MARTE11 — Inconsistency between the Time domain model and related profile

In the domain model, TimeProcessing.duration is a simple association, typed by CVS::DurationValueSpecification while in the profile the association is a composition, typed by ValueSpecification. Inconsistency should be corrected

In the domain view, the intent was to refer to a value (a duration value) and a
value exists independently of its specification and therefore cannot be owned. In
the UML representation, in practice, we use a specification to denote the value
and there is no reason for the specification not to be owned by another element.
The resolution proposes to keep the association in the domain view but refer to
the metaclass DurationValue instead of CVS::DurationValueSpecification. This
partly addresses also the issue 14912, stating that
CVS::DurationValueSpecification being non normative should not be used in a
normative part. The composition with a ValueSpecification is maintained in the
profile. This is consistent with the different roles played by a value and one of its
possible specifications.