OCL25 — OCL 2.2 UML-alignment of redefinition

At the end of Section 7.4.6 OCL 2.2 says

"For example, if class Employee redefines the age() : Integer operation of
the Person class, a constraint may access the
Person definition as in
context Employee
inv: self.age() <= self.Person::age()
For clarity, the qualified form may only be used with an explicit source
expression."

and in Section 7.5.8:

"Whenever properties are redefined within a type, the property of the
supertypes can be accessed using the oclAsType()
operation. Whenever we have a class B as a subtype of class A, and a
property p1 of both A and B, we can write:"

a clarifying example follows that is actually a disambiguation not a
redefinition.

In UML redefinition replaces an old definition with something else, which is
not what the above
excerpts imply.

In the case of redefining "Person::age() : Integer". If the redefinition is
"Employee::age() : UnlimitedNatural"
the redefinition is compatible (valid UML), so perhaps self.age() being
UnlimitedNatural and self.Person::age()
being Integer just might be useful. But allowing them to invoke different
operation bodies seems to violate
UML.

Suggest that use of a path qualification may select an occluded definition
signature for static analysis,
but may not use a redefined value or body.

[This then avoids a need for the AST to persist the distinction between X::y
as an explicit feature for
static resolution or as an implicit feature for dynamic resolution. All
features in the AST are identified by
static analysis and evaluated by dynamic resolution.]