UML14 — Suggest that alternate syntax used in section 6.5.5 be adopted thoughout

Subclassing of associations for various reasons leads to having duplicate opposite association ends with in the same class hierarchy unless the association ends are renamed for each subclass. A specific example where this has been miss-used is throughout the DMTF CIM specification.

This rule is derived from section 6.5.4 and is expressed in the well-formedness rules in 2.5.3.8 for Classifiers. However, if opposite association end name(rolename) was qualified by association name, then the navigational reason to not allow duplicates goes away.

Suggest that the alternate syntax used in section 6.5.5 be adopted thoughout. Specifically, define "rolename = associationName[oppositeassociationend]" Then specify "classifier.rolename" instead of "classifier.oppositeassociationend." Can then optionally allow use of "classifier.oppositeassociationend" when usage would not be ambiquous.

No Data Available