UML25 — Conformance point

Title: Conformance point
Where: section 2
Nature of Issue: Revision
Severity of Issue: Significant
Full Description of the Issue:

• Dependencies among conformance points are not stated in all the case. Particularly, when they are no dependency, this need to be pointed out.
• I don't understand the last paragraph which seems nevertheless to open a door to the most permissive conformance point ever read: does that say that if a vendor don't want to do everything s/he just have to state so and this is good? As a UML tool users, I cannot imagine this.
• "Where the UML specification provides options for a conforming tool, these are explicitly stated in the specification": such options should also be gathered in this section for clearness.
• What is the status of the section 6 wrt conformance and particularly 6.3 about UML semantics? At least, add a reference to 6.3 in the "Semantic conformance" bullet and in section 6 specify which chapter is informative and which is normative

On point 1, introduce a statement that conformance points are independent unless otherwise stated.
On point 2, this paragraph is something of a hangover from an idea about “feature support statements” in
UML 2.4. It doesn’t add significant value, so delete it.
On point 3, the FTF discussed this and decided that a complete solution to this proposal is intractable, and a
partial solution (e.g. by searching through the text looking for “conforming”) is not worth doing.
On point 4, introduce text in the semantic conformance point to state that 6.3 is normative