-
Key: BACM-32
-
Status: open
-
Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Rhyne)
-
Summary:
It’s not clear why the “leg” construct is introduced when association classes already exist in UML and have properties instead of legs. As do n-ary associations. Though neither are part of MOF officially, I don’t see the justification of the “leg” terminology.
-
Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Thu, 20 Oct 2022 16:32 GMT
-
Updated: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 00:47 GMT
BACM — Use of "leg" terminology to describe relationships
- Key: BACM-32
- OMG Task Force: Business Architecture Core Metamodel (BACM) 1.0 FTF