Omg issue Number

Disposition: Resolved

OMG Issue No: 11545

Title: grammar defined for conditional expressions (condition part should support logical comparison)

Source:

THALES (Mr. Sebastien Demathieu, [e-mail])

Summary:

The grammar defined for conditional expressions does not allow one to use operation call expressions in the condition predicate. The BNF defines only ::= | |

As a consequence, it is not possible to define predicates based on value comparison. Thus, it is not possible to implement the expression "(clock_rate>5)?(5):(clock_rate)", provided as example page 404.
Resolution:

We add a new terminal to the rule, which is operation call expression. This allows us to specify: "(clock_rate>5)” which is an infix operation call of “>” in clock_rate.

Revised Text:

-In Section B.3.3.15, we add a new terminal for the rule (we additionally add parenthesis to the rule):

::= ‘(’ | |

| ‘)’

.
Disposition: Resolved

Disposition: Resolved

OMG Issue No: 11546

Title: Wrong references in page 397

Source:

THALES (Mr. Sebastien Demathieu, [e-mail])

Summary:

Wrong references in page 397 : "The nature of these mechanisms is described in chapters Model Processing and The Model Configurer on page X-X" and "we use the standard BNF notational convention defined in Annex X". The chapters "Model Processing" and "The Model Configurer" may not exist anymore in the Beta 1 version..

Resolution:

I suggest to remove these sentences that contain old (SPT) references.

Revised Text:

Page 397 old text:

However, these additional mechanisms are necessary for any system that allows values to be expressed through variables and are not a consequence of using VSL. The nature of these mechanisms is described in chapters "Model Processing" and "The Model Configurer" on page X-X.

In representing the syntax of these value specifications, we use the standard BNF notational convention defined in Annex X.

Page 397 new text:

However, these additional mechanisms are necessary for any system that allows values to be expressed through variables and are not a consequence of using VSL.

Disposition: Resolved

Disposition: Resolved

OMG Issue No: 11547

Title: VSL meta-model

Source:

THALES (Mr. Sebastien Demathieu, [e-mail])

Summary:

The VSL BNF defines a "[ ]" symbol that can be used along with a collection. The specification introduces the example: "{'a', 'b', 'c', 'd'} [2]". However, there is no related concept (access to a collection) in the VSL meta-model.

Resolution:

This notation (to get collection elements by using the index), comes from the TVL language in SPT, but the mentioned example was not updated to the current VSL mechanism to define operations in data types. For that, VSL uses the same approach as OCL, so that the operation for finding an element in a given collection should be defined and described at library level, in the operations of the concerned data types (collections in this case). The specification of the function will be allowed by using OperationCallExpression.

The resolution is to remove the proposed examples from VSL.
If new operations are required for Collections in the MARTE library of data types, this should be solved by posting a separated issue.
Revised Text:

In Section B.3.3.8, page 401, remove the last paragraphs:

Individual items in a collection can be accessed by indexing. It is achieved by specifying the index of the desired collection element to the right of the collection, with the left-most element at index value 0. For instance, the result of evaluating the following expression:

{'a', 'b', 'c', 'd'} [2]

is the string 'c', which is in index position 2.
Disposition: Resolved

Disposition: Resolved

OMG Issue No: 11550

Title: non-terminal symbol automotive example (Completeness of Namespace in VSL grammar Remove “automotive example” from the original title)

Source:

THALES (Mr. Sebastien Demathieu, [e-mail])

Summary:

The VSL grammar introduces a non-terminal symbol in the syntax definition of property call expression and variable call expression. However, this symbol seems to be missing in the syntax definition of enumeration specification as well as observation call expression. As a consequence, it is not possible to reference without ambiguity two time instant observations with the same name but with different fully qualified names. That prevents from using observations with similar names in different packages.

Resolution:

For the case of Enumeration specification, it is not necessary to specify the namespace. Enumerations values are always related to a typed property or tag definition. The type of those properties or tag definitions (an Enumeration data type) defines the scope of the enumeration literal specified.

For the case of Observation Call Expression, the namespace is missing. This resolution proposes to add such a namespace.

Revised Text:

-In Section B.3.3.15, modify and extend the BNF for and :

::= [ ‘.’]

::= [ ‘.’]

::=

Disposition: Resolved