UML22 — Unclear relationship between the Basic and Abstractions packages

1) According to the infrastructure specification [1] the Basic package is using metaclasses from the
Abstractions package, as indicated by the following text.
“Basic also contains metaclasses derived from shared metaclasses defined in packages contained in
Abstractions. These shared metaclasses are included in Basic by copy.”[1 page 91]
First, the mentioned copy construction is not defined in the infrastructure. Second, in contrary to the copy
definition, the Rose Model [2] of the infrastructure defines the deriving of metaclasses as import on the
package Abstractions::Elements and Abstractions::Multiplicity. (see Figure 1)
2) Furthermore, the infrastructure specification described the reuse of the package Abstractions::Comments
as followes.
“Basic::Comment reuses the definition of Comment from Abstractions::Comments.” [1 page 92]
The Rose Model [2] does not contain this import.
Abstractions
Elements
Comments
Ownerships
<<import>>
<<import>>
Multiplicities
<<import>>
Basic
<<import>>
<<import>>
Figure 1
3) The infrastructure specification described the Basic::MultiplicityElement as the reuse of
Abstractions::MultiplicityElement:
“Basic::MultiplicityElement reuses the definition from Abstractions::MultiplicityElement”[1 page 97]
The Abstractions package does not contain an Abstractions::MultiplicityElement. Instead of, the
Abstractions package does contain an Abstractions::Multiplicities::MultiplicityElement and an
Abstractions::MultiplicityExpressions::MultiplicityElement. Owing to the import of
Abstractions::Multiplicities the Abstractions::MultiplicityElement

Discussion
This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
Disposition: Closed - No Change