MARTE_ — In GCM, domain model and profile do not match in ways that are not fully documented

In GCM, domain model and profile does not match in ways that are not fully documented. Although this may be acceptable when domain concepts map directly to UML concepts (no stereotype assigned), or when some syntactic sugar are added at UML profile level. However, it is not clear why the attributes: "direction: DirectionKind" and "kind: BFeatureKind" appear in some domain entities (FlowProperty) and in others not (FlowSpecification, ServiceSpecification, ServiceFeature, SignalSpecificatio, SignalFeature), while in the Profile they are used in all these entities.

This issue is related to alignment problems between the UML view and the domain view
of the GCM (as well as issues 12867 and 13124, which are set to duplicate/merge
because they are treated here).
Issues 11820 and 13407 are related to problems with the UML view of the GCM, and
they have been treated before this issue 13125. So, the revised text of this resolution is
made to be consistent with resolutions 11820 and 13407.
However, note that the revised text proposed here does not result in a “one to one”
alignment. Indeed, let's remain that the domain view is intended to describe the
specification of the specific modeling language, whereas the UML view (the UML
profile itself) is a real design model of the domain model. They are not to be considered
at the level of abstraction, and then their concepts do not have to map one-per-one. The
intend of the GCM domain model, and in fact of all other domain models denoted in the
AMRTE specification, are proposed to depict what is essential for the understanding of
the GCM, and its underlying causality model (described in section 12.2.2 of the revised
text).