Unified Modeling Language Avatar
  1. OMG Specification

Unified Modeling Language — Closed Issues

  • Acronym: UML
  • Issues Count: 285
  • Description: Issues resolved by a task force and approved by Board
Open Closed All
Issues resolved by a task force and approved by Board

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
UML22-457 New proposal for conjugate types for ports UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-459 Semantics of Ports in Components and CompositeStructures are incompatible UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-319 Explanation of Observation notation UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-307 Repr. of applied stereotypes and their properties insufficiently described UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1380 Section: 7.3.10/Associations UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Duplicate or Merged closed
UML23-154 New proposal for conjugate types for ports UML 2.1.2 UML 2.3 Resolved closed
UML23-153 proper content for Figure 13.8 UML 2.1 UML 2.3 Closed; No Change closed
UML23-152 Section: 15.3.8 UML 2.1.1 UML 2.3 Resolved closed
UML22-1375 7.3.41 Parameter (from Kernel, AssociationClasses)" UML 2.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML23-150 UML 2 Super / Activities / missing subsets UML 2.1 UML 2.3 Resolved closed
UML22-1374 Profiles::ObjectNode has wrong default multiplicity UML 2.1 UML 2.1.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1372 Instance modeling does not take into account stereotypes properties UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1371 Comments owned by Packages (02) UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1370 Comments owned by Packages UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1369 section 15.3.14 Transition :: Constraints UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1368 Regarding the quote on p128 UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1367 Section: Composite Structures/Abstract syntax UML 2.1.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1366 ptc/06-01-02:14.3.14, Notation UML 2.1 UML 2.1.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1142 Output tokens UML 2.1 UML 2.1.1 Duplicate or Merged closed
UML22-1122 Diagram metaclass shall be introduced and shall be subclass of Element UML 2.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1121 Setting structural features of a data type UML 2.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1124 Figure 7.14: "Type" does not show its inheritance from "PackageableElement" UML 2.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1123 ConnectorEnd shall have references to provided or required interfaces UML 2.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1134 constraining Classifiers UML 2.1.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1129 Section: 9.3.11 p 182 UML 2.1.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1127 Section: 9.3.8 UML 2.1.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1136 Change multiplicity of ClassifierTemplateParameter role UML 2.1.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1135 Any ownedBehavior should be able to have AcceptEventAction UML 2.1.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1138 TimeEvent UML 2.1.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1137 Figure 14.5 - Messages. UML 2.1.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1140 Section: 7.3.7 UML 2.1.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1139 Figures 9.4 identical to figure 9.3 UML 2.1.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1120 Flowing data into decision input behaviors UML 2.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1119 Section: Composite Structures UML 2.1.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1107 issue regarding required and provided interfaces UML 2.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1106 UML 2: Semantics of isOrdered need to be clarified UML 2.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1118 Ptc/06-04-02/Pg 188 UML 2.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1117 Section: 7.3.32 UML 2.1.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1116 A notation for Trigger UML 2.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1102 Section: Activities - Action semantic clarification UML 2.1.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1101 Section: Activities -StartClassifeirBehaviorAction and classifier behaviors UML 2.1.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1100 Section: Activities - isSingleExecution default UML 2.1.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1115 consistent descriptions of semantics of event consumption needed UML 2.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1114 section 13.3.2 – doc ptc/2006-04-02, v.2.1 UML 2.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1113 Uses notation "Subsets Element::ownedElement" and similar UML 2.1.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1112 UML2: Behavior without a specification should not be a classifier behavior UML 2.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1109 Figure 13.8 shows the wrong diagram UML 2.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1108 Section: 13.3.25 UML 2.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1111 Section: 13 SimpleTime UML 2.1.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1110 Section: 13.2 UML 2.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1099 Section: Activities - Join node edge constraint UML 2.1.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1098 Section: Activities - Offer ordering on joins UML 2.1.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1097 Section: Activities - Multiple activity parameters nodes for a single inout UML 2.1.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1087 Section: 9.3.13 - connectors UML 2.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1096 Section: Activities - Semantics of fork node wording UML 2.1.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1095 ReadLinkAction UML 2.1.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1094 Section: Activities - Weight notation UML 2.1.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1093 Section: Activities - Weight description UML 2.1.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1092 Section: Activities UML 2.1.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1091 Section: 9.3.11 UML 2.1.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1090 Section: 9.3.11 UML 2.1.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1089 Section: 9.2 UML 2.1.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1086 Section: 13.3.24 Signal (from Communications) UML 2.1.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-458 UML 2.2 superstructure section 9.3.11 page 184: Port.isService UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-456 Could you please clarify what does the UML2 specifications intend for "provided port" and "required port"? UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-455 Inconsistency in Superstructure 2.2 p. 550 UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-454 InstanceSpecifications UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-453 specificMachine association should be changed to be type StateMachine UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-452 p269-p270 Constraint UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-451 operation allConnections UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-450 TYPO p.54 Additional Operations UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-446 Classifier has association end "attribute" UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-445 Typo 9.3.13 p190 UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-449 Metaclass Property is denoted in Interfaces Package on p.36 UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-448 7.3.33 p100 UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-447 Property 7.3.44 p125 UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-444 7.3.44 additional operation P128 UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-399 first paragraph of section 7.8 UML kernel UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-398 Section: 7.3.7 and 8.3.1 UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-401 Port UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-400 Section 14 Interaction UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-389 Section: 15.3.11/Notation UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-388 Section 11.3.25 gives the definition of MultiplicityExpression::isConsisten UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-396 interpreting InstanceSpecification UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-395 Figure showing an AssociationClass as a ternary association UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-391 Section: 7.3.10/Associations UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-390 Section: 13.3.3/ Changes from previous UML UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-394 Car dependency example UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-393 Section: 12.3.8/Generalizations UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-387 qualifiers UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-397 Section: 15 StateMachines: