as it is part of the scenario. First I found the Ports on the ServiceInterface kind of strange as this is some information I would expect to be hidden by the consumer. But it is important. The consumer has to know that when he wants to use this service on this level of abstraction he has to call the following more concrete services. Maybe the describing service interfaces can be further broken down. So with this information it is possible to refine the interaction between consumer and provider that is not equivalent to a refinement of realizing participants. In case of the participants the service consumer does not care about it. But for example (as in the scenario of the specification) the Manufacturer wants to interact with the Dealer he cannot do this on the abstract level. He has to use the refinements of the service interfaces until there is no further refinement possible and use these service interfaces / contracts as interaction.

    So, in my opinion it has to be clarified, why the Ports are attached to the ServiceInterface. Reason: To let the external service consumer know about the (more) concrete service interface he has to call in order to interact with the service provider correctly.

    Regards,

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0.1 — Fri, 2 Nov 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

ParticipantArchitecture has been replaced by ServicesArchitecture

  • Key: SOAML11-67
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18243
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Gebhart Quality Analysis (QA) 82 ( Michael Gebhart)
  • Summary:

    On Page 67:

    "A ServicesArchitecture or ParticipantArchitecture may then be used to model the requirements for a collection of
    participants that provide and consume services defined with service contracts."

    On Page 109:

    Figure B.5 shows a ParticipantArchitecture.

    There is no ParticipantArchitecture any longer.

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0.1 — Fri, 2 Nov 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

ServiceInterface extends UML Interface

  • Key: SOAML11-66
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18242
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Gebhart Quality Analysis (QA) 82 ( Michael Gebhart)
  • Summary:

    According to the introduction of SoaML we have to distinguish between simple interfaces and ServiceInterfaces (see page 8). Simple interfaces are UML Interfaces and ServiceInterfaces are UML Classes with further details. In the examples (e.g. page 11) the simple interfaces do not have any stereotypes applied.

    However, on page 34 when the UML profile is introduced, ServiceInterface extends not only UML Class but also UML Interface. I do not see any reason for this unless simple interfaces as UML Interfaces also should have the stereotype "ServiceInterface" applied. Also the XMI describes that the stereotype "ServiceInterface" can be applied to UML Interfaces.

    As simple interfaces are also some kind of service interfaces, maybe it is the right way to apply the stereotype to all simple interfaces too.

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0.1 — Fri, 2 Nov 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Various stereotype attributes should have multiplicity 0..1 in the SoaML profile

  • Key: SOAML11-65
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18142
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Ed Seidewitz)
  • Summary:

    Specification: Service oriented architecture Modeling Language (SoaML) Specification (formal/12-03-01)

    Subclause: 6.4.2 Attachment, 6.4.8 MessageType

    The attributes of the stereotypes Attachment (encoding and mimeType) and MessageType (encoding) are shown as having 0..1 multiplicity (which seems to be correct) in the textual descriptions for the stereotypes in the specification document, but have multiplicity 1..1 in the profile model XMI (and in Figure 6.2.7). The multiplicities for the attributes of Attachment and MessageType should be changed to 0..1 in the normative XMI.

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Fri, 5 Oct 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Classes Service and Request

  • Key: SOAML11-64
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16077
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    Classes Service and Request each define a property called ‘protocol’; however they also inherit from Port which, in L3, has a property ‘protocol’ of type ProtocolStateMachine. The new properties are therefore invalid (they cannot be redefinitions since the property type: ServiceInterface is not conformant with ProtocolStateMachine).

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Fri, 4 Mar 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

No values are specified for the XMI namespace URI or prefix

  • Key: SOAML11-63
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16076
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    No values are specified for the XMI namespace URI or prefix

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Fri, 4 Mar 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Category and CategoryValue

  • Key: SOAML11-62
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16075
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    In the metamodel XMI, Category inherits from RAS, whereas Figure 9.8 has it inheriting from NodeDescriptor inheriting from Artifact. Likewise CategoryValue

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Fri, 4 Mar 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

metamodel XMI does not contain the classes CapabilityRealization and CapabilityExposure which are shown in Figure 9.7

  • Key: SOAML11-61
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16074
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    The metamodel XMI does not contain the classes CapabilityRealization and CapabilityExposure which are shown in Figure 9.7. They don’t appear in the Profile either. It would seem the latter is replaced by the Expose class based on the discussion of Figure 6.23.

