Re: [mdr-users] Operation as a context of ActivityGraph

Hello,

    I am using the SPEM metamodel:

http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/2005-01-06
http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ptc/2002-05-06

    As you can see in the test.xml that I sent in a previous message,
there is a xmi.idref pointing to an element that does not exist in the
XMI file.

    Thanks,

    Leo 

2005/6/23, Martin Matula <[email protected]>:
> Could you please point me to the metamodel you are using?
> Thanks,
> Martin
> 
> Leonardo Murta wrote:
> 
> >Hello Martin,
> >
> >    It is not possible because the context is a BehaviorFeature and
> >BehaviorFeature does not extends Namespace.
> >
> >
> >
> >    Thanks,
> >
> >    Leo
> >
> >2005/6/23, Martin Matula <[email protected]>:
> >
> >
> >>Set the namespace to the same value as the context.
> >>Regards,
> >>Martin
> >>
> >>Leonardo Gresta Paulino Murta wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Hi Jarda,
> >>>
> >>>      Thanks for the hint! However, when I do not set the namespace of the
> >>>ActivityGraph, the ActivityGraph is not written in XMI file. In other words:
> >>>I do not receive the CompositionViolationException and the generated XMI
> >>>file correctly has an element relating the xmiid of the Operation with the
> >>>xmiid of the ActivityGraph, but the ActivityGraph itself is not there...
> >>>
> >>>      The attached file (test.xml) is the generated XMI file. It is using
> >>>SPEM metamodel, but SPEM is derived from UML metamodel. The element
> >>>"SPEM:A_behavior_contex" relates a WorkDefinition, which extends Operation,
> >>>with an ActivityGraph (xmi.idref = "a7"). However, the ActivityGraph itself
> >>>(xmiid = "a7") is not there! Do you have any other hints?
> >>>
> >>>      Thanks a lot!!!
> >>>
> >>>      Leo
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>From: Jaroslav Drazan [mailto:[email protected]]
> >>>>Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 6:33 AM
> >>>>To: [email protected]
> >>>>Subject: Re: [mdr-users] Operation as a context of ActivityGraph
> >>>>
> >>>>Hello Leo,
> >>>>You can't set the composition more than once. That's the reason why all
> >>>>compositions defined by UML (ModelElement in Namespace, Feature in
> >>>>Classifier...) are optional (multiplicity is 0..1). So if you want to
> >>>>specify ActivityGraph for some BehaviorFeature you mustn't specify its
> >>>>namespace (if it has been already set you must first set it to null).
> >>>>
> >>>>Regards
> >>>>Jarda
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Hello,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>    I am using UML metamodel and trying to set the context of an
> >>>>>ActivityGraph to an Operation. The specification says the context of an
> >>>>>ActivityGraph may be a BehavioralFeature. Moreover, Operation inherits
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>from
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>BehavioralFeature. However, a CompositionViolationException is thrown.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>It
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>complains that I am trying to set more than one context to the
> >>>>>ActivityGraph. I suppose it considers the namespace where the
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>ActivityGraph
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>is inserted as an existing context. Am I doing something wrong? What is
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>the
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>correct way to set the context of an ActivityGraph to an Operation?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>Where
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>should I insert the ActivityGraph to avoid the
> >>>>>CompositionViolationException?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>    Thanks,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>    Leo
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>____________________________________________________________
> >>>>http://www.listicka.cz
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> 
>