doActivity and internal transitions UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-392 Section: 7.3.10/Associations - insert reference UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-432 Unspecified constraint [1] on ActivityNode UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-431 constraint [4] on AcceptEventAction and unordered result:OutputPin property UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-434 figure 13.12 UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-433 Unspecified constraint [1] on ActivityNode (StructuredActivities) UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-436 Clarification on use of Profiles. UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-435 Property – Additional Operations, page 127. UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-443 7.3.44 Property P128 UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-442 18.3.8 Stereotype UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-430 Unspecified constraint [3] on Activity UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-440 Typo P205 10.3.4 UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-439 On the table 2.3, page 8 UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-438 On the communication diagram in Fig 6.2 (second issue) UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-437 On the communication diagram in Fig 6.2 (P12) UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-441 7.3.11 DataType, P61 UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-383 UML 2.1.2:18.3.5 Package (from Profiles) UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-382 UML Super 2.1.2:Feature UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-384 A final node that returns to the caller but leaves alive any parallel flow UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-380 section '10.3.12 Property (from Nodes)' UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-379 PackageableElement (from Kernel), subsection: "Attribute" UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-386 CMOF file for UML2 does not have derived Associations marked as such UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-385 Section: 8.3.3 UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-378 description of MessageOccurenceSpecification UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-377 The list of literal described for the ennumeration MessageSort is not compl UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-381 undefined term 'Element::redefinedElement' occurs three times in standard UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-419 Section: 7.4 figure 7.1 missing dependency UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-418 UML2: Need a better mechanism for integrating UML2 Profiles UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-421 Regression in XMI from UML 2.1.2 to UML 2.2 UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-420 Section: 2.2-2.4 compliance level clarifiction needed UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-424 Unspecified constraint [1] on AcceptEventAction UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-423 Incorrect OCL expression for constraint [1] on BehavioredClassifier UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-415 OCL 2.0 8.2 Real UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-414 UML2 issue regarding RedefinableTemplateSignature UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-427 Unspecified constraint [1] on ActivityEdge (CompleteStructuredActivities) UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-426 Unspecified constraint [2] on ActivityEdge UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-429 Unspecified constraint [2] on Activity UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-428 Unspecified constraint [1 on Activity UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-417 Section 7.3.50 "substitution" UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-416 Keyword ambiguity for DataType Section UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-425 Unspecified constraint [1] on ActivityEdge UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-422 Section: 9.3.8 UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-406 Section 10.3.10 UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-405 definition of RedefinableElement::isLeaf UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-404 Behavior's parameter list UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-403 PackageMerge relationships UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-413 Section: 7.3.36 UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-412 Section: 11.3.30,12.3.23 UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-410 Section: 13.3.3 UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-411 Section: 12.2 UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-408 The behavior of an OpaqueExpression should itself be opaque UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-409 Section: 13.3.23 UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-402 Classifiers UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-407 Section: 7.3.35 UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-468 Packaging Issues with Stereotype Extension UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-467 inconsistency with how constraints are specified in UML and OCL UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-470 Allowing multiple Associations in a Package with the same name UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-469 P479L.14 Section "Notation" in 14.3.10 ExecutionOccurences - Typo UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-472 Figure 18.2 (which describes the contents of the Profiles package) is currently misleading UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-466 ParameterableElement as a formal template parameter UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-465 UML. Clarify relationship of Substitution and InterfaceRealization UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-462 UML2 section 8.3.1 OCL derivations on Component.provided and Component.required are still invalid UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-464 transitionkind Constraints UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-463 UML 2.2 figure 8.10 has arrows the wrong way around UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-461 UML2.2 Section 9.3.1 Presentation Options section UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-460 UML 2.2 Section 9.3.1 nested classes paragrpah in wrong chapter UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-471 Figure 2.2 contains more than four packages, description referes to four packages UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-327 Behaviors Owned by State Machines UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-326 Section: 12.3.41 Streaming parameters for actions UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-316 Section: 13.3.24 UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-315 Section: 15.3.14 UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-321 Wrong subsets UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-320 Section: 15.3.11 UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-328 information flow source and target UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-318 description of 14.3.24 MessageSort (from BasicInteractions) - typo UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-317 drawing a frame to represent Combined Fragment or an Interaction Occurrence UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-325 Section: 14 Interactions: Lifeline representing an actor UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-324 Section: 9 Composite Structures / Port notation UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-323 Section: 16.3.2 Classifier (from UseCases) UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-322 Section 18.3.1 UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-247 Section: Common Behavior - isReentrant should default to true UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-246 Actions on non-unique properties with location specified UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-243 Section: Actions - Output of read actions for no values UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-242 Section: Actions - InputPin semantics wording UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-245 Section: Activities - Output pin semantics clarification UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-244 Section: Activities - ForkNode semantics wording UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-241 Section: Activities - Preserving order of multiple tokens offered. UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-375 definition of 'isCompatibleWith' for ValueSpecification UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-374 formal definitions of 'isCompatibleWith' (pages 622, 647, 649) UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-373 association 'ownedTemplateSignature' of a Classifier UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-376 term 'templatedElement' not defined UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-309 Usage of "Element::ownedMember" UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-308 