Unified Modeling Language Avatar
  1. OMG Specification

Unified Modeling Language — Closed Issues

  • Acronym: UML
  • Issues Count: 579
  • Description: Issues resolved by a task force and approved by Board
Closed All
Issues resolved by a task force and approved by Board

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
UML14-1045 Compliance ambiguity UML 1.3 UML 1.4 Duplicate or Merged closed
UML14-1041 There is a bug in additional operation 1 of the Namespace element UML 1.4 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-1040 How to properly designate exception returned from message sent to Java obje UML 1.4 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-1039 In 3.23.1 "Notation" (Internationalization issues) UML 1.3 UML 1.4 Resolved closed
UML14-1038 No servant with object . minorcode=0 completed=NO UML 1.3 UML 1.4 Closed; No Change closed
UML14-1037 The index shows incorrect section numbering for sections 2.9.4.1 to 2.9.4 UML 1.3 UML 1.4 Resolved closed
UML14-1036 Setting Action as abstract in UML-MetaModel MDL to correspond to Semantics UML 1.3 UML 1.4 Resolved closed
UML14-1035 Who owns an Event? UML 1.3 UML 1.4 Resolved closed
UML14-1034 UML 1.4 RTF Issue: Namespace notation too specific UML 1.3 UML 1.4 Resolved closed
UML14-1033 UML RTF 1.4 editorial comments (Part 9 - Statechart Diagrams) UML 1.3 UML 1.4 Resolved closed
UML14-1032 UML RTF 1.4 editorial comments (Part 6 - Use Case Diagrams) UML 1.3 UML 1.4 Resolved closed
UML14-1031 UML RTF 1.4 editorial comments (Part 3 - Behavioral Elements) UML 1.3 UML 1.4 Resolved closed
UML14-1030 UML RTF 1.4 editorial comments (Part 2 Diagram Elements) UML 1.3 UML 1.4 Resolved closed
UML14-990 UML RTF 1.4 Issue: Guard evaluation for choice points. UML 1.2 UML 1.4 Resolved closed
UML14-988 UML RTF 1.4 Issue: Join in collaboration UML 1.2 UML 1.4 Resolved closed
UML14-940 UML Semantics, OMG-UML V1.2 Use Cases July 1998, page 2-99 UML 1.1 UML 1.4 Resolved closed
UML14-933 Some attributes can be expressed in OCL UML 1.1 UML 1.4 Resolved closed
UML14-926 Set of allInstances should be referrable by the class name UML 1.1 UML 1.4 Resolved closed
UML14-919 Synchronous request UML 1.1 UML 1.4 Resolved closed
UML14-918 Asynchronous action UML 1.1 UML 1.4 Resolved closed
UML14-559 UML 2 issue, Common Behaviors RAS 2.0b1 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-558 Components / provided and required interfaces -- derived or subsets XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-557 Feature;ModelElement UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-556 TaggedValue in TaggedValue XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-555 Ambiguous semantics of classifier ownerscope XMI 1.2 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-554 "Physical" Metamodel Package Structure (uml-rtf) XMI 1.1 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-553 Issue 6090 correction RAS 2.0b1 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-552 Issue 6094 correction. RAS 2.0b1 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-551 UML 2 Super/Interactions/Need unattached lifelines RAS 2.0b1 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-550 property strings on association ends RAS 2.0b1 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-549 change trigger RAS 2.0b1 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-548 XMI schema (02) RAS 2.0b1 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-547 Question about Enumeration and EnumerationLiteral XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-546 UML2 Super / Common Behavior / Trigger should be a named element XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-545 UML2 Super / Use cases / navigation from subject to use case XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-544 UML 2 Super / General / superclass pointers XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-543 UML2 Super / Classes / Operation constraints XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-542 UML2 Super / ordering of association ends XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-541 Q re Parameter XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-540 UML 2 Super / missing owners of concepts XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-539 UML 2 Super / state machines / state should be a namespace XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-538 UML 2 Super/Connector XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-537 UML2 super/interactions XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-536 UML 2 Super / Templates / invalid multiplicity XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-535 UML 2 Super / Profiles / problem with name collisions XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-534 transition is simply never enabled XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-533 UML Sequence diagram XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-532 UML2 Super/Composite Structure XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-531 UML 1 activities XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-530 UML2 super/Deployments/CommunicationPath XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-529 State machines / name of transitions association end XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-528 Activity Diagrams: Relax Traverse-to-Completion semantics XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-527 Composite Structures, 03-08-02.pdf XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-526 Operations and derived attributes XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-525 use of stereotypes XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-524 UML 2 Super / Appendix A / Typos XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-523 UML 2 Super/Interactions/Alternative with all false guards XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-522 UML 2 Super / General / Classes chapter organization XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-521 UML 2 Super / State machines / incorrect navigation specifications XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-520 UML 2 Super / General / consistent formatting conventions XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-519 UML 2 Super / General / Dcoument conventions XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-518 adopt a single notation to specify text strings used in the notation XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-517 Appendix A of the superstructure spec XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-516 UML 2 Super / Activities / Fig.192 constraint duplicated XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-515 Ambiguous semantics of isStatic - resubmission of issue 4446 XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-514 UML 2 Super / Interactions / Invalid subsetting for enclosingOperand XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-513 UML 2 Super / Classes / makesVisible () operation incorrect XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-512 Super and Infra / Kernel-Classifiers / incorrect hasVisibilityOf definition XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-511 Ambiguous example of a local action on a Lifeline in Figures 334, 335 XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-510 ambiguous definition of the scope of a break CombinedFragment XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-509 UML 2 Super/Interactions/inconsistent spelling for InteractionOperator XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-508 text differs from metamodel for critical region InteractionOperator XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-507 word "execute" in definition of alternative CombinedFragment is ambiguous XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-506 UML 2 Super/Interactions/Ambiguous description of state invariants XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-505 UML 2 Super/Interactions/rationale subsections not informative XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-504 UML 2 Super/Interactions/incorrect grammar for XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-503 UML 2 Super/Interactions/incorrect spelling of EventOccurence XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-502 Ambiguous sentence and typo in description of EventOccurence XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-501 graphic nodes for state invariant and continuation are not always distingui XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-500 UML 2 Super/Interactions/incorrect text and table title for Table 19 XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-499 UML 2 Super/Interactions/incorrect text before Table 14 XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-498 Ambiguous semantics of isStatic XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-497 self-activation notation in Sequence diagrams missing XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-496 UML2 superstructur: actor XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-495 UML 2 Super / use cases / incorrect table title XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-494 UseCase - Include - Constraint for irreflexivity XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-493 UseCase - Constraint for non-circular include relation XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-492 What level of MOF 2.0 is the metamodel for UML 2.0? XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-491 UML 2 Super / General / specialization labeling convention XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-490 Typo in Collaboration Diagram figure XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-489 Inconsistent labeling of tables in Section 12.4, Activities.Diagrams: p 367 XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-488 Inconsistent labeling of tables in Section 12.4, Activities.Diagrams: p 366 XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-487 Inconsistent labeling of tables in Section 12.4, Activities.Diagrams p365 XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-486 UML 2 Super / Deployments / Invalid cross-references XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-485 UML 2 Super / Classes / Dependency should not be abstract XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-484 UML 2 Super / Realize keyword-stereotype XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-483 UML 2 Super / Classes / Properties owned by properties XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-482 UML 2 Super / Interactions / navigability of enclosingOperation XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-481 UML 2 Super / Dependencies / Abstraction should have an optional mapping XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-480 UML 2 Super / Interactions / incorrect multiplicity for PartDecomposition XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-479 The contents of the Interfaces package is shown in Figure 51 XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-478 UML 2 Super / Templates / subsetting templateParameter XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-477 UML 2 Super / General / Idenitfy sections specifying run-time semantics XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-476 UML 2 Super / Classes / XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-475 UML 2 Super / Interactions / Two typos XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-474 missing closing bracket XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-473 importedMember property XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-472 "• value : InstanceSpecification XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-471 UML2 super/notation/Keywords XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-470 Appendix B/Standard Stereotypes too heavyweight and incompletely defined XMI 2.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-469 UML 2 Super / use cases / invalid subsetting UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-468 UML 2 Super / state machines / non-existent return type UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-467 UML 2 Super / state machines / misplaced operation definition UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-466 UML 2 Super / state machines / incorrect property redefinition UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-465 UML 2 Super / state machines / non-existent property reference UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-464 UML 2 Super / state machines / oclIsKindOf arguments error UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-463 UML 2 Super/State machines/pseudostate name consistency UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-462 Ambuiguity in value pin evaluation UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-461 page 136, "BasicComponents", UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-460 Consistent Naming UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-459 UML2 Super/Signal UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-458 UML 2 Super / Activities / subsetting two properties UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-457 UML 2 Super / Activities / association end naming UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-456 UML 2 Super / Activities / inconsistency in representing subsetting UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-455 UML 2 Super/Activities/invalid multiplicity 0 UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-454 UML 2 Super/Activities/assocition end specialization consistency UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-453 UML 2 Super/Activities/end naming consistency UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-452 subsettedProperty->forAll(sp | isDerivedUnion) ? UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-451 UML2 Super/Connector End UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-450 UML2 Super/Ports UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-449 UML2 Super/Connector UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-448 Page 164 - there are two constraints sections for Connector UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-447 UML2 Super/Structured Classes UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-446 UML2 Super/parts UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-445 UML2 Super/Composite Classes UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-444 UML 2.0 Superstructure Derived Union vs. derivationExpression? UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-443 UML 2.0 Superstructure reccomendation (derived unions) UML 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-442 UML 2 Super / use cases / incorrect comments in notation section UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-441 Error in definition of PackageMergeKind UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-440 UML 2.0 Superstructure 3rd revision - Owner of triggers? UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-439 UML 2 Super/Action/featuringClassifier misinterpreted UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-438 UML 2 Super/Actions/non-existent feature "multiplicity" UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-437 section 9 (State Machines) of 3rd revision UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-436 UML 2 Super/Actions/PrimitiveFunction missing properties UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-435 Notation when guards are used in conjunction with triggers in transitions UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-434 Time trigger notation in state machines UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-433 No way to represent "uninterpreted" actions UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-432 Missing actual arguments in submachines states UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-431 Incorrect usage/definition of "emergence" in Common Behavior Chapter UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-430 /pages 485,487,495/mixed names for state machine diagram UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-429 Typos UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-428 Order cancel request UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-427 The node "Order cancel request" that appears in figure 6-86 UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-426 GeneralizationSet Description clarification - UML2 Superstructure UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-425 Activity nodes and Stereotypes - UML2 Superstructure issue UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-424 does "is not instantiable" imply "isAbstract"? - UML2 Superstructure UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-423 Package Extensibility <> - UML2 Superstructure issue UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-422 Dependency notation for interfaces - UML2 Superstructure UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-421 Inconsistency concerning VisibilityKind - UML2 Superstructure UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-420 Operation without - UML2 Superstructure UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-419 Components and artifacts: Dependency problem - UML2 Superstructure UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-418 Guard conditions at fork nodes - UML2 Superstructure issue UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-417 Token flow semantics: Implicit fork and join - UML2 Superstructure UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-416 AcitivityEdge: weight=all vs weight=null - UML2 Superstructure UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-415 Large diamond for binary associations legal? - UML2 Superstructure issue UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-414 Diagrams, Diagrams, Diagrams ... UML 2 Superstructure issue UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-413 Binary associations decorated with large diamonds legal? UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-412 concurrent vs. parallel ExpansionRegions UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-411 Use Case Metamodel - UML2 Superstructure issue UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-410 ActivityFinalNode and running actions - UML2 Superstructure issue UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-409 Multiobject in UML2 UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-408 Outputting constants UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-407 Protocol machines do not subset state invariant UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-406 Conditions for parameter sets (02) UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-405 Clarify termination of asynchronous invocations UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-404 Appendix A Diagrams UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-403 Section 17 UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-402 Section 14.4 Diagrams (02) UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-401 Section 14.4 Diagrams UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-400 Section 14.4 Diagrams UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-399 Section 14.3.14 Message UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-398 Section 10 Deployments UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-397 Section 9.4 Diagrams UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-396 Section 8.3.3 Realization UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-395 Section 8.3.1 Component UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-394 Section 8.3.1 Component UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-393 Section 8.1 Overview UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-392 Section 7.18 Diagrams UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-391 Section 7.15.3 Interfaces UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-390 Section 7.13.2 Package Merge UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-389 Section 7.3.5 PackageImport UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-388 Section 7.3.1 ElementImport UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-387 UML 2 Issue: Include(s) and Extend(s) UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-386 UML 2 Issue: Connector types UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-385 glossary UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-384 Change 'Part' to 'Role. UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-383 Abandon the OMGS4LMMA UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-382 14.3: StateInvariant and ExecutionOccurrence UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-381 UML 2.0 Superstructure FTF issue - Profiles UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-380 Removal of gratuitous restrictions to software applications UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-379 Diagram Taxonomy corrections UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-378 Inconsistent use of terms "implement" and "realize" UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-377 Corrections and improvements to glossary definitions UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-376 The name "required interface" is misleading UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-375 Specification of parametric models UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-374 Excessive syntactic and semantic overlap between structured Classifiers UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-373 UML 2.0 significant typo - collaboration diagram UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-372 targetScope on StructuralFeature and AssociationEnd UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-371 UML Superstructure: 03-08-02 / <> UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-370 ad-03-04-01 Chap 3 p. 151 Table 3/Composite structures: ComplexPort UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-369 ad-03-04-01 Chap3 p.146/Composite structures: Connected elements constraint UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-368 Chap 3 p. 142-143 Figure 3-35 /Composite structures: Port multiplicity UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-367 ad-03-04-01 Chap 3 p. 137-138/Composite structures: Connector semantics UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-366 ad-03-04-01 Chap 3 p. 137/Composite structures: Connector multiplicity >2 UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-365 ad-03-04-01 Chap 2 p. 118 Figure 2-15/Components: Wiring notation UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-364 UML 2 Infras./Interactions/ execution occurrence should not be abstract UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-363 UML 2 super / Templates / parameters cannot have names UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-362 UML 2 Super / Deployments / node composition UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-361 UML 2 Super / Package Templates / StringExpression inconsistency UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-360 UML 2 Super / Activities / inconsistent naming UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-359 UML 2 Super / Simple Time / incorrect multiplicities UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-358 UML 2 Super / Interface / missing owner of operation UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-357 UML 2 super / Activities / structured activity node contradiction UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-356 UML 2 Super / Interfaces / Cannot nest classes in interfaces UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-355 UML 2 Super / state machines / restriction on redefining transitions UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-354 UML 2 super / state machines / entry and exit actions cannot be redefined UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-353 Figure 395 requires a lot more explanation UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-352 Typo on Notation for CombinedFragment? UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-351 Visibility of a Package UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-350 Questions about CentralBufferNode semantic UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-349 AcceptCallAction in SAN UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-348 Terminating a SAN UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-347 Flows across SAN boundaries UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-346 Initial nodes in structured actions UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-345 Parameters in Features and Common Behavior UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-344 Join example UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-343 Clarify join rules UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-342 Clarify join specs referencing control flow edges UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-341 Combining joined tokens UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-340 Clarify ReadSelfAction in activity behaviors UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-339 ReadSelfAction with no host UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-338 Decision behaviors on control tokens UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-337 Guard evaluation UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-336 Side effects of value specifications UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-335 Activity final clarification UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-334 Caption typo UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-333 Guards on initial nodes UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-332 Outgoing edges of initial nodes UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-331 Port is a Property in XMI UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-330 Ports as properties UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-329 partWithPort without ports UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-328 Association end names and part types UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-327 Deployment location UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-326 InformationFlow realization UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-325 Dependency multiplicity to CollaborationOccurrence UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-324 Control at joins UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-323 Control pins UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-322 Profiles in fixed repositories UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-321 description of Component on page 137 UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-320 Figure 61 UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-319 UML2 Super/Instances UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-318 UML2 Super/Ports UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-317 UML 2 Super/Components & Deployment chapters missing OCL constraints UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-316 UML2 Super/Profiles UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-315 UML2 Super/Kernel::Classifier UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-314 UML2 Super/Composite Structures UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-313 UML2.super (or infra)/Profiles-Stereotype (18.3.7) UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-312 PackageMerge (from Kernel) UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-311 Sequence diagram conditions on Message arrows UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-310 Recommendation for InteractionOccurrences UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-309 UML 2 Super / Interactions / No way to model reply messages UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-308 UML Superstructur 03-08-02: Notation for ConditionalNode is missing UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-307 UML 2 Super / Interactions / no create message UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-306 UML2 Super / Primitive Types / implementation issue UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-305 UML 2 Super / State machines-CommonBehavior / undefined owner of triggers UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-304 UML2 Super / SimpleTime package / missing multiplicities UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-303 UML2 Super / association end naming convention UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-302 UML2 Super / Classes/ Incorrect reference to "access" UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-301 What does redefines mean in package extensibility? UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-300 Defenition of redefines????? UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-299 UML 2 super/Composite Classes/Connecting parts of parts UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-298 fig236 Datastore example/Datastore should not directly linked with actions UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-297 