UML24 — Incomplete resolution to 10826

Issue 10826 was asking for two things:

what is an applied stereotype, as opposed to the definition of the stereotype that was applied
what are tag/value pairs, as opposed to the definition of the stereotype properties that led to the tag/value pairs

The resolution for 10826 added the following paragraph:

An instance “S” of Stereotype is a kind of metaclass that extends other metaclasses through association (Extension) rather
than generalization/specialization. Relating it to a metaclass “C” from the reference metamodel (typically UML) using an
“Extension” (which is a specific kind of association), signifies that model elements of type C can be extended by an
instance of “S” (see example in Figure 18.13). At the model level (such as in Figure 18.18) instances of “S” are related to
“C” model elements (instances of “C”) by links (occurrences of the association/extension from “S’ to “C”).

Up to the last sentence, the paragraph refers to ‘an instance “S” of Stereotype’ – i.e., the definition of “S”, a stereotype, in a profile — as illustrated in figure 18.13.

The last sentence is relevant to question (1) of 10826; however, the resolution doesn’t actually answer the question — i.e., it doesn’t explain what ‘an instance of “S”’ actually is. >From Figure 18.18, the notation suggests that ‘an instance of “S”’ is some kind of instance specification but the resolution doesn’t actually say so and doesn’t address question (2) of 10826 either.

I propose then to file a new issue about this and include Ed’s suggestion below as well as clarifying that in Figure 18.18, ‘an instance of “S”’ is actually an instance specification whose classifier happens to be ‘an instance “S” of Stereotype’, i.e., the definition of “S”, a kind of Class since Stereotype extends Class.

The UML 2.5 specification and in particular the resolution to issue 17160 make this issue obsolete.
Disposition: Closed - No Change