Consistency in description of ends owned by associations UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-306 Section: 12.3.30 UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-312 Section: 15.3.12 UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-311 "PackageableElement::visibility" uses "false" as default value UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-302 Mismatch between Superstructure ptc/06-04-02 and XML Schema ptc/06-04-05 UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-301 Page: 155, 162 UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-305 Section: 17/17.5.7 UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-304 Port.provided:Interface UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-300 Section: 14.3.28 ReceiveSignalEvent (from BasicInteractions) UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-299 Section: 12.3.38 UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-303 UML2: Actor cannot have ownedAttributes UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-314 State Machines UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-313 Section: 18.3.8 UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-310 "Constraint::context" is marked as derived in the metaclass description UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-222 discrepancies between package dependencies and XMI file for Superstructure UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-224 Section: Figure 14.5 UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-223 Section: Appendix F UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-218 Section: 8.3.1 UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-225 Section: 7.3.44 UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-221 Section: 7.2 UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-220 Page: 64 & 112 UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-334 UML 2.2 scope statement UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-333 Property::isAttribute() query needs no argument UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-330 Section: 11.4 UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-329 Section: 11.4 Classifiers Diagram UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-340 Actor concept was indeed changed UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-339 Section: 13.3.3 UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-343 composite subsets UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-342 UML 2.1.2: Path names for CMOF files UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-332 Section: 7.3.21 figure 7.47 UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-331 Section: 7.3.21 UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-337 Section: Abstractions (02) UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-336 Section: Constructs UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-338 Namespace URI for Standard Profile(s) UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-335 Section: Abstractions UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-341 Section: 14.3.3 UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-265 Invalid redefinitions introduced into metamodel UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-267 Section: 13.2 UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-266 Section: 11.3.5 UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-270 Section: 7.3.3 UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-269 Figure 7.31 UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-268 Section: Annex C.1 UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-355 StructuredActivityNode [UML 2.1.1] UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-357 UML2 Issue - 'abstract' not listed in keyword Annex UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-356 UML2 issue: ProfileApplication treated as Import UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-348 context of Constraint UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-347 Section: 18.3.6 Profile (from Profiles) UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-354 Section: 7.3.33 UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-353 In section 7.3.12 Figure 7.38 UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-351 Incorrect word renders sentence meaningless: Chap. 12.3.41 UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-350 The section titled "Changes from previous UML" is not complete UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-346 first constraint for CombinedFragment UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-345 Section: 12.3.1 AcceptEventAction UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-344 RedefinableTemplateSignature UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-352 ElementImport UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-349 UML 2.1.1 - fig 7.14 UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-287 Section: 7 UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-286 Section: 15 UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-295 UML 2.1 Spec, Interactions: 14.3.18 UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-294 UML 2.1 Spec, Interactions: 14.3.18 - InteractionUse UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-293 A_outgoing_source and A_incoming_target should not be bidirectional UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-289 UML 2 Superstructure/Components/overly stringent constraints UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-288 AcceptCallAction has not operation UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-297 UML2: notation issue UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-292 A_end_role should not be bidirectional UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-298 ReplyAction::replyValue type is incorrct UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-205 Section: 7.3.10 UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-370 Table 8.2 must be named "Graphic paths..." instead of "Graphic nodes..." UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-369 Datatypes in UML profiles UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-364 TemplateSignature / TemplateParameter / StructuredClassifier UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-363 inability to specify ordering of messages connected to gates is problematic UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-372 The semantics of an assembly connector remains unspecified UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-371 Table 8.2 UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-362 UML2: Missing ActionOutputPin UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-361 The spec needs to clarify the isConsistentWith() method for transitions UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-367 paragraph on "deferred events" on page 552 UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-366 Section 14.3.19 UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-360 Figure 7.6 UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-359 Section: 12 UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-368 15.3.14: This paragraph refers to signal and change events UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-358 Section: 8.3.2 Connector UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-365 UML 2.1.1 Issue: Invalid association end in Figure 7.20 UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-274 UML 2 state machines / entry point outgoing transitions UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-278 Page 60 of the pdf UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-277 UML2: Parameter::isException overlaps with Operation::raisedException UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-279 uml.xsd schema file in ptc/2006-04-05 is not correctly generated UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-284 UML2: ReadSelfAction with a context cannot access behavior owned attributes UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-273 12.3.27 ExpansionRegion UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-272 12.3.26 ExpansionNode UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-281 Meaning of Constraint visibility UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-280 Section: 7.3.38 UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-276 Section: 12.3.2 Action UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-271 redefined properties UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-282 Change references in Infra- and Superstructure to UML 2.1.1- URGENT ISSUE- UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-240 Section: Activities - Pin ordering semantics UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-239 Section Activities: Default weight UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-226 Section: 7 UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-232 Section: 12.3.8 UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-236 Section: 15.3.12 UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-185 Page: 338, 339 UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-189 Page: 625 UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-196 Section: 12.3.48 UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
SYSML11-131 Section: 11.3.2.2 ControlOperator UML 2.1.1 SysML 1.1 Resolved closed

