Hi again,
I tested a little bit more with state machine modeling. I am not fully sure why the syntax requires to always have a composite top state? I would have assumed that you should be able to directly put your first level directly in the state machine (as you normally do when modeling it graphically).
Also I feel that in general it needs to be considered which elements really have to have explicit names and not. Since the textual notation will force users to give names to "everything", compared to when you are using the graphical notation, where some things can simple be left unnamed, or where the tooling proposes a default name that the user never have to bother about explicitly naming, e.g. the single state machine that the tooling simply will name 'StateMachine'. Does the textual syntax even have to provide an explicit name for the state machine (since a capsule should only be able to have one state machine)? Do a user ever reference the state machine (by name)? I did not test the redefinition case, but I hope that the user is not responsible for setting up all the redefinition relations (I expect the tooling in Papyrus-RT will set up those redefinition relations automatically as soon as the generalization between the capsules are setup).
There are probably more issues like this that needs further elaboration.
/Peter Cigéhn