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Fri, 4 Mar 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Class Milestone and Expose

  • Key: SOAML11-60
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16073
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    Class Milestone appears in the XMI file and the Profile Mapping but not in the Metamodel section of the specification. Likewise Expose

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Fri, 4 Mar 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

In the metamodel XMI the class Attachment has two Generalization elements both targeting Property

  • Key: SOAML11-59
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16072
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    In the metamodel XMI the class Attachment has two Generalization elements both targeting Property

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Fri, 4 Mar 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

The references to the elements in the UML metamodel do not use the xmi:ids that are in the normative UML XMI file

  • Key: SOAML11-58
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16071
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    The references to the elements in the UML metamodel do not use the xmi:ids that are in the normative UML XMI file. So they do not work

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Fri, 4 Mar 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Several properties are private not public as required by MOF

  • Key: SOAML11-57
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16070
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    Several properties are private not public as required by MOF

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Fri, 4 Mar 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Several Associations and Properties are not named, as required by MOF

  • Key: SOAML11-56
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16069
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    Several Associations and Properties are not named, as required by MOF

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Fri, 4 Mar 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

MotivationRealization.implementingClassifier should {redefine client}.

  • Key: SOAML11-55
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16068
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    MotivationRealization.implementingClassifier should

    {redefine client}

    .

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Fri, 4 Mar 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Service::protocol redefines Port::type so ServiceInterface::service should redefine typedElement.

  • Key: SOAML11-54
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16067
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    Service::protocol redefines Port::type so ServiceInterface::service should redefine typedElement. Likewise ServiceInterface::request

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Fri, 4 Mar 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

BMMIntegration the property MotivationRealization.realizedMotivation {subsets supplier}.

  • Key: SOAML11-53
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16066
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    In BMMIntegration the property MotivationRealization.realizedMotivation

    {subsets supplier}

    . However MotivationElement is not a UML metaclass so by definition does not subclass uml:Element so cannot be a valid target for the inherited Dependency::supplier property. Thus the subsetting is invalid. If that is removed, however, as a subclass of Dependency it leaves the mandatory supplier property empty and so any model will inherently be invalid.

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Fri, 4 Mar 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

There are several (seven to be precise) cases where {subsets} relationships are represented in the XMI as Constraints

  • Key: SOAML11-52
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16065
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    There are several (seven to be precise) cases where

    {subsets}

    relationships are represented in the XMI as Constraints rather than using the subsettedProperty association.

    In fact one of the Constraints does not have a constrainedElement.

    There are also two cases where

    {redefines}

    is represented by a Constraint in the XMI.

    However many of these have other problems (see other issues).

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Fri, 4 Mar 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

RedefinableTemplateSignature is not part of MOF so should be removed from the metamodel

  • Key: SOAML11-51
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16064
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    RedefinableTemplateSignature is not part of MOF so should be removed from the metamodel

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Fri, 4 Mar 2011 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

09-12-09 SoaML 1.0 Beta 2 figure 93 p. 149

  • Key: SOAML11-50
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15786
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Naval Undersea Warfare Center ( Richard Funk)
  • Summary:

    Activity parameter node for customerInfo is of the wrong type. It should be type Customer, not processPurchaseOrder, to match the signature of the prochasePurchaseOrder operation in the Purchasing interface.

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

09-12-09 SoaML 1.0 Beta 2 figure 83 p. 141

  • Key: SOAML11-49
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15785
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Naval Undersea Warfare Center ( Richard Funk)
  • Summary:

    Judging from the rest of the figures in this system I think the AcceptEventActions in this diagram should be modeled as SendSignalActions, instead. The interfaces that define the associated receptions don't appear to be related to these swim lanes as receptions, but rather they appear to be sent by these swim lanes.

