UTP2 2.2b1 RTF Avatar
  1. OMG Issue

UMLTP22 — Harmonize illustration of property modifiers in the spec

  • Key: UMLTP22-4
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fraunhofer FOKUS ( Mr. Marc-Florian Wendland)
  • Summary:

    The current document generation process used to produce the UTP 2 specs is limited with respect to the illustration of property/association end modifiers (i.e., unique, ordered, redefines, subsets, read-only, union). According to UML, those modifiers shall be illustrated after der name and type and multiplicity of a property. The following grammar rule (taken from UML 2.5, Clause 9.54) specifies the textual notation of properties:
    <property> ::= [<visibility>] [‘/’] <name> [‘:’ <prop-type>] [‘[‘ <multiplicity-range> ‘]’] [‘=’ <default>] [‘

    {‘<prop-modifier > [‘,’ <prop-modifier >]* ’}

    ’]

    In the UTP 2 document generation framework the illutration of modifiers was circumvented in a way that is is close to, but different to the notation prescribed by UML. Although, the aligned notation of UTP 2 is okay from a readers point of view, it appears that the modifiers have not been consistenly illustrated. See two examples from the spec:

    In section 8.3.2.7.17 TestDesignDirective , TestDesignDirective modifies are displayed before the name of the propery:

    {read-only, union} subDirective : TestDesignDirective [*]

    In section 8.4.2.5 TestConfigurationRole, modifiers are displayed after the name of the property:
    /roleConfiguration {read-only, union}

    : RoleConfiguration [*]

    Even though both ways are still good enough to comprehend, from an editorial point of view, one way should be preferred to other.

  • Reported: UTP2 1.0b1 — Fri, 10 May 2019 10:31 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — $issue.fixedSpecification.name
  • Disposition Summary:

    Deferred due to lack of time

    The RTF agreed that this a valid, but pure editorial issues. As explained in the issue description, the reason for these varying property modifiers lies in the document generation framework. Since all required information is available, though, the RTF agreed to resolve this issue in a future RTF.

  • Updated: Fri, 5 Jan 2024 20:27 GMT