UML 2 Super/p125 and p126/typos UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-296 UML super/Section 2/Compliance points UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-295 Question about InterruptibleActivityRegion UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-294 fig 141 p205 and 7.13.2 p101 / just what sort of relationship is < UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-293 Metamodel for applying a stereotype UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-292 Association not affecting ends UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-291 Confusion regarding XMI for use of stereotypes UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-290 Actors that are outside and inside the system UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-289 UML2 super/pgs.17 + 598/"topLevel" UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-288 Actor UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-287 Multiplicity of Regions owning Transitions UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-286 State list UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-285 UML 2.0 serious layout problems with activity diagrams UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-284 Stereotypes for Actions UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-283 UML Superstructure: 03-08-02 / Typos UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-282 UML 2 Super/Compliance points/confusing and redundant UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-281 UML 2 Super/pg.81/semantics of subsetting-specialization-redefinition UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-280 UML 2 Super/pg.379/anyTrigger clarifications UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-279 UML 2 Super/pg. 556/notation for template binding inconsistency UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-278 UML 2 Super/pg. 471/choice pseudostate notation UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-277 UML 2 Super/pg.471/unclear terminate state semantics UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-276 UML 2 Super/pg.519/multiplicity semantics of use case associations UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-275 UML 2 Super/pg.427/missing notation description for lifelines UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-274 UML 2 Super/pg.429/incorrect constraint for Message UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-273 UML 2 Super/pg.416/incorrect multiplicities for event occurrence UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-272 UML 2 Super/pg.395/multiple meaning of exception UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-271 UML 2 Super/pg.235/missing semantics of destroy action UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-270 UML 2 Super/pg.130/incorrect stereotype name UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-269 UML 2 Super/pg.130/missing notation explanation UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-268 UML 2 Super/pg.99/misnamed "packageMerge" attribute UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-267 UML 2 Super/pg.109/Permission redundant UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-266 UML 2 Super/pg.95/attributes in data types clarification UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-265 UML 2 Super/pg.64/Classifier redefinition notation UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-264 UML 2 Super/pg.79/underlined operation syntax missing UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-263 UML 2 Super/pg.78/missing return types syntax UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-262 UML 2 Super/pg.78/operation redefinition UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-261 UML 2 Super/Spec/completing mandatory sections UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-260 UML 2 Super/Metamodel/missing source and target for InformationFlow UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-259 ProtocolStateMachines/ProtocolStateMachine not a type of Feature UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-258 UML 2 Super/Metamodel::UseCases/Extend and Include are not NamedElements UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-257 UML 2 Super/Metamodel/missing namespaces for metaclasses UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-256 UML 2 Super/Metamodel/missing owners for metaclasses UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-255 UML 2 Super/Metamodel/mis-spelled implementingClassifier" UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-254 UML 2 Super/Metamodel/Mis-named Manifestation class UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-253 UML 2 Super/Metamodel::Templates/missing return type UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-252 UML 2 Super/Metamodel::CommonBehaviors/redundant class? UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-251 Profile/inability to attach a stereotype to an element UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-250 UML 2 Super/Package Merge/missing rule for operations UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-249 UML 2 Super/Metamodel::Compliance::L3/Missing merges UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-248 UML 2 Super/Metamodel::StructuredActivities/double redefinition UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-247 UML 2 Super/Metamodel::BasicActivities/inGroup problem UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-246 UML 2 Super/Metamodel::StructuredClasses/erroneous association UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-245 UML 2 Super/Package Merge/redefinition rules and standard OO languages UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-244 UML 2 Infra/Section 5.9/missing merge rules UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-243 UML 2 Super/Metamodel/package merge and visibility UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-242 UML 2 Super/Metamodel/merging of non-redefinable model elements UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-241 UML 2 Super/Metamodel::Constructs/inconsistency with Kernel UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-240 UML 2 Super/Metamodel::BasicBehaviors/missing redefinition UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-239 UML 2 Super/Metamodel::Kernel::Packages/missing redefinition UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-238 UML 2 Super/Metamodel::Kernel::DataTypes/missing renames UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-237 AuxiliaryConstructs::Templates::Operation/extra space UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-236 UML 2 Super/Metamodel::Nodes/redundant merge error UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-235 UML 2 Super/Metamodel::Communications/redundant merge error UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-234 UML 2 Super/Metamodel::IntermediateActivities/redundant merge error UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-233 BehaviorStateMachines/missing owningState end name UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-232 UML 2 Super/Metamodel::BasicBehaviors/package merge issue UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-231 7.15.3 Interface UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-230 7.14.6 Realization UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-229 7.14.1 Abstraction UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-228 7.11.2 Association UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-227 7.10.1 Operation UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-226 InstanceSpecification UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-225 7.4.1 Multiplicity UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-224 7.3.1 ElementImport UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-223 No notation defined for suppressing attributes or operations UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-222 Notation mismatch for the realization dependency UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-221 UML Superstructure 03-08-02: Loop node notation missing UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-220 UML Superstructure: 03-08-02 -- typos UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-219 Typos UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-218 Clarify that profiles can contain model libraries UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-217 Notation for anonymous instance UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-216 Instantiates stereotype UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-215 Notation for attributes UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-214 Property string undefined UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-213 Kernel::Classifier missing "attribute" UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-212 Replace "initial value" with "default value". UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-211 TimeObservationAction can't return values UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-210 Interactions view of state machines/activities UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-209 Protocol state machines are not pre/postconditions UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-208 Diamond notation for merge junctions UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-207 Activity attributes on Behavior UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-206 Concrete Behavior UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-205 Complex port UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-204 Composite structure dependent on Behavior UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-203 Action packaging UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-202 BroadcastSignalAction UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-201 actions on properties that are association ends UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-200 Update actions for isUnique UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-199 Activity frame and parameter nodes 2 UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-198 Activity frame and parameter nodes 1 UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-197 Partition semantics UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-196 Time spec text UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-195 Pins on structured nodes 2 UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-194 Pins on structured nodes 1 UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-193 ExpansionRegion UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-192 ExceptionHandler 1 UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-191 SendObjectAction UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-190 Clarification of insert UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-189 No-token activity termination clarification UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-188 Notation for isSynchronous UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-187 Notation for for global pre/postconditions actions UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-186 Value Pin notation UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-185 Colon notation for pins UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-184 Local pre/postcondition example UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-183 Behavior execution instances UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-182 Parameter semantics clarification UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-181 Streaming UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-180 Parameter set corrections 6 UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-179 Parameter set corrections 5 UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-178 Parameter set corrections 4 UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-177 Parameter set corrections 3 UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-62 The text and OCL of rule #5 for Method do not say the same thing. XMI 1.2 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-61 Predefined datatypes XMI 1.2 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-60 The definition of Multiplicity in Datatypes does not list the range associa XMI 1.2 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-59 Ambiguous semantics of classifier targetscope XMI 1.2 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-58 Issue: Conflicting WFRs on Transition UML 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-57 Add Multiplicity to Parameter. UML 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-56 Events, signals, stimuli, etc. UML 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-55 Profile Notation UML 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-54 Appendix A, UML Standard Elements UML 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-53 Clarify the origin of an Action in a Collaboration. UML 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-52 Conflicting constraint between ActivityGraph and StateMachine. UML 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-51 Attributes obsolete in UML 1.3 UML 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-50 Interface of an object UML 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-49 MOF rules should disallow certain composition relationships UML 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-48 Notation for inherited associations UML 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-47 Document 99-06-08 - UML Spec UML 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-46 Why is a StateMachine's top a State instead of a CompositeState? UML 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-45 UML 1.4 RTF Issue: Multiple languages for uninterpreted strings XMI 1.1 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-44 UML 1.4 issue: Top state in activity graphs XMI 1.1 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-43 ClassifierRoles should be independent of specific underlying base Classifi XMI 1.1 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-42 Efficient diagrammatic notation for Collaboration Specifications XMI 1.1 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-41 Statemachine/state as Namespace XMI 1.1 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-40 UML RTF 1.4 Issue: Missing notation mapping for association in composite XMI 1.1 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-39 UML RTF 1.4 Issue: Parallel action iteration XMI 1.1 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-38 UML RTF 1.4 Issue: Dynamic concurrency arguments XMI 1.1 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-37 Another State machine issue XMI 1.1 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-36 Data Types Misplaced in the "Physical" Metamodel (uml-rtf) XMI 1.1 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-35 Operations and Constraints Missing from "Physical" Metamodels XMI 1.1 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-34 Interfaces on Nodes XMI 1.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-33 class EnumerationLiteral issue XMI 1.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-32 Datatypes: Expression XMI 1.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-31 Incomplete Inheritance Specification XMI 1.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-30 Inheritance violation in "Auxiliary Elements" XMI 1.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-29 Associate a predicate with a state XMI 1.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-28 extension to the notation for a transition XMI 1.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-27 User-defined symbols for tagged values and properties XMI 1.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-26 ElementOwnership XMI 1.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-25 Missing OCL XMI 1.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-24 OCL needs to be added XMI 1.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-23 Page 19 semantic doc. name XMI 1.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-22 UML 1.1.section 4.2:editorial XMI 1.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-21 Figure 7 p. 43 of the UML semantics guide XMI 1.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-20 AssociationEnd needs ownerScope XMI 1.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-19 Guard in current metamodel can be replaced by Constraint with stereotype XMI 1.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-18 Need for notation for dealing with evolution of UML models XMI 1.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-17 Parametrizable model elements not shown XMI 1.0 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-176 Parameter set corrections 2 UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-175 Parameter set corrections 1 UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-174 ObjectNode.isUnique UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-173 Reentrancy 3 UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-172 ExecutableNode, ControlNode should be abstract UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-171 ObjectFlowEffect UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-170 Optional parameters UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-169 Pin multiplicity UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-168 Pin/parameter matching 4 UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-167 Pin/parameter matching 3 UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-166 Pin/parameter matching 2 UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-165 Pin/parameter matching 1 UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-164 Pins owned twice UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-163 Multiple outputs of object flow transformations UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-162 Keywords or properties UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-161 ExpansionRegions keywords UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-160 ActivityFinalNode UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-159 Tokens at fork UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-158 Weight=all UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-157 Provide notations for Loop and Conditional UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-156 Action should be concrete UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-155 Edge constraint for control nodes UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-154 Clarify wording on executable activity nodes UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-153 Outgoing edges from input pins UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-152 Variable and Pin multiplicity UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-151 running a “Check Model” in Rose you get the following errors UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-150 UML2 super/pg. 580/Stereotype typo UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-149 UML2 super/pg.470/entry and exit points for composite states UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-148 Multiplicities diagram in section 7.4 UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-147 No Glossary in 03-08-02 UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-146 Strange notation in Figure UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-145 Figure 63 missing notation UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-144 Interface Figure 62 uses wrong notation UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-143 Obsolete notation used in state machine - transition examples UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-142 Section 1.3, ElementImport semantics on page 10 of ad/2003-04-01 UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-141 An error in Figure 464 UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-140 PackageableElement UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-139 Question on Connectors - fig 2-17 UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-138 There appears to be a typo on page 2-148, in section 2.12.2.13 on StubState UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-137 Well-Formedness Rules for Procedure on Common Behavior Package UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-136 Description of GeneralizationSet UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-135 The description of DataType is plainly wrong in the specification UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-134 notation for shared aggregation UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-133 UML's use of the word "unique" for multiplicity is ambiguous UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-132 UML 2.0 Superstructure: Operation vs. Attribute notation UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-131 representation of arrays of values in an action language UML 1.5 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-130 2.5.2.29 Node UML 1.4 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-129 2.5.2 Abstract Syntax UML 1.4 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-128 2.5.2.15 Dependency UML 1.4 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-127 2.5.2 Abstract Syntax UML 1.4 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-126 2.5.2.10 Classifier UML 1.4 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-125 2.5.2.27 ModelElement UML 1.4 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-124 2.5.2.16 Element UML 1.4 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-123 2.5.2 Abstract Syntax UML 1.4 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-122 Section: 2.5.2.10 Classifier UML 1.4 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-121 Designates a Generalization (02) UML 1.4 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-120 The first sentence is not consistent with figure 2-9 on page 2-17 XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-119 Inconsistency regarding guards on forks XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-118 spelling of the word Use Case XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-117 font sizes XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-116 There is a misprint in rule 1 of the SubsystemInstance element XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-115 There is a misprint in rule 2 of the Object element: “Stimuli” instead of “ XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-114 There are misprints with numeration of rules of the Instance element XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-113 Wrong alphabetical order: DataValue section should be before DestroyAction XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-112 there is something wrong with rule 3 of the Trace element XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-111 Add rule to Namespace element XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-110 There is an unnecessary condition in rule 1 of the Namespace element XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-109 Rule 6 of the Method element isn't formulated well XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-108 Swap rule 2 and rule 3 of the Binding element XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-107 Section number duplicated XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-106 Section 3.90.2.2 XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-105 parameters of object flow states XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-104 In v1.4, section 3.84.1 the paragraph on semantics XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-103 Section 2.13.4.3 XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-102 How does one indicate the target object for a CallState XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-101 UML Issue - Inconsistency between UML 1.3 XMI and DTD XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-100 Initial state for composite states - OCL example and missing constraint XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-99 UML 1.4 - Partition relates to nothing XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-98 Well-formedness rules for 2.12.3.8 XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-97 Well-formedness rules 4 and 6 on 2.12.3.4 PseudoState XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-96 A_context_raisedSignal XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-95 UML 1.4.1 should use MOF 1.4 XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-94 Add action for invoking an activity XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-93 StartStateMachine clarification XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-92 Simplify inputs/outputs of procedures XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-91 match/correspond clarfication XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-90 Namespace.contents XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-89 Suggest that alternate syntax used in section 6.5.5 be adopted thoughout XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-88 Invalid XMI.link.atts in UML 1.4 DTD XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-87 Definitions in glossary don't conform to any standard for definitions XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-86 Composite relationship between Event and StateMachine XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-85 Adding events to the class definition XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-84 UML 1.4: Wrong target for StateMachine.top association XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-83 UML 1.4: AttributeLink containment error XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-82 UML 1.4: ClassifierRole contents problem XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-81 UML 1.4: Node, Artifact, Package and Model contents problem XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-80 UML 1.4: Event containment problem XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-79 UML 1.4: Stimulus containment XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-78 UML 1.4: Feature containment problem XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-77 UML 1.4: Transition containment problem XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-76 UML 1.4: ExtensionPoint containment problem XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-75 UML 1.4: State containment problem XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-74 UML 1.4: Action problem in Collaborations XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-73 UML 1.4: Action containment error XMI 1.3 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-72 Compliance to the UML" pp xxxi -- Editorial? UML 1.4 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-71 Nameclash in UML 1.4 UML 1.4 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-70 Using OCL at the meta-model level UML 1.4 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-69 Using or implementing an interface of a Subsystem UML 1.4 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-68 XML attribute "isPolymorphic" does not exist in UML 1.3 or UML 1.4 XMI DTD UML 1.4 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-67 Optimize Instance data values XMI 1.2 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-66 Component notation: showing delegation of messages XMI 1.2 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-65 Component notation: logical compartments XMI 1.2 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-64 Exceptions do not correspond to common usage XMI 1.2 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-63 Event => Event Specification XMI 1.2 UML 1.4.2 Resolved closed
UML14-16 isPolymorphic is never in a diagram UML 1.3 UML 1.4 Resolved closed
UML14-15 well-formedness rule for Package is missing inUML 1.4 UML 1.3 UML 1.4 Resolved closed
UML14-14 Figure 2-15 of the uml 1.4 spec UML 1.3 UML 1.4 Resolved closed
UML14-13 page 2-163, the statemachine semantics escription UML 1.3 UML 1.4 Resolved closed
UML14-12 Notation example typo in Fig. 3-99 UML 1.3 UML 1.4 Resolved closed
UML14-11 The glossary entry "call" should be "call state". UML 1.3 UML 1.4 Resolved closed
UML14-10 it's => its on page 3-150. UML 1.3 UML 1.4 Resolved closed
UML14-9 Wf 2 for AssociationEnd UML 1.3 UML 1.4 Resolved closed
UML14-8 2.9.2 Abstract Syntax UML 1.3 UML 1.4 Resolved closed
UML14-7 issues and bugs on the UML 1.4 Draft UML 1.3 UML 1.4 Resolved closed
UML14-6 class TaggedValuewill two association-ends with the same name "stereotype" UML 1.3 UML 1.4 Resolved closed
UML14-5 Remove uses of multiple inheritance from UML meta model UML 1.3 UML 1.4 Resolved closed
UML14-4 Who owns a Comment? UML 1.3 UML 1.4 Resolved closed
UML14-3 elimination of the Association Class TemplateParameter UML 1.3 UML 1.4 Resolved closed
UML14-2 2) Page 2-49, additional operation #7 for Classifier UML 1.3 UML 1.4 Resolved closed
UML14-1 Page 2-47, well-formedness rule #2 for Classifier UML 1.3 UML 1.4 Resolved closed

