(responding to Eric)
> At the risk of going on forever, and never, never stopping: I have been > using (silly me) the Rose term, "activity," for what the UML Spec calls > an "action state." My bible on the UML is the OMG Spec, Version 1.4. > (Search reveals no "activity state" there.) Ah, yes, therein lies a problem. I refer you to an earlier statement I made... > This information may go out of date with UML 2.0, but... As I haven't finished wading through 1.4 either, I guess I should have included that too. I find the need to have a process for tracking standards a bit disconcerting ;-) but OTOH at least OMG seem to be addressing and fixing problems with earlier versions of the standard. >[Les had the right idea about all this. I'm going to lie down > for a while, now.] Good idea. I shall do the same. Paul Oldfield ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ www.aptprocess.com any opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of Mentors of Cally or the Appropriate Process Movement ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ************************************************************************ * Rose Forum is a public venue for ideas and discussions. * For technical support, visit http://www.rational.com/support * * Post or Reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Subscription Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Archive of messages: * http://www.rational.com/support/usergroups/rose/rose_forum.jsp * Other Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To unsubscribe from the list, please send email * To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Subject: <BLANK> * Body: unsubscribe rose_forum *************************************************************************
