Subject: RE: MSC-News: Conditions in HMSC
From: Jan Docekal (jan.docekal#telelogic.se)
Date: Mon Jan 26 1998 - 09:42:26 GMT
The originator of this message is responsible for its content.
-----From Jan Docekal <jan.docekal#telelogic.se> to mscnews -----
Dear (H)MSC friends,
First I would like to say that my interpretation of the textual and
graphical grammar was a little to superficial, my defense in this matter
is however that my judgment was colored by the following statement in
the standard.
Chapter 5.5 High Level MSC (HMSC)
Third paragraph first sentence:
The flow lines connect the nodes in the HMSC and they indicate the
sequencing that is possible among the nodes in the HMSC.
My interpretation of this sentence is that reachability is described by
flow lines only, and that nodes can not be bound by names in
conditions. This (hopefully and finally) answers the question below by
stating that "free fragments" are not allowed.
Best regards,
Jan Docekal
> The originator of this message is responsible for its content.
> -----From telox1#fs.siemens.no (Dagbjorn Nogva) to mscnews -----
>
> >
> > Dear Oystein, Jan, Dagbjorn and the others,
> >
> > I have to agree with Oystein that the textual syntax does not
> > require every node to be reachable from the start node.
> > But, the static semantics of section 5.5 High-level MSC
> > clearly states:
> >
> > "Every node in the HMSC graph must be reachable from the
> > <start>, i.e. the graph must be connected."
> >
> > As a consequence indeed every node in an HMSC must be reachable
> > from the start node.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Michel Reniers
> >
>
> Thank you to Oystein, Jan and Michel for the interest in my
> problem!
>
> > "Every node in the HMSC graph must be reachable from the
> > <start>, i.e. the graph must be connected."
>
> Does Z.120 mean "connected" only in the sense of flow lines, or
> may "connected" also be interpreted in the sense of identical
> condition names?
>
> Best regards
> Dagbjoern Nogva
>
> -----End text from telox1#fs.siemens.no (Dagbjorn Nogva) to mscnews
> -----
> For help, email "majordomo#sdl-forum.org" with the body of your email
> as:
> help
> or (iff this does not answer your question) email:
> owner-mscnews#sdl-forum.org
>
>
The originator of this message is responsible for its content.
-----From Oystein Haugen <etooha#eto.ericsson.se> to mscnews -----
Michel Reniers wrote:
> The originator of this message is responsible for its content.
> -----From Michel Reniers <michelr#win.tue.nl> to mscnews -----
>
>
> Dear Oystein, Jan, Dagbjorn and the others,
>
> I have to agree with Oystein that the textual syntax does not
> require every node to be reachable from the start node.
> But, the static semantics of section 5.5 High-level MSC
> clearly states:
>
> "Every node in the HMSC graph must be reachable from the
> <start>, i.e. the graph must be connected."
>
> As a consequence indeed every node in an HMSC must be reachable
> from the start node.
>
> Best regards,
> Michel Reniers
>
> --
> Michel Reniers, c/o Eindhoven University of Technology,
> P.O. Box 513, NL-5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands
> Phone: +31-402475157 E-mail: michelr#win.tue.nl
> Fax : +31-402463992
>
> -----End text from Michel Reniers <michelr#win.tue.nl> to mscnews
> -----
> For help, email "majordomo#sdl-forum.org" with the body of your email
> as:
> help
> or (iff this does not answer your question) email:
> owner-mscnews#sdl-forum.org
Dear Michel, Jan, Dagbjorn and the other HMSC fans
This discussion is becoming ever more interesting. Michel found the
sentence I looked for, but did not find. But - it is not in the static
semantics of the graphical grammar, but it follows the textual grammar.
This may seem like a detail, but there _is_ a static semantic section
also following the graphical grammar.
In Dagbjorns original example, the textual representation of the graph
_will_ be connected. The "free" fragments have start conditions which
are found in the part of the graph which is connected to the start
(transitively). The way I (choose to) interpret the quoted (by Michel)
sentence is that the graph shall not have conditions which cannot be
reached through an execution from the start. But this is not what
Dagbjorn is asking for. His question is about the graphical
representation as far as I can see it.
I am still of the opinion that it is allowed to have "free fragments" as
long as the conditions in the fragments can be reached from the start.
More opinions?
Yours
Oystein Haugen
(Rapporteur MSC)
-- ------------------------ Oystein Haugen, Ericsson as. , P.O. box 34, N-1361 Billingstad, Norway Tel: +47 66 84 23 46 Fax: +47 66 84 19 15 E-mail: etooha#eto.ericsson.se-----End text from Jan Docekal <jan.docekal#telelogic.se> to mscnews ----- For help, email "majordomo#sdl-forum.org" with the body of your email as: help or (iff this does not answer your question) email: owner-mscnews#sdl-forum.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a23 : Wed Jun 19 2013 - 13:16:37 GMT