Issues Descriptions

Compliance ambiguity

  • Key: UML14-1045
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4466
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Pivot Point ( Cris Kobryn)
  • Summary:

    Although the current specification defines the basic units of
    compliance for UML, it does not clearly specify the extent to which they may
    be omitted (via the "no/incomplete" Valid Options in the summary table on p.
    xxv) before the implementation is not considered OMG UML. (As a degenerate
    case, it could be argued that they all could be omitted and that an
    implementation might still claim compliance.) Further note that the optional
    compliance of OCL is discussed as a special case on p. xxiii, although no
    special treatment of its compliance is reflected in the summary table.
    Optional compliance needs to be more clearly specified before we consider
    future optional compliance points, as some are proposing for the Action
    Semantics.

  • Reported: UML 1.3 — Fri, 3 Aug 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — UML 1.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    duplicate

  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 18:39 GMT

There is a bug in additional operation 1 of the Namespace element

  • Key: UML14-1041
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5733
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: St. Petersburg State Technical University ( Nikolai Andreev)
  • Summary:

    There is a bug in additional operation 1 of the Namespace element. I can suggest the following OCL expression: “contents = self.ownedElement->union(self.ownedElement->select(oe | oe.oclIsKindOf(Namespace)).contents)”.

  • Reported: UML 1.4 — Thu, 31 Oct 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Issue 4848 also raises a similar problem with Namespace.contents

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:40 GMT

How to properly designate exception returned from message sent to Java obje

  • Key: UML14-1040
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5433
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: ObjectShare ( Rebecca Wirfs-Broc)
  • Summary:

    I am trying to properly designate an exception returned from a message sent to a Java object.

    In UML a return is drawn as a dashed line with an open arrow. But is that the same for an exception returned? I can stereotype a return with the <<exception>> which is fine , but how do I properly draw the returned exception. I don't think the exception should be drawn the same as an asynchronous signal because control pops out from the exception raiser and returns to the callee at the exception handling point (it is the result of the original call, but the exception return is to a different point in the flow).... so it isn't exactly a signal.... but it does alter the control flow..

    So in my mind, if I wanted to show a returned exception, I should draw it like a return (dashed line with open stick arrowhead) labelled <<exception>>

    But I defer to someone with more expertise to untangle this for me. I spent time and could not find an answer to this in the UML 1.4 docs

  • Reported: UML 1.4 — Mon, 17 Jun 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This is a subset of the issue addressed by issue 7397.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:39 GMT

In 3.23.1 "Notation" (Internationalization issues)

  • Key: UML14-1039
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4120
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Architecture Technology Institute ( Hiroshi Miyazaki)
  • Summary:

    > In 3.23.1 "Notation", it is described that
    > italics are used to represent abstract classes.
    > We don't usally use slanting letters in Japanese.
    > It seems strange. So, I think this should be moved into
    > "Presentaion Options" or "Style Guidelines".
    >
    > In 3.22.4 "Style Guidelines",
    > it is described that uppercase letters are
    > used to represent class names and
    > lowercase letters are used to represent attributes
    > and operation names.
    > Japanese language doesn't have uppercase nor lowercase
    > letters. However, this is "Style Guidelines", so I think
    > this is not a problem, because the specification already
    > says that "Style Guideline" and "Presentation Option" are
    > not mandatory.

