UML24 — Be explicit that type does not need to be set for LiteralBoolean etc.

Today we are inconsistent in the metamodel about whether the type of a LiteralBoolean value is set or not. Some are; most are not, and there is no guidance in the spec about which is correct. Since the type is completely obvious, we can be explicit about this:

LiteralBoolean

Constraints:

[1] Since the type of a LiteralBoolean is by definition a Boolean, it would be redundant to specify the type explicitly.

type->isEmpty()

LiteralInteger

Constraints:

[1] Since the type of a LiteralInteger is by definition an Integer, it would be redundant to specify the type explicitly.

type->isEmpty()

LiteralReal

Constraints:

[1] Since the type of a LiteralReal is by definition a Real, it would be redundant to specify the type explicitly.

type->isEmpty()

LiteralString

Constraints:

[1] Since the type of a LiteralString is by definition a String, it would be redundant to specify the type explicitly.

type->isEmpty()

LiteralUnlimitedNatural

Constraints:

[1] Since the type of a LiteralUnlimitedNatural is by definition an UnlimitedNatural, it would be redundant to specify the type explicitly.

type->isEmpty()

After discussion the RTF resolved that making changes of this kind to the spec is too controversial. Instead, we simply go through the metamodel making sure that all instances of subtypes of LiteralSpecification have their type set to null, in order to make the metamodel consistent.