UML 1.4 NO IDEA Avatar
  1. OMG Issue

UML14 — UML2 super/notation/Keywords

  • Key: UML14-471
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6877
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    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
    be indistinguishable).

    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
    a comma?
    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
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT