UML24 — UML 2.3 Superstructure: Non-sensible text for modelLibrary stereotype

The description for the stereotype in Annex C contains significant semantics which are not reflected anywhere else in the specification, nor as Constraints associated with the stereotype. Because this is a stereotype, not a keyword, these are not warranted.

The full text is as follows:

A package that contains model elements that are intended to be reused by other packages. Model libraries are frequently used in conjunction with applied profiles. This is expressed by defining a dependency between a profile and a model library package, or by defining a model library as contained in a profile package.

The classes in a model library are not stereotypes and tagged definitions extending the metamodel. A model library is analogous to a class library in some programming languages. When a model library is defined as a part of a profile, it is imported or deleted with the application or removal of the profile. The profile is implicitly applied to its model library. In the other case, when the model library is defined as an external package imported by a profile, the profile requires that the model library be there in the model at the stage of the profile application. The application or the removal of the profile does not affect the presence of the model library elements

Specifically the problems are:

a) More specifics should be given for “This is expressed by for a dependency between a profile and a model library package” – such as the direction and name.

b) Replace ‘tagged definitions’ by ‘properties’ or at least ‘tag definition’

c) The text ‘is imported or deleted’ is vague and goes beyond anything in Profile semantics (for example does it mean a PackageImport is implicitly created?)

d) “The profile is implicitly applied to its model library” does not make sense except in the specific case that the model library is a set of stereotyped elements, regardless of whether the model library owned by the profile: if the model library is for use within or with the profile why would it be necessary to apply stereotypes to its elements? And it goes beyond Profile semantics as well as resulting in a circular dependency between library and profile.

e) “In the other case, when the model library is defined as an external package imported by a profile,” is inconsistent with the earlier description of ‘the other case’ which is as defined via a Dependency (not an import).

f) “the profile requires that the model library be there in the model at the stage of the profile application” is both vague (‘be there’) and beyond profile semantics.

Proposed resolution

Replace the paragraph with the following:

A package that contains model elements that are intended to be reused by other packages. Though model libraries are frequently used in conjunction with applied profiles, the classes in a model library are not stereotypes extending the metamodel. A model library is analogous to a class library in some programming languages.

Accept the proposal