This seems rather serious, but perhaps some OCL FTF person will reassure me that it's not:

The UML 2 Superstructure spec defines additional query operations for a number of metaclasses. For example, the following query is defined for the metaclass Element:

Element::allOwnedElements(): Set(Element);
allOwnedElements = ownedElement->union(ownedElement->collect(e | e.allOwnedElements()))

Another example is the query defined for ProtocolTransition:

context Region::belongsToPSM () : Boolean
result = if not stateMachine->isEmpty() then
oclIsTypeOf(ProtocolStateMachine)
else if not state->isEmpty() then
state.container.belongsToPSM ()
else false

Notice the different forms used to define these two queries. The first one uses the name of the operation to store the result while the second uses the OCL reserved word "result". In the spec, there many queries that use the first form and only three cases of the latter form.

A review of the OCL spec with respect to this issue – as far as I can tell – indicates that there are three valid ways of specifying a query as shown by the following two examples:

(1) using body expressions (note the 'body:' prefix in the second line):

context Element::allOwnedElements(): Set(Element);
body: ownedElement->union(ownedElement->collect(e | e.allOwnedElements()))

(2) using postconditions (note the use of the reserved word 'result' following the 'post:' prefix):

context Element::allOwnedElements(): Set(Element);
post: result = ownedElement->union(ownedElement->collect(e | e.allOwnedElements()))

(3) using auxilliary definitions (note the 'def:' prefix in the second line):

context Element
def: allOwnedElements(): Set(Element) = ownedElement->union(ownedElement->collect(e | e.allOwnedElements()))

Unfortunately, neither of the two forms used in the spec conform to any of these formats, which seems to imply that every single query operation in the spec that is defined in OCL is invalid! There are 73 such queries at the moment.

Can someone from the OCL team shed light on this?

Composite structures/Unspecified connector features between ports having multiple interfaces. What happens when ports have multiple interfaces, that in addition can mix
required and provided interfaces? This is not specified. In particular, a
connector could connect two ports using only a specified subset of the
interfaces from both ports.

Recommendation:
Extend the metamodel to allow the specification of the interfaces used for a
connector between ports having several interfaces.

or

Provide a default rule for that situation, such as the connector uses the
compatible interfaces between the interfaces of both ports.

p. 386, it is written: "To depict method activations we apply a thin grey or white rectangle that covers the Lifeline line". Figure 8-144 p. 372 presents several sizes of grey rectangles. Particularly, does it mean that method activation is performed all along the Lifeline ob1:C1? A temporal vertical axis will be added to allow several sizes of rectangles and duration of method activation.

In the UML 2 Interaction package specification (UML
2 spec, dated 2003/04/10): p. 381, it is written that
"InteractionFragment is an abstract notion of the most general
interaction unit. An interaction fragment is a piece of an interaction.
Each interaction fragment is conceptually like an interaction by itself".

InteractionFragment is described as an abstract notion and Interaction
is defined as a specialization of InteractionFragment. Don't we define
normally in the other way around: the InteractionFragment is the
abstract notion and is called Interaction and the interaction is called
InteractionFragment? We can have the definition for Interaction
(previously called InteractionFragment): "Interaction is an abstract
notion of the most general interaction unit. An Interaction is composed
of at least an InteractionFragment".

Usual semantics for fragments refers to something within something else
but here, the something else is undefined.

It is possible to represent local attributes to an Interaction (see Figure 8-148 p. 380) but it is not written how these attributes are treated: are they public to all the lifelines? Is it possible to have private attributes and in this case to which lifelines? Are they local to the Interaction? What happens if one of the lifeline is self? Does it mean that these parameters are owned by the self lifeline?

Is it not possible to have a symbol for the setting? That could help reading the diagram.

Lifelines are associated to Interaction but it is not possible to save the ordering contrary to the fragments.

It is not possible to represent that an Interaction frame represents a design pattern with unbound parameters

I am seeking a clarification on an item in the RAS 2.2 spec. I have seen instances of this being raised before some years ago but have not found what the resolution was.

RAS 2.2 seems to give conflicting definitions for the standard name to be used for the root directory Manifest file to be used in a RAS .ras file.

Is it rasset.xml or manifest.rmb?

Or do the two names get used in different contexts?

Some clarification please.

Associated Profile Issue:

I expected to find the GUID ID for the Defaultcomponentprofile and the
Defaultwebserviceprofile in the respective xsd files. However, I don't
find any ID or reference to an ID

There's a note that RAS supports pointing to external schemas for classifying assets in the classification section. But I don't find any information or examples how that works, neither in RAS Version 2.2 nor in the internet. Are there any examples about the use of an external classification schema?

we have found a confusion in the RAS Specification 2.2, and was wondering if this is a bug in the spec, or if further clarification can be made.

It concerns the manifest file - in the spec this is mentioned to be both rasset.xml and manifest.rmd - could you let me know the preferred file name, unless these have different purposes, in which case can the difference be clarified ?

Associated xsd's:

There is an error when I try to load "Defaultcomponentprofile.xsd" as
shown below. It is possible that I don't have the lastest version of the
file.

Associated xsd's:

There is an error when I try to load "Defaultwebserviceprofile.xsd" as
shown below. It is possible that I don't have the lastest version of the
file.