  • Reported: UML 1.3 — Sat, 9 Dec 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:38 GMT

No servant with object . minorcode=0 completed=NO

  • Key: UML14-1038
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4060
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    I am running a simple program but i am getting the error

    "There is no servant with object . minorcode=0 completed=NO"

    but i am not finding any documentation that explains abt the minorcode=0. it starts from 1. can u please help me out

  • Reported: UML 1.3 — Mon, 20 Nov 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — UML 1.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:38 GMT

The index shows incorrect section numbering for sections 2.9.4.1 to 2.9.4

  • Key: UML14-1037
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3637
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    The index shows incorrect section numbering for sections 2.9.4.1 to 2.9.4.4 as follows:

    2.9.4.25 Object and DataValue . 2-103
    2.9.4.26 Link . . . . . . . . . . 2-104
    2.9.4.27 Signal, Exception and Stimulus . 2-104
    2.9.4.28 Action . . . . . . . . 2-105

    It would appear that the fourth level carries on from 2.9.3.24

  • Reported: UML 1.3 — Tue, 23 May 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:38 GMT

Setting Action as abstract in UML-MetaModel MDL to correspond to Semantics

  • Key: UML14-1036
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3631
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Eugenio Alvarez)
  • Summary:

    The Action ModelElement looks like it is abstract in the Rose MDL
    because the name is in italics.
    However, checking the details tab in Rose shows that it has not been marked
    as abstract.

  • Reported: UML 1.3 — Fri, 19 May 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:38 GMT

Who owns an Event?

  • Key: UML14-1035
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3558
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Eugenio Alvarez)
  • Summary:

    An Event is aggregated by a transition but there seems to be no
    reference to who owns an event.
    If it should reside in a Package the OCL-WellFormedness rule for Package
    should be updated.

  • Reported: UML 1.3 — Thu, 13 Apr 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:38 GMT

UML 1.4 RTF Issue: Namespace notation too specific

  • Key: UML14-1034
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3408
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: ObjectSwitch ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Namespace notation too specific

    The model management namespace containment notation (the circled plus
    sign ) should be available on all namespace elements.

  • Reported: UML 1.3 — Wed, 8 Mar 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    declined

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:37 GMT

UML RTF 1.4 editorial comments (Part 9 - Statechart Diagrams)

  • Key: UML14-1033
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3400
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Technical Resource Connection ( Brian Cook)
  • Summary:

    Suggestions for the UML Notation Guide, Part 9 - Statechart Diagrams
    1. In Part 9 - Statechart Diagrams:[Proposed changes in red for the
    first 3 suggestions.] "A statechart diagram can be used to describe the
    behavior of instances of a model element such as an object or an
    interaction. Specifically, it describes possible sequences of states and
    actions through which the element instance can proceed during its lifetime
    as a result of reacting to discrete events (e.g., signals, operation
    invocations). " [The idea is that model elements are not dynamic or have
    lifetimes; rather they apply to instances of model elements.]
    2. In 3.74.1: "Typically, it is used for describing the behavior of
    classes instances, but statecharts may also describe the behavior of other
    model entities such as use-cases, actors, subsystems, operations, or
    methods." [A method is an instance of an operation. Therefore, you must have
    implementation level knowledge, in this case, the programming language used,
    to know about a method. This is antithetical to good modeling principles
    which state that a model should be implementation independent.]
    3. In 3.74.3: "That StateMachine may be owned by an instance of a model
    element capable of dynamic behavior, ..."
    4. Event-name or action-label??? 3.75.2 says "Internal transitions
    compartment This compartment holds a list of internal actions or activities
    that are performed while the element is in the state. The notation for such
    each of these list items has the following general format: action-label '/'
    action-expression" and later "The general format for the list item of an
    internal transition is: event-name '(' comma-separated-parameter-list ')'
    '[' guard-condition']' '/'action-expression". Which is to be used? Or is
    action-label the name of the expression: event-name '('
    comma-separated-parameter-list ')' '[' guard-condition']'? Compare this with
    3.78.2 which has " event-signature '[' guard-condition ']' '/'
    action-expression. The event-signature describes an event with its
    arguments: event-name '(' comma-separated-parameter-list ')'"
    5. In 3.75.2: "If the event has parameters, they can be used in the
    action expression through the current event variable." Should it be
    action-expression for consistency?
    6. 3.75.4: "The action expression maps into the ActionSequence and
    Guard for the Transition." Should it be action-expression?
    7. 3.75.4: "The Transition has a trigger Association to the Event." The
    term trigger does not appear to be unambiguously defined. It was previously
    mentioned in the section. " In all other cases, the action label identifies
    the event that triggers the corresponding action expression." Is this
    sufficient? It is not in the glossary.
    8. The use of the term pseudostate is not consistent throughout. In the
    glossary it is "pseudo-state", with a hyphen. In 2.12.2 it is pseudostate.
    9. 3.76.3, Figure 3-63: Passed and Failed are activities and not
    states. Change to the right graphic.
    10. 3.78.1: " A simple transition is a relationship between two states
    indicating that an object in the first state ..." Object should probably be
    instance. (This should be looked at throughout the document.) I suspect this
    opens a can of worms but the definitions, and probably the concepts
    themselves, of instance and object need clarification.
    11. 3.80.4 Figure 3-66: Each of the two diagrams should have a top level
    state around it to keep the rule about not transitioning from a stubbed
    state to an external state. See below. Granted they are implied but we are
    trying to be clear.
    12. 3.80.5: Eliminate the word "elision". It is not a common word plus
    it appears to be misused. "Elision is the omission of sounds, syllables, or
    words in spoken or written discourse
    </lingualinks/library/literacy/glossary/cjJ405/tks2801.htm>." and "The
    omission of a letter or syllable as a means of contraction, generally to
    achieve a uniform metrical pattern, but sometimes to smooth the
    pronunciation; such omissions are marked with an apostrophe <gl-a.html>.
    Specific types of elision include aphaeresis <gl-a.html>, apocope
    <gl-a.html>, syncope <gl-s.html>, synaeresis <gl-s.html> and synaloepha
    <gl-s.html>." Suggest replace with shortcut.
    13. 3.81.2: " represented by a a small white circle" Eliminate one "a".
    14. 3.83.2: " The bound is either a positive integer or a star ('*') for
    unlimited." "Unlimited" should be "any number" and "star" should be
    "asterisk".

  • Reported: UML 1.3 — Thu, 2 Mar 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:37 GMT

UML RTF 1.4 editorial comments (Part 6 - Use Case Diagrams)

  • Key: UML14-1032
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3399
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Technical Resource Connection ( Brian Cook)
  • Summary:

    Suggestions for the UML Notation Guide, Part 6 - Use Case Diagrams
    1. 3.56.1: Use different class names in the relationships: extend use A
    & B, generalization use C & D, include use E & F for clarity.

  • Reported: UML 1.3 — Thu, 2 Mar 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    declined

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:37 GMT

UML RTF 1.4 editorial comments (Part 3 - Behavioral Elements)

  • Key: UML14-1031
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3398
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Technical Resource Connection ( Brian Cook)
  • Summary:

    Part 3 - Behavioral Elements
    1. In 2.8: typo "that is used to model proocesses." Should be
    "processes"
    2. In 2.9.2, Figure 2-15: "Clas" should be "Class"
    3. In 2.9.2, Figure 2-15 and Argument: There is an internal
    inconsistency. The relationship from Argument to Action is diagrammed as a
    composition. The text says: [An argument] "is aggregated within an action."
    Is it aggregation or composition?
    4. Continuing #3: Also the glossary definition of composition ties
    non-fixed multiplicity and coincident lifetimes. Does 0..1 count as
    non-fixed? If so, where is it defined? What does this distinction mean in
    the first place?
    5. In 2.9.2, Instance: "The instance construct defines an entity to
    which a set of operations can be applied ..." Operation should be method.
    Operations exist at the Classifier level; methods are instances of
    operations and exist at the instance (application) level.
    6. In 2.9.2, Instance\Tagged Values\persistent: "Persistence denotes
    the permanence of the state of the instance, marking it as transitory (its
    state is destroyed when the instance is destroyed) or persistent (its state
    is not destroyed when the instance is destroyed)." Seems it should say that
    transitory is the default. Else add transitory as a tagged value.
    7. In 2.9.2, Figure 2-16: Would two refinements be clearer than the two
    associations from Link to Association and LinkEnd to AssociationEnd since
    they are a different levels of abstraction? Also from Instance to
    Classifier? [Should the relationship from Method to Operation in 2.5.2,
    Figure 2-5 also be a refinement?]
    8. In 2.9.2, Figure 2-16: Should the composition relationship from
    Attribute to Classifier also be modeled?
    9. In 2.9.2, Figure 2-16: The element Instance is abstract according to
    the text and should be stereotyped <<abstract>>.
    10. In 2.9.2, Link: "In the metamodel Link is an instance of an
    Association. It has a set of LinkEnds that matches the set of
    AssociationEnds of the Association." In Figure 2-16 LinkEnd to Link is

    {ordered}

    . Should this be consistent with AssociationEnd to Association?

  • Reported: UML 1.3 — Thu, 2 Mar 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:37 GMT

UML RTF 1.4 editorial comments (Part 2 Diagram Elements)

  • Key: UML14-1030
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3397
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Technical Resource Connection ( Brian Cook)
  • Summary:

    Part 2 - Diagram Elements
    1. 3.6.4: Title should be 'Examples' for clarity. Or add a subheading
    to communicate that a list of examples follows.
    2. 3.10.3: same as above
    3. 3.10.7: same as above
    4. 3.12: "Examples of such pairs in UML include: Class-Object,
    Association-Link, Parameter-Value, Operation-Call, and so on." Should
    Operation-Call be Operation-Method? 3.59.5 defines a call as procedural.

  • Reported: UML 1.3 — Thu, 2 Mar 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:37 GMT

UML RTF 1.4 Issue: Guard evaluation for choice points.

  • Key: UML14-990
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3278
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Make guard evaluation procedure for choice points more explicit.
    It is not clear from the specification whether all guards are
    required to be evaluated, even after one is found to be true.
    This affects performance/real time issues even if the guards have
    no side-effects.

  • Reported: UML 1.2 — Sat, 5 Feb 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:37 GMT

UML RTF 1.4 Issue: Join in collaboration

  • Key: UML14-988
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3275
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    It is possible to model forks in sequence charts using multiple
    asynchronous messages. However, it is not possible to model
    joins, because return messages are considered activitators, and
    multiple activators are not allowed.

  • Reported: UML 1.2 — Sat, 5 Feb 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Previously considered for 1.4 and closed w.o. change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:37 GMT

UML Semantics, OMG-UML V1.2 Use Cases July 1998, page 2-99

  • Key: UML14-940
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2292
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: In the current version of UML, use cases must not have associations to other use cases specifying the same entity. Use cases can exchange messages only with actors and not with each-other. UML use cases are always initiated by a signal from the actor.

    However, there are use cases that are initiated by a system if a specific condition is met. Example: in the well-known ATM machine example the use case "dispense cash" is initiated by the system, if the customer request was evaluated as valid. The use case "dispense cash" is not initiated by the (user) actor. In other words, the use case "dispense cash" receives a message or signal from the other use case specifying the same system. Therefore, the association between use cases must exist.

    Solution: Allow associations between use cases specifying the same entity.

  • Reported: UML 1.1 — Wed, 6 Jan 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    rejected

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

Some attributes can be expressed in OCL

  • Key: UML14-933
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2074
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: At several places in the UML metamodel there are attributes of type
    "...Expression". Some of these might be specified in OCL. This should be
    stated in the metamodel. The OCL specification should expicitly describe the
    meaning and context of such an OCL expresion.
    Examples are:
    Action: attribute target : ObjectSetExpression
    Argument: attribute value : Expression
    ChangeEvent: attribute changeExpression : BooleanExpression

    Especially the last one should be expressable in OCL, since it is
    a Boolean Expression.

  • Reported: UML 1.1 — Tue, 13 Oct 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

Set of allInstances should be referrable by the class name

  • Key: UML14-926
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2017
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: ances of a class, as
    in "Person.allInstances". It is quite common in many area"s to use the
    class name for this collection.
    To get the size of the collection of persons we now need to write:
    Person.alllnstances->size"
    With the proposes change we can write:
    Person->size
    which is a shorthand for the use of allInstances.

  • Reported: UML 1.1 — Wed, 30 Sep 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    rejected

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

Synchronous request

  • Key: UML14-919
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2006
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: synchronous request is defined as a request where the client object
    pauses to wait for completion of the request.

    1) My understanding of CORBA is that a request is only synchronous
    with respect to a given thread. Is this true?

    • So, does the sending client truly pause to wait for results?
    • Or is it just a thread of that client that pauses for results?

