-
Key: UML22-483
-
Legacy Issue Number: 6004
-
Status: closed
-
Source: Honeywell ( Steven Hickman)
-
Summary:
There doesn't seem to be any value in the specialization of Relationship and DirectedRelationship in Core::Constructs from their definitions in Core::Abstractions::Relationships. The documentation clearly states that the specializations don't add anything to the either concept. In fact, it appears that this can be said for everything in the Core::Constructs Root Diagram.
If this is the case, why do these specializations exist? The UML spec is big enough - there is no point in adding things that don't need to be there. If the goal is to merely create a single diagram that includes concepts and relationships that were previously spread across multiple diagrams, then why not simply create the diagram and have every contained concept refer to the package where it was originally defined?
If there is a compelling reason for these specializations, then that reason needs to be spelled out in the spec - because it isn't obvious to me.
-
Reported: UML 2.0 — Sat, 19 Jul 2003 04:00 GMT
-
Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
-
Disposition Summary:
No Data Available
-
Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT
UML22 — Relationship and DirectedRelationship in Core::Constructs
- Key: UML22-483
- OMG Task Force: UML 2.2 RTF