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

09-12-09 SoaML 1.0 Beta 2 figure 79 p. 136

  • Key: SOAML11-48
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15784
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Naval Undersea Warfare Center ( Richard Funk)
  • Summary:

    The text describing this figure implies that there should be participant swim lanes on this diagram, but there are none. Recommend adding the missing swim lanes. The reader might guess that there is a single swim lane for the OrderProcessing participant, and that this activity is 'owned' by the ManufacturerComponent, or that this activity is actually owned entirely by the OrderProcessing participant, but this is not apparent from the parts of the model shown. The latter context seems more likely, given the form of the activity, but mention of swim lanes in the text seems to contradict this, so the end result is confusion.

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

09-12-09 SoaML 1.0 Beta 2 figure 78 p. 135

  • Key: SOAML11-47
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15783
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Naval Undersea Warfare Center ( Richard Funk)
  • Summary:

    There is no such thing in the profile described in this document as a <<ParticipantArchitecture>> stereotype. Perhaps this stereotype was removed in this version of the specification? Also in this diagram, I believe the payer role binding should be changed to invoicer, considering figure 75 on page 133.

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

09-12-09 SoaML 1.0 Beta 2 Figure 20 p. 38

  • Key: SOAML11-46
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15777
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Naval Undersea Warfare Center ( Richard Funk)
  • Summary:

    Remove the slash in front of the dealer part name. According to 09-09-09 UML 2.3 Super structure p. 188 this notation applies only to an instance specification.

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

09-12-90 SoaML 1.0 Beta 2 ServiceInterface Constraint [1] p. 94

  • Key: SOAML11-45
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15776
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Naval Undersea Warfare Center ( Richard Funk)
  • Summary:

    Existing text:

    [1] All parts of a ServiceInterface must be typed by the Interfaces realized or used by the ServiceInterface.

    Recommended text:

    [1] All typed parts of a ServiceInterface must be typed by the Interfaces realized or used by the ServiceInterface.

    Existing text implies that all parts must be typed, which is not true, if Figure 52 on page 99 is correct. The orderer role in Figure 52 (ShippingService) has no type. It would appear that the constraint should apply only to those parts that have a type, and not all parts in general.

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

09-12-09 SoaML Beta 2 Fig 18 p. 36

  • Key: SOAML11-44
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15775
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Naval Undersea Warfare Center ( Richard Funk)
  • Summary:

    The <<uses>> dependency between Seller and Purchaser is pointing in the wrong direction. According to Figure 17 on page 35, step 3 in the interaction diagram shows that the Seller sends the Delivery message to the Purchaser, and not the other way around. The Purchaser never sends any messages directly to the Seller.

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

09-12-09 SoaML 1.0 beta 2 Figure 78 p. 135

  • Key: SOAML11-43
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15767
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    I believe the accounting participant should play the invoicer role, not
    the payer role (see Figure 75 p. 133).

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

CSC missing as submitter

  • Key: SOAML11-42
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15392
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Odell)
  • Summary:

    Once again, CSC has been omitted as a submitter. Please re-add to the copyright and Acknowledgements.

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Mon, 2 Aug 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

second bullet under the Scope section (ptc/2009-12-10)

  • Key: SOAML11-41
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15391
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Odell)
  • Summary:

    In the second bullet under the Scope section (ptc/2009-12-10), it reads”

    “· Specifying services including the functional capabilities they provide, what capabilities consumers are expected to provide , the protocols or rules for using them, and the service information exchanged between consumers and providers.”

    Shouldn't it be "...what capabilities providers are expected to provide [or support]..." or possibly "...what capabilities consumers are expecting [to receive]..."?

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Mon, 2 Aug 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Figure 96: Specification

  • Key: SOAML11-40
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15354
  • Status: open  
  • Source: SINTEF ( Brian Elvesæter)
  • Summary:

    Same as issue 15333: Here <<specification>> is introduced and <<Participant>> is used on the implementation (realization). The relationship between <<specification>> and <<Participant>> is not clear to me in the specification. I would argue that a <<Participant>> can be seen as a logical system component that represents a specification, which can be further decomposed into a set of Participants (in the case you want to specify lower-level/participant-level services architectures) or components (design of software components).

