SBVR 1.5 RTF Avatar
  1. OMG Issue

SBVR15 — The use of UML described in the Annex does not represent any known UML tool nor the UML specification

  • Key: SBVR15-8
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19680
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: UK Ltd ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    The use of UML described in the Annex does not represent any known UML tool nor the UML specification. The examples are UML-like diagrams presumably created with a drawing tool.

    • In Figure C.1 the right hand class is shown with 2 names and an italicized label “also:” – this is not supported.
    • Section C.3 and Figure C.2: in UML, Instance diagrams only the class and not the instance name is ever underlined
    • Figure 6.3 is not a valid UML diagram if the lower shapes are InstanceSpecifications: they should have a colon after the names which should not be underlined. The use of Dependencies is not valid for class membership.
    • Figure 6.4 is not valid – an association may have only one name optionally accompanied by one direction indicator.
    • Figure C.7, C.12: In general UML does not include the notion of underline/font within a name: it’s modeled only as a text string.
    • Figure C.9 is not valid – one cannot have an association with only one end.
    • C.7.1, Figure 14: these 2 renderings are semantically identical in UML and serialized the same in XMI. UML has the ability to render the distinction using a GeneralizationSet with isDisjoint – so why not use that?
    • C.15: powertypes should not have a name before the colon in UML, though the property of type “branch type” may
    • C.9, Figure C.17: the dashed lien to association diamond is not valid in UML
  • Reported: SBVR 1.1 — Fri, 12 Dec 2014 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SBVR 1.5
  • Disposition Summary:

    Clarify that the Diagrams in Clauses 7-21 do not depict UML conventions or semantics

    (see attached Word document)

  • Updated: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 17:48 GMT
  • Attachments: