“(MDM,05/02,register)” node for which the new interactions that can be nominated are indicated via dotted arcs. That is, the “(MDM,05/02,register)” node matches with the “register” task interaction point of the “MDM” Proclet class. For that interaction point, an internal interaction is defined that has the “send report” interaction point as its destination. So, an internal interaction with the “send report” task of the “MDM” Proclet instance is possible.
As can be seen in the figure, the “(visit,T1,create)” node is not active. The node matches with the interaction point that corresponds to the input condition of the “visit” Proclet class (Figure 9.23a). However, for that interaction point no outgoing external and internal interactions have been defined. So, no interactions are possible starting from the “(visit,T1,create)” node and consequently, the node is not active.
The new interaction graph can be seen in Figure 9.24b. The internal interaction for the “MDM” Proclet instance has been added in order to use the outcome of the multidisciplinary meeting as input for the second visit. Note that the associated arc has a unique identifier and that its state is “executed none” as nothing has happened yet.
There are three active nodes in the interaction graph of which only for the “(MDM,05/02,send reports)” node the new possible interactions are visualized. That is, the “(MDM,05/02,send report)” node matches with the “send reports” interaction point of the “MDM” Proclet class (see Figure 9.24a). For that outbox interaction point there is one outgoing port which is linked with the “receive” interaction point of the “visit” Proclet class. As this is an inbox interaction point, an interaction is possible with the existing “visit” Proclet class which has the instance identifier “25/01” (node “(visit,Sue 25/01,receive)”). However, in the graph of entity “Sue” we see an interaction node for a “visit” Proclet instance with the temporary instance identifier “T1” which represents the second visit. As it will exist at some time in the future, interactions may also be defined for it. As a consequence, an interaction with the “receive” task of this future instance is possible (node “(visit,T1,receive)”).
The resultant interaction graph is shown in Figure 9.24c. As can be seen, an interaction has been added such that the result of the multidisciplinary meeting is used as input for the second visit. Note that a unique interaction identifier is used and that the state is “unproduced”.
When during the second visit the “‘decide” task is executed, the interaction graph can be extended again. However, here it is not necessary to provide “Sue” as the entity identifier in order to extend the graph. That is, in the interaction graph for “Sue”, we can already find the “create” and “receive” node for the second visit. In this way, it is now denoted that the entity is relevant for the second visit and the graph for it may be extended when required.
- Spring '17
- The School, yawl