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Figure 93: Interfaces

  • Key: SOAML11-39
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15353
  • Status: open  
  • Source: SINTEF ( Brian Elvesæter)
  • Summary:

    Apply correct stereotypes to the interfaces.

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Figure 92: Specification

  • Key: SOAML11-38
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15352
  • Status: open  
  • Source: SINTEF ( Brian Elvesæter)
  • Summary:

    Same as issue 15333: Here <<specification>> is introduced and <<Participant>> is used on the implementation (realization). The relationship between <<specification>> and <<Participant>> is not clear to me in the specification. I would argue that a <<Participant>> can be seen as a logical system component that represents a specification, which can be further decomposed into a set of Participants (in the case you want to specify lower-level/participant-level services architectures) or components (design of software components).

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Figure 91: Interface

  • Key: SOAML11-37
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15351
  • Status: open  
  • Source: SINTEF ( Brian Elvesæter)
  • Summary:

    Apply <<Provider>> stereotype.

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Figure 89: Interface

  • Key: SOAML11-36
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15350
  • Status: open  
  • Source: SINTEF ( Brian Elvesæter)
  • Summary:

    Apply <<Provider>> stereotype.

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Figure 88: Interfaces

  • Key: SOAML11-35
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15349
  • Status: open  
  • Source: SINTEF ( Brian Elvesæter)
  • Summary:

    The interfaces should be stereotyped <<Consumer>> and <<Provider>>.

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Figure 87: Interface

  • Key: SOAML11-34
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15348
  • Status: open  
  • Source: SINTEF ( Brian Elvesæter)
  • Summary:

    Apply <<Provider>> stereotype.

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Figure 86: Interfaces

  • Key: SOAML11-33
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15347
  • Status: open  
  • Source: SINTEF ( Brian Elvesæter)
  • Summary:

    The interfaces should be stereotyped <<Consumer>> and <<Provider>>

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Figure 85: [CBC5] comment and service interfaces

  • Key: SOAML11-32
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15346
  • Status: open  
  • Source: SINTEF ( Brian Elvesæter)
  • Summary:

    [CBC5] comment should be deleted. Use of service interface is not according to the latest spec.

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Figure 84: [CBC4] comment and stereotypes

  • Key: SOAML11-31
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15345
  • Status: open  
  • Source: SINTEF ( Brian Elvesæter)
  • Summary:

    [CBC4] comment should be deleted. Interfaces missing proper stereotypes.

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Figure 83: [CBC3] comment

  • Key: SOAML11-30
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15344
  • Status: open  
  • Source: SINTEF ( Brian Elvesæter)
  • Summary:

    [CBC3] comment should be deleted.

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Figure 82: Service contract

  • Key: SOAML11-29
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15343
  • Status: open  
  • Source: SINTEF ( Brian Elvesæter)
  • Summary:

    Same as issue 15342: The roles in the service contract should be typed by either a <<Consumer>> interface or <<Provider>> interface - not a <<ServiceInterface>>. This figure reflects and older version of the standard and must be updated.

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Figure 81: Service contract

  • Key: SOAML11-28
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15342
  • Status: open  
  • Source: SINTEF ( Brian Elvesæter)
  • Summary:

    The roles in the service contract should be typed by either a <<Consumer>> interface or <<Provider>> interface - not a <<ServiceInterface>>. This figure reflects and older version of the standard and must be updated.

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Figure 78: Participant architecture

  • Key: SOAML11-27
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15341
  • Status: open  
  • Source: SINTEF ( Brian Elvesæter)
  • Summary:

    <<ParticipantArchitecture>> is no longer a part of the standard.

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Figure 56: Interface

  • Key: SOAML11-26
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15340
  • Status: open  
  • Source: SINTEF ( Brian Elvesæter)
  • Summary:

    nterface Scheduling should be stereotyped <<Provider>>.

