Source: Elparazim ( Edward Roberts)
The current standard says:
"The only form of an association end that SysML allows an association to own directly is an unnamed end used to carry an inverse multiplicity of a reference property."
But this is not totally true... the Communication Path in Use Cases is modeled as an Association and it has no navigability shown, which means it is navigable on both ends, which means ownership on both ends, but the ends are UseCases and Actors which are BehavioredClassifiers which do not have attributes, so this statement in the standard must be added to, to
(this should go in a sentence in the standard after the sentence cited)
allow Association to own both end of the association ends if one end is either an Actor or a UseCase.
I state either because SysML deriving most of its UseCase semantics from UML... an Actor can be associated to a Classifier in a UseCase per UML... and a UseCase can be associated to another UseCase in UML provided that UseCase is not specifying the same Subject... this is specified in UML 2.5.1 in section 18.1.4
"UseCases may have other Associations and Dependencies to other Classifiers"
also 126.96.36.199 says "An Actor can only have Associations to UseCases, Components, and Classes. Furthermore these Associations
must be binary."
and 188.8.131.52 "UseCases cannot have Associations to UseCases specifying the same subject"
Reported: SysML 1.6 — Fri, 21 Feb 2020 14:40 GMT
Updated: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 14:51 GMT
SYSML17 — Caveat is not specific for UseCases
- Key: SYSML17-299
- OMG Task Force: SysML 1.7 RTF