UML25 — Forked association notation ill-formed

Description: Figure 11.34 (Composite aggregation sharing a source segment) shows three association lines sharing one end (window), implying the end is owned by three classes, which isn't possible. Even if the three classes redefine window using the same name, the "shared" end would actually be separate elements in the model, though they would appear notationally the same. If this is the intention, redefinition of window should be added to the figure, and the text should explain that the "shared" graphical elements refer to three underlying model elements, (Annex B should be updated also). The notation wasn't in 2.4.1 that I can find.

The notation was in 2.4.1 and all earlier versions of UML. Quoting from UML 1.1 spec: “If there are two
or more aggregations to the same aggregate, they may be drawn as a tree by merging the aggregation ends
into a single segment. This requires that all of the adornments on the aggregation ends be consistent. This
is purely a presentation option; there are no additional semantics to it”. From UML 2.4.1: “If there are two
or more aggregations to the same aggregate, they may be drawn as a tree by merging the aggregation ends
into a single segment. Any adornments on that single segment apply to all of the aggregation ends.”
Some clarification is in order, both with regard to this particular notation, and with regard to the general
question of what adornments may be suppressed in the notation for an Association. In particular, there is
a misleading note about the default values for uniqueness and ordering that implies that the absence of a
prop-modifier on the diagram has a semantic consequence; whereas in fact it is just another adornment that
may be suppressed.