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Figure 51: Interfaces

  • Key: SOAML11-25
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15339
  • Status: open  
  • Source: SINTEF ( Brian Elvesæter)
  • Summary:

    The interfaces should be stereotyped <<Consumer>> and <<Provider>>.

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Figure 50: Service interface

  • Key: SOAML11-24
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15338
  • Status: open  
  • Source: SINTEF ( Brian Elvesæter)
  • Summary:

    ServiceInterface is a sterotype on a Class and not an Interface. The <<ServiceInterface>> stereotyped should be changed to <<Provider>>.

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Figure 49: Service contract

  • Key: SOAML11-23
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15337
  • Status: open  
  • Source: SINTEF ( Brian Elvesæter)
  • Summary:

    The Collaboration Use should NOT be stereotyped <<ServiceContract>>. This is NOT part of the standard. Ports are missing <<Service>> and <<Request>> stereotypes.

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Figure 44: Specification

  • Key: SOAML11-22
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15336
  • Status: open  
  • Source: SINTEF ( Brian Elvesæter)
  • Summary:

    See issue 15333: Here <<specification>> is introduced and <<Participant>> is used on the implementation (realization). The relationship between <<specification>> and <<Participant>> is not clear to me in the specification. I would argue that a <<Participant>> can be seen as a logical system component that represents a specification, which can be further decomposed into a set of Participants (in the case you want to specify lower-level/participant-level services architectures) or components (design of software components).

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

7.1.14 Provider: Examples

  • Key: SOAML11-21
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15335
  • Status: open  
  • Source: SINTEF ( Brian Elvesæter)
  • Summary:

    Example figure is missing a caption. The ports are not typed nor stereotyped.

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Figure 41: Specification

  • Key: SOAML11-20
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15334
  • Status: open  
  • Source: SINTEF ( Brian Elvesæter)
  • Summary:

    See issue 15333 : Here <<specification>> is introduced and <<Participant>> is used on the implementation (realization). The relationship between <<specification>> and <<Participant>> is not clear to me in the specification. I would argue that a <<Participant>> can be seen as a logical system component that represents a specification, which can be further decomposed into a set of Participants (in the case you want to specify lower-level/participant-level services architectures) or components (design of software components).

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Figure 40: Specification

  • Key: SOAML11-19
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15333
  • Status: open  
  • Source: SINTEF ( Brian Elvesæter)
  • Summary:

    Here <<specification>> is introduced and <<Participant>> is used on the implementation (realization). The relationship between <<specification>> and <<Participant>> is not clear to me in the specification. I would argue that a <<Participant>> can be seen as a logical system component that represents a specification, which can be further decomposed into a set of Participants (in the case you want to specify lower-level/participant-level services architectures) or components (design of software components).

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Figure 39: Interfaces

  • Key: SOAML11-18
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15332
  • Status: open  
  • Source: SINTEF ( Brian Elvesæter)
  • Summary:

    The interfaces are missing the <<Consumer>> and/or <<Provider>> stereotypes.

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Figure 37: Interfaces

  • Key: SOAML11-17
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15331
  • Status: open  
  • Source: SINTEF ( Brian Elvesæter)
  • Summary:

    The interfaces should be stereotyped <<Provider>>.

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

7.1.8 Expose: [GBE2] comment

  • Key: SOAML11-16
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15330
  • Status: open  
  • Source: SINTEF ( Brian Elvesæter)
  • Summary:

    [GBE2] comment should be deleted.

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Figure 34: Interfaces and [CBC1]

  • Key: SOAML11-15
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15329
  • Status: open  
  • Source: SINTEF ( Brian Elvesæter)
  • Summary:

    Interfaces are missing <<Consumer>> and <<Provider>> stereotypes. [CBC1] comment should be deleted.

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

7.1.5 Consumer: Examples

  • Key: SOAML11-14
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15328
  • Status: open  
  • Source: SINTEF ( Brian Elvesæter)
  • Summary:

    The figures in the examples subsection are missing captions. The request ports on Dealer are not typed. One has only be named to give impression that it is typed, and the other is not named at all.

