UML25 — Behavior should be derived from Classifier, not Class

My previous submission has been resolved. Apparently, the UML spec provides an exception clause in the definition of the /context field to allow the context classifier to propagate downward to sub state machines. I do not know how to find and close the original issue so I'm mentioning it here.

That said, the semantic issue I raise I believe is still present and is illustrated precisely by the need for that exception clause in the /context field definition. I'd like to propose a much simpler solution.

A UML Behavior describes the dynamic behavior of its context classifier. All attributes and operations that it class during its execution should come from the context classifier. There is no need for the Behavior to own attributes and operations on its own, and I would like to suggest deriving Behavior directly from Classifier rather than from Class in section 13.3.2. I have not investigated the full impact of such a change, but I believe it would not have any significant impact and would improve the semantic integrity of the model.

A simple example is that a Behavior has a specification which could be, for example, a call to an Operation. Although the Operation belongs to a Class (its context), would would argue that the Operation is itself a Class?

The proposed change would actually have a significant impact on both the abstract syntax and semantics of Behavior.
A Behavior may be standalone with no context classifier, in which case it may be useful for the Behavior to have its
own structural and/or behavioral features. And, even if the Behavior has a context, the features of the Behavior may
be different than those of the context classifier, relating, for example, to the execution of the Behavior itself rather than
the state of the context object of the execution, particularly if the execution is asynchronous.
Disposition: Closed - No Change