Issues Descriptions

New proposal for conjugate types for ports

  • Key: UML22-457
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13080
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Mr. Jim Amsden)
  • Summary:

    The SoaML submission team understands the concerns about making UML extensions at all, let alone introducing changes too high up in the hierarchy that might introduce additional unintended inheritance issues. But we are also reluctant to submit to the UPMS RFP without addressing the need to distinguish services from requests, and without addressing the usability issues that result from the need to create separate types for both ends of a connector.

    Recall that the problem is that ports appear on two ends of a connector. It is very often the case that consumers and providers can agree on the provided and required interfaces, and the interaction characteristics (protocol) and should therefore be able to use the same type to highlight that agreement. This is not possible with UML2. Ports don't have direction to indicate whether the owning component is using the operations or providing them. So users are forced to create "conjugate" types that flip the usage and realization relationships between classes and interfaces. This is especially troubling for the common simple case where the port is typed by a simple Interface.

    There have been a number of suggestions about how to solve this problem, many involving how ports define provided and required interfaces, and whether they need a type at all. We wanted to solve this problem without making a lot of changes to UML that may have other unintended consequences, or not sufficiently address the issues. So our updated proposal is very simple, and hopefully not something that would in any way effect future changes to UML2.

    We suggest the addition of a new Enumeration called PortDirection which has literals incoming and outgoing. Then add a new ownedAttribute to Port called direction: PortDirection = incoming. This would provide a direction on port that would be used to change how the provided and required interfaces are calculated. If direction=incoming, then the provided interfaces are those realized by the port's type and the required interfaces are those used by its type. If the direction is outgoing, the calculations are reversed: the provided interfaces are those used by the port's type, and the required interfaces are those realized by the port's type. Therefore, provided and required interfaces are calculated from the point of view of the owner of the port based on whether they are using the capabilities defined by the port's type, or providing them.

