Problem Statement:
XOR and also the already deprecated CHOICE stereotype do not allow to model allreuired situations that can occur in a model
Question from Andrea:
Is the {xor} Constraint managed by the uml2yang tool – i.e. translated into a choice statement as specified in Draft_TR-531_UML-YANG_Mapping_Gdls_v1.1.03.docx, paragraph 6.3?
By the way, I fail to create a similar constraint in Papyrus, “xor” keyword is refused…
Resolution: From the constraints UML page, click the green plus sign on the Specification. Add a LiteralString with 'xor' in Value.
The translation to yang is manual. The xmi2yang tool does not have the functionality to automatically create the choice.
Andrea presented slides on node rule group that deal with rules for forwarding in a node.
Andrea noted that the contention may be across the whole device and Nigel added that it may be a subset of the devices ports.
It was recognised that there are many complex rule scenarios.
Loop
Spiral
Occurrence
Discussed fixed connection rules.
This illustrated the need for a more complex rule mechanism that than provided by simple XOR or CHOICE.
Andrea provided a overview of the purpose.
In an IETF context the connectivity matrix is for the same purpose.
XOR in UML means: One and only one of the alternatives need to be used.
Choice in YANG allows also to have non of the alternatives if optional.
YANG does also allow to define a kind of "xor" using containers with when statements that are mutually exclusive.
This could be defined in UML using conditional relationships with mutually exclusive conditions; i.e., without using the xor-constraint in UML.