UMLNIEM3 — Clause 9 confusion

Figure 9.1: I am not sure what this is meant to show or if it is MOF or UML notation or just a picture of concepts? More explanation would be useful.
Also, figures 9-1, 9-4, 9-5, 9-6, 9-7, 9-8, 9-9, etc. are of poor quality and confusing. These need to be replaced so that they are legible. They should also be rearranged so that they are more legible. The notation is also confusing. And the use of color does not help legibility but detracts.
The names in Figure 9-9 of class, etc. do not help understanding.
Figures 9-10 and 9-11 are too small to be read. They need to be rearranged so that they are longer and can be zoomed. Same for 9-13 and 9-14 and in fact all the diagrams in this section that have the yellow and green boxes as well as the complex inheritance diagrams.
Also, I am not sure what some of them are meant to show. For example, 9-28 has a box called primitive simple types with several notes mapped to it between the various other classes. The notes mention operations but there are no operations listed.
I find the whole section confusing and believe it should be reorganized. Possibly this could be explained during the review.

Finding a better way to provide an overview of QVT mappings is not worth the effort.

Section 9 is essentially an overview of the QVT mappings - to provide a bit of guidance prior to jumping into the normative QVT code. While it is a bit hard to read and grasp, it is helpful and is the same as was done for NIEM-2.
The substantial effort involved in coming up with a new way to express this overview, creating new models and text does not seem justified as there have been zero complaints from the 3 parties that have implemented NIEM mappings.
For these reasons we propose closing the issue with no change.