UML25 — UML2.5: clarification about the semantics of redefinition

There are three closely related problems in this issue:

1) incorrect constraint in Structured Classifiers, clause 11, Connector:

roles The ConnectableElements attached as roles to each ConnectorEnd owned by a Connector must be roles of the Classifier that owned the Connector, or they must be Ports of such roles.
inv: structuredClassifier <> null
and
end->forAll( e |
structuredClassifier.role->includes(e.role)
or
e.role.oclIsKindOf(Port) and structuredClassifier.role->includes(e.partWithPort))

• The OCL constraint does not take into account the structured classifier's inherited roles.
• The English constraint description is ambiguous whether inherited roles are to be included or not.

2) The structured classifier clause does not adequately explain the semantics of redefining parts and connectors.

For structured classifiers with inherited parts and/or connectors and redefined parts and/or connectors, there are two views of a given structured classifier:
The abstract syntax view which retains the abstract syntax distinction between a redefining element and a redefined element.
The semantics view where all occurrences of a redefined element are replaced by its redefining element.

Ed's message below explains the distinction between these two views.

3) More generally, the distinction between the abstract syntax view & the semantics view needs to be addressed for all kinds of redefineable elements; particularly those where the semantics of redefinition can have a significant impact on UML structure and behavior diagrams, including but not limited to:
Class diagrams
State machine diagrams
Activity diagrams
Interaction diagrams
Etc

Part 1 of the issue was handled by resolving 18697. Parts 2 and 3 were handled by resolving 18650.
Disposition: Closed - No Change