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Figure 25: Service port

  • Key: SOAML11-13
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15327
  • Status: open  
  • Source: SINTEF ( Brian Elvesæter)
  • Summary:

    The service port Orders on Manufacturer is missing the <<Service>> stereotype.

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Figure 24: Service port

  • Key: SOAML11-12
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15326
  • Status: open  
  • Source: SINTEF ( Brian Elvesæter)
  • Summary:

    Stereotype on port should be changed from <<ServicePoint>> to <<Service>>.

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Figure 23: Interfaces and Service port.

  • Key: SOAML11-11
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15325
  • Status: open  
  • Source: SINTEF ( Brian Elvesæter)
  • Summary:

    See issue 15323 above (regarding Figure 21). Furthermore, the stereotype on the ShippingService port on the Shipper should be changed from <<ServicePoint>> to <<Service>>.

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Figure 22: Interfaces (same as figure 21)

  • Key: SOAML11-10
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15324
  • Status: open  
  • Source: SINTEF ( Brian Elvesæter)
  • Summary:

    The Shipping and ScheduleProcessing interfaces should be stereotyped <<Provider>>.Also as stated above (issue 7) the concept of Cability as written in the standard is ambiguous as it has two different semantics whether seen from the business perspective or the IT perspective. I would personally only use the concept on the business level, thus a Capability should not be able to realize a ServiceInterface. The standard should clarify the ambiguity of the concept and choose one consistent meaning. I suggest restricting the Capability concept to the business perspective only. Thus, a ServiceInterface (IT perspective) exposes a Capability (business perspective).

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Figure 21: Interfaces

  • Key: SOAML11-9
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15323
  • Status: open  
  • Source: SINTEF ( Brian Elvesæter)
  • Summary:

    The Shipping and ScheduleProcessing interfaces should be stereotyped <<Provider>>.Also as stated above (issue 7) the concept of Cability as written in the standard is ambiguous as it has two different semantics whether seen from the business perspective or the IT perspective. I would personally only use the concept on the business level, thus a Capability should not be able to realize a ServiceInterface. The standard should clarify the ambiguity of the concept and choose one consistent meaning. I suggest restricting the Capability concept to the business perspective only. Thus, a ServiceInterface (IT perspective) exposes a Capability (business perspective).

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Capabilities

  • Key: SOAML11-8
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15322
  • Status: open  
  • Source: SINTEF ( Brian Elvesæter)
  • Summary:

    On page 40 it is stated that "Capabilities represent an abstraction of the ability to affect change" and there is a lot of explanation why modelling capabilities makes sense on what I perceive to be the business perspective on an SOA.On page 63 it is stated that "Alternatively, Capabilities may realize ServiceInterfaces using standard UML Realization. This approach is somewhat different in that it says that the Service Interface is a "specification" and the Capability "implements" this specification."In my view here the concept "capability" is used on two different abstraction levels: 1) abstract business view, and 2) IT implementation view. This should be avoided!

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Figure 16: Request port

  • Key: SOAML11-7
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15321
  • Status: open  
  • Source: SINTEF ( Brian Elvesæter)
  • Summary:

    The request port for the Shipping Request on Manufacturer is not typed. (This is the same figure as Figure 15).

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Figure 15: Request port

  • Key: SOAML11-6
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15320
  • Status: open  
  • Source: SINTEF ( Brian Elvesæter)
  • Summary:

    The request port for the Shipping Request on Manufacturer is not typed. (This is the same figure as Figure 8).

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Figure 8: Request port

  • Key: SOAML11-5
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15319
  • Status: open  
  • Source: SINTEF ( Brian Elvesæter)
  • Summary:

    he request port for the Shipping Request on Manufacturer is not typed.

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT

Figure 5: Service and request ports

  • Key: SOAML11-4
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15318
  • Status: open  
  • Source: SINTEF ( Brian Elvesæter)
  • Summary:

    The service and request ports are not typed. They are only named to give impression that they are typed.

  • Reported: SoaML 1.0 — Thu, 1 Jul 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:57 GMT