    Deferred synchronous request (mentioned on p.78) has not been
    defined.

  • Reported: UML 1.1 — Mon, 28 Sep 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Previously considered for 1.4 and closed w.o. change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

Asynchronous action

  • Key: UML14-918
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2004
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: An asynchronous action is defined as a request where the sending object does not pause to wait for results. Synonym: asynchronous request [OMA].

    1) What results?
    In the OMA v3 (June 13 1995), it is said on p. 78 that
    an asynchronous request has no response (hence no results).
    So, soes "results" means "response", or something else ?

    2) The OMA speaks also of a deferred synchronous request –
    proceed after sending request; claim reply later).
    The synonym used is confusing since the OMA has a concept of
    deferred synchronous request in which the sending object does
    not pause to wait for results (proceed after sending request;
    claim reply later).

    3) In fact, my understanding is that the sending object does not
    even pause to wait for the receiving object to be notified of
    the request. The definition is silent about this.

  • Reported: UML 1.1 — Mon, 28 Sep 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Previously considered for 1.4 and closed w.o. change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

UML 2 issue, Common Behaviors

  • Key: UML14-559
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7380
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Behaviors: objects that don't exist?

    At 13.1 we read:

    "Behaviors, as such, do not exist on their own, and they do not communicate. ... (Note that an executing behavior may itself be an object, however.)"

    It is not clear what this is intended to mean. To the untutored reader it seems to be a contradiction.

    What a behavior is and what a behavior execution is is fundamental to this half of UML. Whatever is intended should be spelled out clearly for the reader, very clearly.

  • Reported: RAS 2.0b1 — Wed, 26 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Components / provided and required interfaces -- derived or subsets

  • Key: UML14-558
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6875
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    Should Component::provided and Component::required really be derived? It seems that these sets of interfaces should be subsets of the sets of interfaces implemented/used by the component and/or its realizing classifiers, not derived from them

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Fri, 2 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Feature;ModelElement

  • Key: UML14-557
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5922
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: HTL Villach ( Lassnig Gernot)
  • Summary:

    Why there are two different Backbone Diagrams in the UML 1.5 Specification. The one on Page 71 shows that a Feature has a visibility and a ModelElement has just a name, nothing more. On Page 596 an Feature has the visibility not anymore, but ModelElement has one, how this should be interpreted, which one is the right visibility

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Tue, 29 Apr 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

TaggedValue in TaggedValue

  • Key: UML14-556
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4726
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    According to the UML 1.4 metamodel, a ModelElement can contain any number of
    taggedValues, of type TaggedValue [UML 1-4, pp. 2-76].

    However, because a TaggedValue itself is a ModelElement [UML 1-4, pp. 2-76],
    it can itself contain taggedValues.

    The question is: is this really intended? And if so: please explain the
    semantics of such a construction.

    If not, at simple well-formedness rule

    self.taggedValue = { }

    attached to TaggedValue would do the trick.

  • Reported: XMI 1.3 — Wed, 5 Dec 2001 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above, resolved

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Ambiguous semantics of classifier ownerscope

  • Key: UML14-555
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4446
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    The semantics of classifier ownerscope is ambiguous for structural
    features declared on classifiers that have children. It is not
    defined whether this gives value for the classifier and all its
    descendents, or values for the classifier and each descendant
    separately.

  • Reported: XMI 1.2 — Fri, 3 Aug 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

"Physical" Metamodel Package Structure (uml-rtf)

  • Key: UML14-554
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3123
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Google ( Don Baisley)
  • Summary:

    The package structure of UML 1.3 makes it difficult to deploy small parts of
    the "physical" metamodel separately. For example, a MOF-based facility that
    supports classes from Behavioral_Elements.Common_Behavior must support all
    of Behavioral_Elements. A facility that supports Exceptions must also
    support Use Cases and State Machines. This has been a problem in the
    formation of the CWM metamodel which extends UML. Its interfaces and DTDs
    are made to be much too large.

    The result of UML currently having three metamodels (two of which are large)
    rather than many smaller metamodels is that the IDL modules are very large
    and so are the DTDs. Breaking the metamodels into several smaller ones will
    allow smaller interface sets and DTDs that can be mixed and matched to
    provide necessary functionality without a huge overhead.

  • Reported: XMI 1.1 — Wed, 15 Dec 1999 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Issue 6090 correction

  • Key: UML14-553
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7561
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Issue 6090 correction. The following sentence should have been added to the last paragraph of the resolution to issue 6090: "An action may not put more values on an output pin in a single execution than the upper multiplicity of the pin."

  • Reported: RAS 2.0b1 — Mon, 21 Jun 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Issue 6094 correction.

  • Key: UML14-552
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7560
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Issue 6094 correction. The resolution to Issue 6094 made action concrete, but left the assocations input and output as unions, which are derived and cannot be used in a a direct instance of Action (the input and output associations were changed to nonderived, but this is inconsistent). Restore original model and introduce OpaqueAction instead

  • Reported: RAS 2.0b1 — Mon, 21 Jun 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super/Interactions/Need unattached lifelines

  • Key: UML14-551
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7553
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    At present, a lifeline always requires a corresponding ConnectableElement. For informal users of UML this requires that have to declare a specific structure for every interaction diagram that they want to draw. However, there are many uses of UML who want a less formal approach. For example, people may want to attach scenarios to use cases informally, that is, without having to talk about any specific connectable elements.

    Therefore, the multiplicity of the Lifeline::represents association end should be changed from 1 to 0..1.

  • Reported: RAS 2.0b1 — Wed, 30 Jun 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

property strings on association ends

  • Key: UML14-550
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7404
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: X-Change Technologies ( Joaquin Miller)
  • Summary:

    The drawings show property strings on association ends, which consist of a comma separated list of property strings. This is not authorized by the Notation section of 7.11.2.

  • Reported: RAS 2.0b1 — Mon, 31 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

change trigger

  • Key: UML14-549
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7403
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: X-Change Technologies ( Joaquin Miller)
  • Summary:

    A change trigger specifies an event that occurs when a Boolean-valued expression becomes true as a result of a change in value of one or more attributes or associations." [13.3.8] Does this intend to mean a change in value not of of one or more attributes, but of one or more slots? If so, then does it also intend to mean a change in value not of of one or more associations, but of one or more links? But, can the value of a link change? "A link is a tuple with one value for each end of the assocaition, where each value is an instance of the type of the end." [7.11.2] With a different value, we have a different tuple. Perhaps the text intends: A change trigger specifies an event that occurs when a Boolean-valued expression becomes true as a result of a change in value in one or more slots or the creation of destruction of one or more links.

  • Reported: RAS 2.0b1 — Mon, 31 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

XMI schema (02)

  • Key: UML14-548
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7402
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: X-Change Technologies ( Joaquin Miller)
  • Summary:

    "[C]omplying with a package requires complying with its abstract syntax, well-formedness rules, semantics, notation and XMI schema." [2] The requirement to comply with an XMI schema may be ambiguous. If this is intended to require that a compliant implementation correctly create a model from an XMI file written according the the XMI scheam and write an XMI file from a model according to that schema, this ought to be spelled out.

  • Reported: RAS 2.0b1 — Mon, 31 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This aspect has been clarified as part of the resolution to issue 6248

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Question about Enumeration and EnumerationLiteral

  • Key: UML14-547
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7379
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Red Hat ( Randall Hauch)
  • Summary:

    Enumeration is a subtype of DataType, and DataType allows both Properties and Operations. And since Enumeration has no additional constraints, this means that Enumeration also allows owned Property and Operation instances. Is there a reason why this is so? I would have expected an OCL constraint that limited the owned members of Enumeration to be only EnumerationLiteral instances.

    EnumerationLiteral is a subtype of InstanceSpecification, which itself is a subtype of PackageableElement. Because Package and own any number of PackageableElements, Package can actually own EnumerationLiteral. Is there a reason why this is so? The sematics talk about EnumerationLiteral being in the scope of an Enumeration, but it is somewhat vague about whether that is a constraint (there are no additional constraints). I would have expected an OCL constraint stating that EnumerationLiteral is only valid in the context of an Enumeration.

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Thu, 20 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML2 Super / Common Behavior / Trigger should be a named element

  • Key: UML14-546
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7369
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    In figure 317, Trigger is defined as a specialization of Element. However, it seems reasonable for triggers to have names, so it really should be a subclass of NamedElement

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Thu, 20 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML2 Super / Use cases / navigation from subject to use case

  • Key: UML14-545
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7368
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    The current model of use cases does not allow navigation from a subject classifier of a use case to its use case. It should be possible to do this, so that a classifier can easily identify which use cases apply to it. The proposed resolution is to make Classifier::useCase navigable.

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Thu, 20 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super / General / superclass pointers

  • Key: UML14-544
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7367
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    It would greatly improve readability if every metaclass had a section that listed all the immediate superclasses of that class. This would also make the document consistent with the resolution to issue 7156, which indicates that such a subsection should exist.

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Thu, 20 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML2 Super / Classes / Operation constraints

  • Key: UML14-543
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7366
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    Currently, the UML 2 specification defines Operation properties precondition, postcondition, and bodyCondition that are owned constraints. However, these properties do not subset the Namespace::ownedRule property, but rather the Namespace::ownedMember property.

    The opposites of these properties are preConstraint, postConstraint, and bodyConstraint, all of which are non-navigable and subset Constraint::context and Constraint::namespace.

    Also, the Constraint::namespace property, which is non-navigable, subsets Constraint::context, which is navigable. This is inconsistent, and in fact violates the UML's own constraint on property subsetting which stipulates that a navigable property can only be subsetted by a navigable property (constraint [4] of metaclass Property).

    The consequence of all this is that a Constraint that is the precondition (for example) of an Operation does not have a context . This means that a constraint such as an OCL expressions in pre-conditions cannot be parsed against the context namespace.

    There are (at least) two ways to solve this problem:
    let Operation::precondition and its cohorts subset Namespace::ownedRule instead of Namespace::ownedMember (which would leverage the eContainer() "cheat" that EMF offers to get the owner of an element that doesn't have a navigable owner property)
    let Constraint::namespace redefine NamedElement::namespace and make it navigable, thus making the subset relationship with Constraint::context valid

    The first option seems preferred, for two reasons:
    It makes sense that all constraints that a namespace owns should be included in the ownedRule property
    This would be consistent with the Behavior metaclass, whose precondition and postcondition properties do subset ownedRule

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Thu, 20 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML2 Super / ordering of association ends

  • Key: UML14-542
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7365
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    It seems to me the the following properties should perhaps be ordered (currently they are not):

    ApplyFunctionAction::argument
    Association::endType
    CombinedFragment::operand
    ConnectableElement::end
    InteractionOccurrence::argument
    Message::argument
    StringExpression::subExpression
    StructuredClassifier::ownedAttribute
    TemplateSignature::parameter

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Thu, 20 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Q re Parameter

  • Key: UML14-541
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7355
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology ( Thomas Weigert)
  • Summary:

    There appears to be an inconsistency in the specification as to what it
    means to be a formal parameter or a return result. Please choose between the
    following two interpretations:

    A. A return result is a parameter that is specially indicated to be the
    return result. All other parameters are formal parameters.

    B. A return result is any parameter with direction return, out, or inout. A
    formal parameter is any parameter with direction in or inout.

    You could view (A) as focusing on the syntactical role the parameters play,
    while (B) focuses on when they communicate data.

    The difficulty arises from that the infrastructure and the superstructure
    have differing machineries of dealing with parameters.

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Sun, 16 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This is a duplicate of issue 7344

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super / missing owners of concepts

  • Key: UML14-540
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7336
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    The owners of the metaclasses InformationFlow, ParameterSet, and PrimitiveFunction are not defined

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Fri, 14 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super / state machines / state should be a namespace

  • Key: UML14-539
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7323
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    Currently, a State is not a namespace, even though it contians things such as entry and exit pseudostates, substates, etc. all of which are in the context of a State. Therefore, State should be made a kind of Namespace as well as being a kind of Vertex. (Note that Vertices in general do not need to be Namespaces.

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Sat, 8 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue is resolved by the resolution to issue 6207.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super/Connector

  • Key: UML14-538
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7321
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    03-08-02.pdf, page 163:
    Specifies a link that enables communication between two or more instances.
    This link may be an instance of an association, or it may represent the
    possibility of the instances being able to communicate because their
    identities are known by virtue of being passed in as parameters, held in
    variables, created during the execution of a behavior, or because the
    communicating instances are the same instance.

    Doesn't this imply a semantic variation point?

