ST6RI-734 Model-library-related Resolutions from KerML FTF Ballot #4

Systems-Modeling / SysML-v2-Pilot-Implementation

Proof-of-concept pilot implementation of the SysML v2 textual notation and visualization

GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0

114 stars 23 forks source link

ST6RI-734 Model-library-related Resolutions from KerML FTF Ballot #4 #529

Closed seidewitz closed 4 months ago

seidewitz commented 5 months ago

This PR implements resolutions of issues from KerML FTF Ballot 4 that called for updates to library models.

Resolutions of the following issues are implemented in this PR:

KERML-25 Reflective KerML abstract syntax model has inconsistencies
KERML-44 Spatial links can be occurrences
KERML-49 Some readonly features are intended to have changing values
KERML-158 InsideOf association end feature redefines cross feature
KERML-231 LinkObject disjointness is redundant

Resolution of the following library-related issue did not require a library model update:

KERML-39 Link participant feature called an association end

conradbock commented 5 months ago

The resolution summary in KERML-49 says the readonly features identified in 4. Observation.kerml and 5. SpatialFrames.kerml are not to be removed, but the keyword seems to be missing from those features in branch ST6RI-724, and I couldn't find an FTF issue for removing them, was there one?

seidewitz commented 5 months ago

The readonly keywords on Observation::defaultMonitor and SpatialFrames::defaultFrame where removed as part of the resolution to KERML-56 (see PR #520, commit 62823d9).

conradbock commented 5 months ago

The readonly keywords on Observation::defaultMonitor and SpatialFrames::defaultFrame where removed as part of the resolution to KERML-56

The revised text KERML-49 only changes the type of those features. I don't remember discussing whether the defaults can change during an occurrence. I suppose there's no harm since they're only defaults, but I can't find any FTF resolution about it.

conradbock commented 5 months ago

In any case, I can approve this pull. Sorry I didn't notice the (seemingly) unballoted readonly changes in PR #520.

seidewitz commented 5 months ago

My point was that the removal of the readonly keywords you noted was balloted, as the resolution to KERML-56, which was approved on KerML FTF Ballot 3. It was no longer necessary to have them be readonly, because the resolution to KERML-56 made them features of a true singleton type, so there is no way they could change value anyway. It was just neglected to note this in the later resolution to KERML-49.

conradbock commented 5 months ago

Makes complete sense technically, but process-wise where is the balloted revised text that removes the readonly keyword? Without that the standard libraries still have them.

seidewitz commented 5 months ago

Oops, you are right, the revised text of the resolution to KERML-56 as approved by the FTF on Ballot 3 didn't actually removed the readonly keywords. While it doesn't really matter semantically in this case, I can put them back in to be consistent with the process.