UML 2.3 RTF Avatar
  1. OMG Issue

UML23 — Japan Superstructure PAS Ballot Comments - comment 6

  • Key: UML23-101
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14263
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    GT Regarding Description, Notation and Semantics section, It is difficult to distinguish MetaClass name from general term, since there are several confusing occurrences which are shown in lower case letter. It seems those are inconsistent.

    Clarify their usages through the entire specification.

  • Reported: UML 2.2 — Wed, 2 Sep 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Context is often required to distinguish use of names - sometimes the name means both the metaclass and the common meaning of the term. Ideally, the spec should have notational conventions for these and follow them, but this would be too large an undertaking to incorporate into version 2.3 of UML.
    The Japanese National body provided the following clarification on this issue:
    "Could you just confirm the capitalization?
    We have to translate this standard to establish the Japanese Industrial Standard (JIS) after ISO standardization. In that case, unclear usage of the capitalization will make us confused."
    In many cases the capitalization is an editorial matter. There is not enough time to make a detailed proposal for making capitalization more consistent in time for this RTF.
    Should leave this issue of consistent capitalization open for discussion in future RTF for detailed proposals to be considered for resolution in the next UML version..
    Revised Text:

    Disposition: Deferred

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