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Fri, 7 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML2 super/interactions

  • Key: UML14-537
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7301
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    03-08-02.pdf: page 412: consider/ignore - I can find no explanation of how
    the message types to be considered/ignored are modeled. The spec should be
    clear on this issue, probably in the description of combined fragment.

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Wed, 5 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super / Templates / invalid multiplicity

  • Key: UML14-536
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7277
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    Figure 428 says that TemplateParameterSubstitution::ownedActual has a multiplicity of (0..1). However, the association description on page 549 states that the multiplicity is (1..). However, it seems to me that the multiplicity was intended to be 0.. despite what the diagram (and Rose model) seem to suggest.
    This is because a template substitution may not necessarily own any of its actual parameter values.

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super / Profiles / problem with name collisions

  • Key: UML14-535
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7276
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    The new rule for extension end role names as adopted in ballot 10 (specifically for metaclass extension role names) is likely to lead to name collisions. For example, a stereotype that extends the Package metaclass with a property named 'basePackage' would conflict with the recommended role name of the metaclass extension end ('basePackage'). The recommended role names should be less likely to collide with names that might be chosen for stereotype properties, for example, base$"ExtendedMetaClassName" (i.e. base$Package).

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

transition is simply never enabled

  • Key: UML14-534
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7256
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: ISTI-CNR ( Franco Mazzanti)
  • Summary:

    Maybe this is a stupid question. But I could not find an answer ... A transition is not required to have a trigger. If the source of the transition is a composite state, its triggering is described by the rules about "completion transitions". But what happens if the source is just a simple state: It would seem that the transition cannot be considered as a "completion transition", but at the same time, the transition never satisfies the rules about "enabled transitions". Hence it woulds seem that the transition is simply never enabled. Is this interpretation correct? If so, it this behaviour really intended?

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Wed, 21 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML Sequence diagram

  • Key: UML14-533
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7253
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Independence Blue Cross ( Janardhanam Venkat)
  • Summary:

    In the UML Sequence diagram there are asynchronous message that is very useful in designing application. I am trying to create an activity diagram between 4 asynchronous system. Why cant we have asynchronous arrow in activity diagram between swim lanes? That is the true representation of a flow in a distributed system.

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Fri, 16 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML2 Super/Composite Structure

  • Key: UML14-532
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7231
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    page 178, table 6 - the entry for port shows the only option for a port as
    being on the boundary of an enclosing box whereas the notation section for
    ports (169) states that port boxes may be shown inside the boundary of the
    enclosing box. The port entry on table 6 should amended so that it includes
    all cases.

    page 179, the table is headed table 6 but should be table 7.

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Mon, 12 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 1 activities

  • Key: UML14-531
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7230
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    figure 274 - should the arrow between Award Quote and Quote Responses be the
    other way round

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Fri, 9 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML2 super/Deployments/CommunicationPath

  • Key: UML14-530
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7228
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    In section 10.3.2 and Figure 125 the constraint is given that a
    CommunicationPath can only associate Nodes.
    This seems too restrictive and does not, for example, allow
    CommunicationPaths between actual servers (Instance Specifications).

    Proposed resolution:
    Relax constraint such that a CommunicationPath can link
    DeploymentTargets.

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Sun, 11 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

State machines / name of transitions association end

  • Key: UML14-529
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7226
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    UML::StateMachines::BehaviorStateMachines::Region::transitions should be renamed to transition (i.e. made singular) to be consistent with the naming convention for other association ends.

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Sun, 11 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Activity Diagrams: Relax Traverse-to-Completion semantics

  • Key: UML14-528
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7221
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    In my interpretation of the current semantics description of UML
    activity diagrams (Superstructure, Final Adopted Spec, ptc/03-08-02) I
    have identified some rather unpleasant properties of the current
    traverse-to-completion semantics. The full discussion together with
    examples can be found in the attached .pdf, the short of it is:

    *) the current semantics does not prevent deadlocks (as it is
    supposed to do)

    *) it rather induces deadlocks even in simple examples (e.g. examples
    in the UML spec are wrong)

    *) it makes for a very complex evaluation and introduces unnecessary
    synchronization in the (basically asynchronous) notation of Activiy
    Diagrams.

    I therefore propose to relax the semantics of token flow by dropping
    the constraint that every Action has to accept all tokens for all its
    input pins at once. MergeNodes should als be able to buffer tokens
    until their conditions are satisfied. This is a more natural way of
    interpreting ADs.

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Mon, 5 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Composite Structures, 03-08-02.pdf

  • Key: UML14-527
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7220
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    Can a connector be typed by an association one of whose ends are composite
    or shared? I can't see anything in the spec that prohibits this but I'm not
    sure that it makes a lot of sense to do so.

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Mon, 22 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Operations and derived attributes

  • Key: UML14-526
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7219
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: TimeWarp Engineering Ltd. ( Steven Cramer)
  • Summary:

    I am looking at ValueSpecification which introduces Additional Operations, such as integerValue(). My question is : What is the reasoning behind making these Operations vs. Derived attributes?

    In MultiplicityElement we have a derived attribute lower which is equal to lowerBound(). What logic is used to determine whether an Operation has a corresponding Attribute?

    Also the spec seems to indicate that all derived values will be implemented via some operation. Is this a requirement or an assumption of implementation?

    Why can’t lower in MultiplicityElement simple be defined as if lowerValue->notEmpty() then 1 else lowerValue.integerValue()… what makes the lowerBound() operation required?

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Mon, 12 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

use of stereotypes

  • Key: UML14-525
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7213
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Today, the reason for this mail is that in my UML certification I was asked a question regarding the include and extend relationship between use cases.
    I was (and am still a bit) confused, because one question was dealing with the extend and include notation between use cases. I think the 640 pages UML 2 documnet 03-08-02.pdf is inconsistent here. (I now ask because I think I lost two correct answers in my fundamental UML 2 certification caused by include/includes and extend/extends...): UML 1 used the stereotype notations "extends" and "includes". Im UML 2, the classifiers are now called "include" and "extend". But confusingly enough, some association arrows inside the OMG document 03-08-02.pdf
    "UML Superstructure 2.0 Draft Adopted Specification" use the stereotypes (see <<extends>> and <<includes>> in Fig 406 p. 521 and twice <<extends>> and one time <<includes>> in Table 22 on page 523/524.)

    Who to report these inconsistencies to? Or are the stererotypes still allowed to be labeled <<extends>> and one time <<includes>> ?

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Fri, 26 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Duplicate of issue 6465.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super / Appendix A / Typos

  • Key: UML14-524
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7162
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    p587 para 2 line 2 "UML diagrams contains graphical elements" (should be "contain")
    p587 para 5 line 1 "symbols defines the type" (should be "define")
    p587 last para "C1 and C1" (should be "C1 and C2")
    p588 para 1 line 2 "a graphical symbols" (should remove "a")
    p588 para 1 line 4 "assocition"

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Tue, 16 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super/Interactions/Alternative with all false guards

  • Key: UML14-523
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7160
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: KDM Analytics ( Nikolai Mansourov)
  • Summary:

    Semantics of the alternative CombinedFragment (page 410) does not describe what happens if all branches are guarded, and
    all guards are false.
    Does this means: a) empty trace, or b) (dynamically) invalid trace ?
    I suggest to add a sentence, defining such traces as dynamically invalid.
    This will be consistent with the behavior of a ConditionalNode in Activities (page 313): "if no test section yields a true value, then no body section is executed; this may be a semantic error if output values are expected from the conditional node".

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Mon, 15 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super / General / Classes chapter organization

  • Key: UML14-522
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7159
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    The Classes chapter is organized differently from all other chapters in the document – it should be made consistent with the organization of all the other chapters

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Tue, 16 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super / State machines / incorrect navigation specifications

  • Key: UML14-521
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7158
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    In figure 354 on page 457, it is shown that it is not possible to navigate back from Region towards either the state machine that owns it or the state that owns it. However, it is often necessary to know who the owner of a region is, therefore these associations need to be made navigable in both directions.

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Mon, 15 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super / General / consistent formatting conventions

  • Key: UML14-520
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7157
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    Different chapters in different parts of the spec use different conventions for naming, headings, layout etc. These should all be made consistent based on one shared convention.

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Sun, 14 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This is resolved by the resolutions to issue 6958 and 7190.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super / General / Dcoument conventions

  • Key: UML14-519
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7156
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    The document needs an explanation of how it is laid out and how the format and meaning of the various sections in the individual class descriptions

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Sun, 14 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

adopt a single notation to specify text strings used in the notation

  • Key: UML14-518
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7135
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: X-Change Technologies ( Joaquin Miller)
  • Summary:

    There are three different ways to specify text strings used in the notation and two variations.

    The three ways:

    1. a sort of Bakus-Naur form as in: multiplicity ::= <multiplicity_range> [ ‘

    {‘ <order_designator> ‘}

    ’ ] see Super 7.4.1

    2. a second way as in: [visibility] [/] name [: type] [multiplicity] [= default] [

    { property-string }] see Super 7.8.1 The characters that are a part of the notation (virgule, colon, equals and braces) are simply shown.

    3. a third way, combining features of both as in: visibility name ‘<‘ template-parameter-list ‘>’ ‘<<‘binding-expression-list ‘>>’‘( ‘ parameter-list ‘)’ ‘:’ property-string see Super 17.5.12 The characters that are a part of the notation (angle bracket, parens, colon) are enclosed in single quotes. (The inverted comma and apostrophe are not consistently used as opening and closing single quotes.)

    Both the second and the third ways are sometimes used at the same place as in: [visibility] [/] name [: type] [multiplicity] [= default] [{ property-string }

    ] {{ [ name ] ‘:’ classname } | name } [ ‘[‘ multiplicity ‘]’ ] see Super 17.5.7

    The two variations:

    a. Sometimes a single bracket does double duty as in: direction name : type-expression [multiplicity] = default-value [

    { property-string }

    ] see Super 7.10.1 Here, the brackets around multiplicity indicate both that multiplicity is optional, and that the multiplicity is to be shown inside brackets. see Super 7.10.1

    b. Sometimes the brackets are not used when an item is optional as in: visibility name ( parameter-list ) : property-string see Super 7.10.1

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Tue, 9 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Appendix A of the superstructure spec

  • Key: UML14-517
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7125
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Eran Gery [X] (Inactive))
  • Summary:

    Appendix A of the superstructure spec specify the usage of frames
    in diagrams. The text says:
    "Each diagram has a frame, a contents area, and a heading, see Figure 460."

    This statement implies that frames are normative. The text later says
    that "In cases where not needed, the frame may be omitted and implied by the border of the diagram area provided by a tool."

    This entire explanation distorts the common intent and practice of UML
    diagramming. Text should present the frames as an optional presentation
    option in the first place. Also, in all cases mentioned (ports, entry points)
    it is possible to notate the context using class boxes or states, so in none of these cases frames are "needed". It is a mere presentation option that might be

    used as an alternative to using prime container symbols.

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Tue, 9 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super / Activities / Fig.192 constraint duplicated

  • Key: UML14-516
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7099
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    In Fig. 192 on pg. 277, the association end StructuredActivityNode::activity, the constraint

    {redefines activity}

    is duplicated

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Fri, 5 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Ambiguous semantics of isStatic - resubmission of issue 4446

  • Key: UML14-515
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7098
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    The semantics of isStatic = true is ambiguous for structural features
    declared on classifiers that have children. It is not defined whether
    this gives a single value for the classifier and all its descendents,
    or values for the classifier and each descendant separately.

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Mon, 9 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This is the same issue as issue 6974

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super / Interactions / Invalid subsetting for enclosingOperand

  • Key: UML14-514
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7069
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    There is a serious model consistency issue with InteractionFragment::enclosingOperand because it is currently constrained to be a subset of NamedElement::namespace, but its type (InteractionOperand) is not a specialization of Namespace. Also, InteractionOperand::enclosingInteraction does not subset NamedElement::namespace (it probably should; Interaction is already an indirect specialization of Namespace).

    The simplest solution is to make InteractionOperand a specialization of Namespace

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Thu, 4 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super / Classes / makesVisible () operation incorrect

  • Key: UML14-513
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7068
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    there appears to be a bug in the specification with respect to the definition of the makesVisible() OCL query on packages. Here is the OCL expression from the specification (page 100):

    Package::makesVisible(el: Namespaces::NamedElement) : Boolean;
    pre: self.member->includes(el)
    makesVisible = el.visibility->isEmpty() or el.visibility = #public

    As you can see, this definition makes even imported elements visible based on their own visbility rather than the visibility of the import
    relationship. The same applies to elements made visible indirectly via a package import.

