Legacy Issue Number: 6877
Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
This is a general issue that is quite pervasive. I think it is important
enough to be considered by the FTF.
The specification is littered with keywords which are used on diagrams
to indicate various things.
What the specification sorely needs is an Appendix that gathers them all
together. And cross-references each with where it is defined and the
compliance level it is associated with.
Also what it needs is a general description of the semantics of
keywords, how they differ from 'Standard Stereotypes' and associated
constraints - e.g. it should not be allowed to declare a Stereotype with
a name which, when decapitalized, is the same as a keyword (since they'd
Arguably keywords would be depicted with a distinct notation from
stereotypes (based on language design principles and to help users
interpret diagrams where they see words in guillemets and don't know
whether to look it up in the list of keywords or stereotypes) but that
is probably too major a change to make at this stage. However the
notation should be clarified to cover the following cases:
A) if the same element requires a keyword and has a stereotype applied
are they shown in 2 separate <<xxx>> expressions or in one, separated by
B) if a stereotype is applied to a class normally indicated by a
keyword, does that keyword still need to be provided?
Reported: XMI 2.0 — Thu, 8 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT