-
Key: UML22-420
-
Legacy Issue Number: 12750
-
Status: closed
-
Source: YTCA ( Trent Lillehaugen)
-
Summary:
Section 2.2 introduces two compliance levels: L0 and LM. Section 2.3 states: "Compliance to a given level entails full realization of all language units that are defined for that compliance level. This also implies full realization of all language units in all the levels below that level. “Full realization” for a language unit at a given level means supporting the complete set of modeling concepts defined for that language unit at that level. Thus, it is not meaningful to claim compliance to, say, Level 2 without also being compliant with the Level 0 and Level 1." This is confusing as there is no such thing as Level 1 or Level 2 defined. This concept is repeated in section 2.4: "(as a rule, Level (N) includes all the packages supported by Level (N-1))" It may be worth mentioning that the superstructure document will introduce further levels on top of the infrastructure level L0. Also, if I understand it correctly: LM builds on L0, and so does L1. So we have two parallel paths of compliance: L0 <- LM and L0 <- L1 <- L2 <- L3 So how does LM fit in with the L(N) compliant is also L(N-1) compliant scheme? Do you need to specify L2 and LM compliance?
-
Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Tue, 5 Aug 2008 04:00 GMT
-
Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
-
Disposition Summary:
This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
Disposition: Closed - No Change -
Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT
UML22 — Section: 2.2-2.4 compliance level clarifiction needed
- Key: UML22-420
- OMG Task Force: UML 2.2 RTF