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Thu, 26 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Super and Infra / Kernel-Classifiers / incorrect hasVisibilityOf definition

  • Key: UML14-512
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7056
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    It seems that there is an issue with the hasVisibilityOf(NamedElement) operation on Classifier. In particular, it doesn't consider visibilities when determining if a member is visible:

    Classifier::hasVisibilityOf(n: NamedElement) : Boolean;
    pre: self.allParents()>collect(c | c.member)>includes
    hasVisibilityOf =true

    One might logically expect the operation to exclude, for example, members with private visibility.

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Sun, 29 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Ambiguous example of a local action on a Lifeline in Figures 334, 335

  • Key: UML14-511
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6988
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: KDM Analytics ( Nikolai Mansourov)
  • Summary:

    Page 415-6 Figures 334,335 use a rectangular box with the text "DoSth" in it. The meaning of this symbols is not explained in the corresponding section, nor in Table 14 graphical nodes in Sequence Diagrams.
    In ITU Message Sequence Charts this would mean an informal action, local to the Lifeline.

    The syntax and semantics of local actions is the key issue in "executable sequence diagrams", and in proper alignment of semantics between Interactions, Activities and State Machines (and Actions).

    As a minimum, Figures 334, 335 need to be explained, and table 14 updated.
    It would be better to illustrate formal use of Actions.
    Ideally, Interactions will benefit from a data sublanguage based on Actions, in order to have a capability to fully specify flows of data between Lifelines:

    • message parameters (including composite values)
    • local attributes (storing data in Lifeliens; in data structures like lists, sets, tables, etc.)
    • identities of objects (input and output pins for actions)
    • actions (manipulations on data, access to data structures and composite values)
    • proper usage of data in guards and state invariants
    • proper usage of data in loop expressions
  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

ambiguous definition of the scope of a break CombinedFragment

  • Key: UML14-510
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6987
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: KDM Analytics ( Nikolai Mansourov)
  • Summary:

    page 410 mentions that "Break CombinedFragments must be global relative o the enclosing InteractionFragment".

    This is ambiguous and needs to be explained in more precise way, involving InteractionOccurences and Interaction Overview Diagrams. There were debates on the scope of a similar construct in the ITU language.

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super/Interactions/inconsistent spelling for InteractionOperator

  • Key: UML14-509
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6986
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: KDM Analytics ( Nikolai Mansourov)
  • Summary:

    The enum type name InteractionOperator is often misspelt (e.g. interactionOperator or interaction operator). It is also used inconsistently when referring to a particular operator, e.g. InteractionOperator alt.
    I suggest using a single typigraphic convention:
    InteractionOperator <italic> alt </italic>

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

text differs from metamodel for critical region InteractionOperator

  • Key: UML14-508
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6985
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: KDM Analytics ( Nikolai Mansourov)
  • Summary:

    On page 411 subsection for Critical Region mentions the InteractionOperator "critical", while the metamodel uses the enum "region".

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

word "execute" in definition of alternative CombinedFragment is ambiguous

  • Key: UML14-507
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6984
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: KDM Analytics ( Nikolai Mansourov)
  • Summary:

    Page 410 The word "execute" is used to describe the Alternative CombinedFragment i nthe context "operand will execute", etc. This word is ambiguous. I suggest changing it to "operand is chosen", etc.
    Or even the full description, like "the meaning of the InteractionOperator alt is a trace corresponding to only one of its operands".

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super/Interactions/Ambiguous description of state invariants

  • Key: UML14-506
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6983
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: KDM Analytics ( Nikolai Mansourov)
  • Summary:

    page 433 has the following text: "A StateInvariant is a constraint on the state of a Lifeline. In this case we mean by "state" also the values of >>eventual attributes<< of the Lifeline".

    The term >>eventual attribute<< may be ambiguous.

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super/Interactions/rationale subsections not informative

  • Key: UML14-505
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6982
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: KDM Analytics ( Nikolai Mansourov)
  • Summary:

    Most sections in chapter 14 on Interactions do not have a Rationale subsection, while the remaining few only contain the text "not applicable". This is not informative.
    I suggest to remove the Rationale subsections altogether.

    Pages 414 421 423 425 428 430 433

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Remove the empty “Rationale” sub-sections on pages 414, 421, 423, 425, 428, 430, 433.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super/Interactions/incorrect grammar for

  • Key: UML14-504
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6981
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: KDM Analytics ( Nikolai Mansourov)
  • Summary:

    Grammar for <state-info> at page 434 has a typo:
    <state-info>::=<region}

    {, <region> }*


    must be:
    <state-info>::=<region> {, <region> }

    *

    It is not clear, how to define <region-name> in Sequence Diagrams.

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super/Interactions/incorrect spelling of EventOccurence

  • Key: UML14-503
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6980
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: KDM Analytics ( Nikolai Mansourov)
  • Summary:

    There are multiple places in the Interaction section, where class name EventOccurence is spelt incorrectly (usually as Eventoccurence).

    pages 403 410 411 416 417 419 420 422 427 429 431

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Ambiguous sentence and typo in description of EventOccurence

  • Key: UML14-502
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6979
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: KDM Analytics ( Nikolai Mansourov)
  • Summary:

    Page 416:

    The sequences of Eventoccurences are the meanings of Interactions. >>Messages are sent through either asynchronous signal sending or operation calls.<<
    Likewise they are >>>recieved<<< by >>Receptions or actions of consuption.<<

    typo needs to be corrected.
    highlighted parts need to be re-phrased and terminology aligned with the rest of the spec.

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

graphic nodes for state invariant and continuation are not always distingui

  • Key: UML14-501
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6978
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: KDM Analytics ( Nikolai Mansourov)
  • Summary:

    It is not possible to visually distinguish between a continuation (oval with a name) and a simple state invariant (also oval with a state name). Compare Figure 345 and 334.

    One possibility is to use guard syntax for state invariants.
    Another possibility is to use a different graphic for continuations

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super/Interactions/incorrect text and table title for Table 19

  • Key: UML14-500
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6977
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: KDM Analytics ( Nikolai Mansourov)
  • Summary:

    Page 450 has the following text:
    "The graphic nodes that can be included into >>structural diagrams<< are shown in Table 19". Table 19 has the following title "Graphic nodes and paths included in >>sequence diagrams<<"

    The text needs to be changed into "The graphic nodes >>and paths<< that can be included into >>timing diagrams<< are shown in Table 19"

    Title of Table 19 should read "timing diagrams" instead of "sequence diagrams".

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super/Interactions/incorrect text before Table 14

  • Key: UML14-499
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6976
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: KDM Analytics ( Nikolai Mansourov)
  • Summary:

    Page 436 has the following text:
    "The graphic nodel that can be included in >>structural diagrams<< are shown in Table 14."

    Table 14 is called "Graphic nodes included in sequence diagrams".

    Text needs to be changed into "sequence diagrams"

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This is a duplicate of 6934, already resolved

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Ambiguous semantics of isStatic

  • Key: UML14-498
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6974
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    The semantics of isStatic = true is ambiguous for structural features
    declared on classifiers that have children. It is not defined whether
    this gives a single value for the classifier and all its descendents,
    or values for the classifier and each descendant separately.

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Mon, 9 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

self-activation notation in Sequence diagrams missing

  • Key: UML14-497
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6972
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: gmail.com ( Guus Ramackers)
  • Summary:

    UMl 1.x sequence diagrams had a notation for self-activation, where the activation boxes (now called "execution occurrences" in UML 2) can be nested.

    E.g. UML 1.4, Notation, Sequence Diagrams, section 3.60.4, figure 3-56

    This notation is missing from UMl 2.0 Interactions chapter. No alternative notation is provided.

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Fri, 6 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    duplicate

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML2 superstructur: actor

  • Key: UML14-496
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6970
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    UML2 superstructure 03-08-02
    p. 513
    "[1] An actor can only have associations to use cases, subsystems, components and classes, and these associations must be binary."

    A subsystem is a component stereotype, so it doesn't make sense to mention it here.

    I would propose the following constraint instead of the above one:
    "[1] An actor can only have associations to classifiers, and these associations must be binary."

    It makes sense that an actor can have binary associations to the subject they are interacting with.
    The subject of an use case is a classifier.

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Mon, 2 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super / use cases / incorrect table title

  • Key: UML14-495
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6969
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    Table 22 on pages 523-524 is titled "Graphic nodes used in sequence diagrams" but should be titled "Graphic nodes used in use case diagrams"

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Mon, 2 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UseCase - Include - Constraint for irreflexivity

  • Key: UML14-494
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6967
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    UseCase - Include - Constraint for irreflexivity

    I suggest to add the following constraint for Include:

    Constraints [1] An include relation is irreflexive, i.e. source and target are not equal. self.addition <> self.includingCase

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Sat, 31 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue is resolved by the resolution to issue 6965.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UseCase - Constraint for non-circular include relation

  • Key: UML14-493
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6965
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    UseCase - Constraint for non-circular include relation

    I suggest to add the following fragments to the sections "Additional Operations" and "Constraints":

    Additional Operations [1] The query allIncludedCases() gives a set of all of the uses cases which are either included directly by this use case or indirectly by other included use cases.

    UseCase::allIncludedCases(): Set(UseCase); allIncludedCases = self.include->union( self.include->collect(uc | uc.allIncludedCases()) )

    Constraints [4] A Use Case may not directly or indirectly include itself not self.allIncludedCases()->includes(self)

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Sat, 31 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

What level of MOF 2.0 is the metamodel for UML 2.0?

  • Key: UML14-492
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6959
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Jon Siegel)
  • Summary:

    UML 2.0 does not state which level of MOF (EMOF, CMOF, or
    whatever else) provides its meta-meta-model. Therefore, there is
    no formal statement defining which Class definition (Basic or
    Constructs package level) and so forth is the basis for the
    definitions in the UML 2.0 specification. UML tools implement
    this class, so it's probably a good idea to know which one it's
    supposed to be. (Proof, in case you're wondering: The names
    EMOF and CMOF do not occur anywhere in the Superstructure
    final adopted specification 03-08-02. The name MOF does, but
    not in the context of which version of MOF defines the
    UML metametamodel.)

    If there is an ambiguity in which it is, the FTF needs to resolve
    it. Once it's resolved ("The metamodel for UML 2.0 is CMOF"), it
    should be stated clearly in the specification.

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Wed, 4 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super / General / specialization labeling convention

  • Key: UML14-491
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6958
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    In most cases, when a metaclass is refined in a package, the phrase used in the title of the class description is "as specialized". In a few places, however, it is flagged as just "specialized". This needs to be made consistent.

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Wed, 4 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Typo in Collaboration Diagram figure

  • Key: UML14-490
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6950
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Nancy Siegel)
  • Summary:

    In UML Superstructure, ad/03-08-02, Section 14.4 "Diagrams", page 443,
    figure 346, bottom right box labeled "sd Q", the label "ysuperB" needs
    a colon, and should be "y:superB" (as it is in the top right box).

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Thu, 29 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Inconsistent labeling of tables in Section 12.4, Activities.Diagrams: p 367

  • Key: UML14-489
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6949
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Jon Siegel)
  • Summary:

    Top of page 367, text says:
    Activity diagrams have graphical elements for containment. These
    are included in Table 13.

    In the next line, the table caption says:
    Table 13 - Graphic nodes included in activity diagrams

    Proposed resolution:
    These are inconsistent, although not necessarily wrong. They should be
    made consistent.

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Thu, 29 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Inconsistent labeling of tables in Section 12.4, Activities.Diagrams: p 366

  • Key: UML14-488
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6948
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Jon Siegel)
  • Summary:

    Middle of page 366, text says:
    The graphic paths that can be included in structural diagrams are
    shown in Table 12.

    In the next line, the table caption says:
    Table 12 - Graphic nodes included in activity diagrams

    Proposed resolution:
    The table caption is correct, and the text above it needs to be changed
    to conform.

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Thu, 29 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Inconsistent labeling of tables in Section 12.4, Activities.Diagrams p365

  • Key: UML14-487
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6947
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Jon Siegel)
  • Summary:

    Inconsistent labeling of tables in Section 12.4, Activities.Diagrams:

    Issue 1:
    Top of page 365, text says:
    The graphic nodes that can be included in structural diagrams are
    shown in Table 11.

    In the next line, the table caption says:
    Table 11 - Graphic nodes included in activity diagrams

    Proposed resolution:
    The table caption is correct, and the text above it needs to be changed
    to conform.

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Thu, 29 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super / Deployments / Invalid cross-references

  • Key: UML14-486
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6946
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    Table 9 on page 199 references pages such as 10-50, 26-201. These are not valid page number in the spec.

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Thu, 29 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super / Classes / Dependency should not be abstract

  • Key: UML14-485
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6945
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    A quick survey of the superstructure spec reveals the following places where Dependency is defined (and I probably missed some):

    Fig 51, P.106, shown as NOT abstract - this is where the Dependency package is shown
    Table 4, P.130, defines a visual symbol for it
    Fig. 101, P.155, shown as abstract
    Fig. 126, P.183, shown as abstract
    Fig 130, P.188, shows a pure dependency in an example
    Table 9, P.199, defines a visual symbol for it

    Most of the text also refers to the section containing figure 51 for the definition of dependency. If I were reading the spec, I would tend to consider the section where it is defined as the authority and dismiss the others as errors made by those writing the other chapters.

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Thu, 29 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super / Realize keyword-stereotype

  • Key: UML14-484
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6930
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    Table 28 in the appendix identifying standard stereotypes identifies that the "realizes" stereotype of Abstraction has been retired. However, on page 110 it is stated that the notation for a Realization dependency is a dependency with the "realize" keyword attached to this. Although this could be explained by saying that the keyword has not been retired whereas the stereotype has, this is very confusing and appears contradictory. I suggest we eliminate the table entry in Table to 28 that specifies that the "realize" stereotype has been retired.

    The bigger problem, perhaps is that the difference between keywords and stereotypes is not properly explained anywhere (at least not where I could find it). Perhaps the Notation appendix should discuss this.

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super / Classes / Properties owned by properties

  • Key: UML14-483
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6929
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    It seems that the lower bound of Feature::featuringClassifier should perhaps be 0 (not 1) to allow for the situation in which a Property is owned not by a class, association, or data type, but another property (as one of its qualifiers)

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super / Interactions / navigability of enclosingOperation

  • Key: UML14-482
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6928
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    Should InteractionFragment::enclosingOperation be navigable? The association end is named and even has a subset constraint, but the association isn't navigable in that direction for some reason (see Figure 329).

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Sun, 25 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super / Dependencies / Abstraction should have an optional mapping

  • Key: UML14-481
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6926
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    In section 7.14.1 (Abstraction) it is stated explicitly that the mapping associated with an abstraction is optional (as it should be, since we do not necessarily want to have a mapping attached to every kind of abstraction). However, the diagram in figure 51 has a multiplicty of 1 for the "mapping" role (at the Expression end). This should be changed to 0..1.

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Wed, 21 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super / Interactions / incorrect multiplicity for PartDecomposition

  • Key: UML14-480
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6925
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    The description of Lifeline on p. 427 (and Figure 331 on p. 409) indicates that the Lifeline::decomposedAs property is mandatory. This property refers, indirectly through a PartDecomposition, to an interaction the describes the internal workings of the ConnectableElement that the Lifeline represents.

    Unfortunately, there are common situations in which the decomposedAs property cannot be specified because the ConnectableElement is not decomposable (i.e., is not structured). In fact, the first constraint on p. 431 in the description of the PartDecomposition metaclass makes this very clear: "PartDecompositions apply only to Parts that are Parts of Internal Structures not to Parts of Collaborations."

    Therefore, we would request that the specification be amended to make the Lifeline::decomposedAs property optional (multiplicity [0..1]). If you can amend the generated multiplicity in your API in advance of any changes to the spec, that would be greatly appreciated!

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Sun, 18 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

The contents of the Interfaces package is shown in Figure 51

  • Key: UML14-479
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6913
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    "The contents of the Interfaces package is shown in Figure 51. The Interfaces package is one of the packages of the Classes package. "

    Should be "Figure 58"

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Fri, 16 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super / Templates / subsetting templateParameter

  • Key: UML14-478
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6911
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    ParameterableElement::owningParameter should subset ParameterableElement::templateParameter

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Thu, 15 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super / General / Idenitfy sections specifying run-time semantics

  • Key: UML14-477
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6902
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    The sections of the spec that describe the run-time semantics of UML are scattered throughout the document and not clearly identified. There should be at least some convenient guide in the document that would help locate those sections.

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Thu, 15 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super / Classes /

  • Key: UML14-476
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6901
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    on page 115 (section 7.15.3) when talking about the Notation of an
    interface, the third paragraph (between figure 59 and 60) says:
    "
    The usage dependency from a classifer to an interface is shown by
    representing the interface by a half-circle or socket, labeled
    with the name of the interface, attached by a solid line to the
    classifier that *implements* this interface (see Figure 60).
    "

    And I think it should say:
    "
    The usage dependency from a classifer to an interface is shown by
    representing the interface by a half-circle or socket, labeled
    with the name of the interface, attached by a solid line to the
    classifier that *requires* this interface (see Figure 60).
    "

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Wed, 14 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super / Interactions / Two typos

  • Key: UML14-475
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6900
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    On page 408 there is text that says:

    Gates are just points on the frame, the ends of the messages. They may have an explicit name. See Figure 335.

    I think it should say:

    Gates are just points on the frame, the ends of the messages. They may have an explicit name. See Figure 336.

    On page 414 there is text that says

    See example of the usage of collaboration occurrences in Figure 345.

    I think it should say:

    See example of the usage of collaboration occurrences in Figure 339.

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Wed, 14 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

missing closing bracket

  • Key: UML14-474
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6898
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    There is a missing closing bracket in slot->forAll(s | classifier->exists(c | c.allFeatures()->includes(s.definingFeature) )

    The correct version is: slot->forAll(s | classifier->exists(c | c.allFeatures()->includes(s.definingFeature)) )

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Sat, 10 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

importedMember property

  • Key: UML14-473
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6897
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    The importedMember property is derived from the ElementImports and the PackageImports.

    self.importedMember->includesAll(self.importedMembers(self.elementImport.importedElement.asSet()>union(self.packageImport.importedPackage>collect(p | >p.visibleMembers()))))

    The query importedMembers(...) should be importMembers(...). A fixed version is:

    self.importedMember->includesAll(self.importMembers(self.elementImport.importedElement.asSet()>union(self.packageImport.importedPackage>collect(p | >p.visibleMembers()))))

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Sat, 10 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

"• value : InstanceSpecification

  • Key: UML14-472
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6896
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    "• value : InstanceSpecification [*] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ <<<< should be ValueSpecification The value or values corresponding to the defining feature for the owning instance specification. This is an ordered association. Subsets Element::ownedElement

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Sat, 10 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML2 super/notation/Keywords

  • Key: UML14-471
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6877
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    This is a general issue that is quite pervasive. I think it is important
    enough to be considered by the FTF.

    The specification is littered with keywords which are used on diagrams
    to indicate various things.

    What the specification sorely needs is an Appendix that gathers them all
    together. And cross-references each with where it is defined and the
    compliance level it is associated with.
    Also what it needs is a general description of the semantics of
    keywords, how they differ from 'Standard Stereotypes' and associated
    constraints - e.g. it should not be allowed to declare a Stereotype with
    a name which, when decapitalized, is the same as a keyword (since they'd
    be indistinguishable).

    Arguably keywords would be depicted with a distinct notation from
    stereotypes (based on language design principles and to help users
    interpret diagrams where they see words in guillemets and don't know
    whether to look it up in the list of keywords or stereotypes) but that
    is probably too major a change to make at this stage. However the
    notation should be clarified to cover the following cases:
    A) if the same element requires a keyword and has a stereotype applied
    are they shown in 2 separate <<xxx>> expressions or in one, separated by
    a comma?
    B) if a stereotype is applied to a class normally indicated by a
    keyword, does that keyword still need to be provided?

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Thu, 8 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Appendix B/Standard Stereotypes too heavyweight and incompletely defined

  • Key: UML14-470
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6876
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    This is in my opinion important enough to be considered by the FTF since
    it affects implementability.

    Appendix B contains a list of Standard Stereotypes.
    Ironically, due to the nature of the UML2 Profile mechanism this
    mechanism is more heavyweight than a subclass since it requires a
    separate instance - so for the <<call>> stereotype of Usage one ends up
    with not only a instance of Usage but an attached instance of Call -
    this is far more heavyweight than having a distinct subclass of Usage
    which would result in only one object. And it's also harder to process
    via XMI or APIs.

    The Appendix is not adequate as a definition and does not use the
    official Stereotype notation? In particular it does not make clear the
    name of the instance of Stereotype (which I can only guess would be the
    capitalized form of the stereotype keyword e.g. "Call"), nor does it
    specify the name of the association used to attach an instance of the
    stereotype with the instance of the metaclass. And, of course, is there
    actually a Profile object (or objects) that contains these stereotypes?
    Can users consider this Profile already applied to any UML model or does
    it have to be explicitly done or is this a variation point?

    Finally, Appendix B is not properly referenced: 7.14.1 refers to the
    "Standard Profiles chapter" and 8.3.3 and 10.3.1 refer to "The UML
    Standard Profile".

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Thu, 8 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super / use cases / invalid subsetting

  • Key: UML14-469
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6874
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    UseCase::extensionPoint subsets Classifier::feature, but ExtensionPoint is not a specialization of Feature.

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Wed, 31 Dec 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super / state machines / non-existent return type

  • Key: UML14-468
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6873
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    The LCA operation, defined in section 15.3.12 (page 194) has a non-existent return type, CompositeState

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Wed, 31 Dec 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super / state machines / misplaced operation definition

  • Key: UML14-467
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6872
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    The containingStateMachine() operation is defined in the "Additional Operations" for StateMachine (see section 15.3.12, page 491) rather than in the corrsponding section(s) for the type(s) to which it applies.

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Wed, 31 Dec 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super / state machines / incorrect property redefinition

  • Key: UML14-466
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6871
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    Constraints 9 and 10 in section 15.3.8 (page 470) refer to the owner property, but the owner property is redefined by Vertex::container, as shown in Figure 354 on page 457. Vertex::container should probably subset owner instead

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Wed, 31 Dec 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This is a subset of issue 6626 and is resolved by the same resolution.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super / state machines / non-existent property reference

  • Key: UML14-465
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6870
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    Constraints 4 and 6 in section 15.3.8 (page 470) refer to the non-existent stateMachine property on PseudoState (i.e. self.stateMachine).

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Wed, 31 Dec 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super / state machines / oclIsKindOf arguments error

  • Key: UML14-464
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6869
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    The syntax of the oclIsKindOf() is not correct in all occurrences. For example, constraints 4 and 6 in section 15.3.8 (page 470) use the syntax oclIsKindOf(self.stateMachine, ActivityGraph) whereas constraints 9 and 10 use the syntax owner.oclIsKindOf(Region).

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Wed, 31 Dec 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super/State machines/pseudostate name consistency

  • Key: UML14-463
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6868
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    The specification refers to a PseudoState type (page 469), but in the Rose model, it is named "Pseudostate".

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Wed, 31 Dec 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Ambuiguity in value pin evaluation

  • Key: UML14-462
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6865
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    When the value specification of a ValuePin is an expression, when is the
    expression evaluated?

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Wed, 5 Nov 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

page 136, "BasicComponents",

  • Key: UML14-461
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6728
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Nancy Siegel)
  • Summary:

    Superstructure, final adopted spec 03-08-02, page 136, "BasicComponents",
    contains this inscrutable phrase in the first paragraph:

    In addition, because a itself Class is a subtype of an
    EncapsulatedClassifier,...

    This should be fixed up in the final version, if you can
    figure out what you meant to say

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Thu, 18 Dec 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Consistent Naming

  • Key: UML14-460
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6691
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: TimeWarp Engineering Ltd. ( Steven Cramer)
  • Summary:

    Associations with and end on the class Value Specification that subset owner have inconsistent names:

    ownerUpper

    ownerLower

    owningConstraint

    owningInstanceSpec

    owningParameter

    owningProperty

    owningSlot

    I would recommend renaming ownerUpper and ownerLower to owningUpper and owningLower to be consistent.

    All other properties that subset owner on other classes should be renamed consistently:

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Thu, 11 Dec 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML2 Super/Signal

  • Key: UML14-459
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6690
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    13.3.21 suggests that Signal has no additional associations, and yet in
    Figure 316 it has ownedAttribute.

    I also note that in the mdl file Signal inherits from BehaviouredClassifier
    but I can't see that on Figure 316

    If it is a BehaviouredClassifier it seems odd that it has no concrete
    BehaviouralFeatures.

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Wed, 10 Dec 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 1.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super / Activities / subsetting two properties

  • Key: UML14-458
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6680
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    Activity::structuredNode subsets two properties, Activity::node and Actvity::group. This is among the few, if not the