    This does not provide similar capabilities for things like connected collaborationRole Properties in a Collaboration. These properties are of course not Ports, and there is no specific specialization of Property (i.e., Role) that distinguishes the usage of a property in a collaboration that could specify the direction from other usages of property where direction is not relevant. We will miss that capability, but don't want to expand the scope of the UML change to address it at this time. Rather we'll wait and see if the UML2 RTF comes up with a more general solution that is also consistent with port direction.

    Is this acceptable?

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Thu, 6 Nov 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue addresses a widely-recognized fundamental omission from UML. As such it is worthy of making an exception to normal RTF policy of not introducing new features to the language, particularly since the new feature is purely additive.
    But the wording of the proposed change in the UPMS specification is somewhat problematical. Notably the idea of "incoming" and "outgoing" does not sit very comfortably with the notion of a Port being essentially a bidirectional intermediary entity which specifies both provided and required interfaces.
    For this reason we propose a slightly different solution with similar semantic consequences: the introduction of a Boolean property isConjugated (default false) to the metaclass Port. When isConjugated is false, the semantics of Port are what they are today. When isConjugated is true, the calculation of provided and required interfaces from the Port's type is inverted.
    This works nicely when the type of a port is a single interface, because it allows a port that provides one interface and a port that requires one interface both to be simply represented. Today, a simple port that requires one interface has to be typed by a class that requires that interface, which is cumbersome and inconvenient.
    However, the idea of conjugating a port renders problematical the concept of instantiating the port type in the form of "interaction points" as currently specified in chapter 9. Instantiating the same type at both ends of an asymmetrical link is clearly unlikely to work. From a SoaML point of view, the port type represents a protocol, which will be applied differently at each end of the link depending on the sense of isConjugated. Therefore from a UML point of view we propose to delete all text that suggests direct instantiation of port types.
    Finally, it is important for modelers to be able to distinguish conjugated ports in the notation, so we introduce suitable new notation.

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 08:04 GMT

Semantics of Ports in Components and CompositeStructures are incompatible

  • Key: UML22-459
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13140
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Mr. Steve Cook)
  • Summary:

    In chapter 9 (CompositeStructures) the semantics of ports are given strictly in terms of instantiating the owning classifier and instantiating the ports as “interaction point objects” typed by the type of the port. Yet in chapter 8 (Components), a Component (through its IsIndirectlyInstantiated attribute) may not be instantiated at run time, in which case the inherited semantics of ports and port types cannot apply. The sentence from 8.3.1 “The required and provided interfaces may optionally be organized through ports, these enable the definition of named sets of provided and required interfaces that are typically (but not always) addressed at run-time” clearly states that ports are a way to organize required and provided interfaces of a component at design time, yet this is contradictory to the notion that the provided and required interfaces of a port are derived from its type which is instantiated as interaction point objects. These contradictions should be resolved

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Thu, 4 Dec 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Much of this issue is resolved by 13080, in which the text about the interaction point objects being instances of the port types has been deleted.
    The remainder of the issue can be handled by some explanatory text as proposed below.

  • Updated: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 08:04 GMT

Explanation of Observation notation

  • Key: UML22-319
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10974
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Mr. Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    UML2 Superstructure 2.1.1:Interactions

    In Fig 14.26 there are various time annotations shown which relate to the Simple Time package.

    The notation sections for TimeObservation and DurationObservation read thus:

    TimeObservation: “A time observation is often denoted by a straight line attached to a model element. The observation is given a name that is shown close to the unattached end of the line.”

    DurationObservation: “A duration observation is often denoted by a straight line attached to a model element. The observation is given a name that is shown close to the unattached end of the line.”

    However the notations in Figure 14.26 look like this:

    TimeObservation: “t=now”

    DurationObservation: “d=duration”

    I don’t see how the example notation is consistent with the notation descriptions

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merged with 17841

  • Updated: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 11:36 GMT

Repr. of applied stereotypes and their properties insufficiently described

  • Key: UML22-307
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10826
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Andreas Maier)
  • Summary:

    Issue: UML representation of applied stereotypes and their properties is
    insufficiently described
    Nature: Clarification
    Severity: Significant
    Summary:

    1. In the Superstructure spec 2.1.1, it is not clearly stated what an
    applied stereotype is in terms of metaclasses. The spec talks
    about "instance of a Stereotype", but it fails to sufficiently
    clarify the so-called meta-level crossing, i.e. the fact that an
    instance of the Stereotype metaclass at the same time is a new
    metaclass. The description of Stereotype says in the Semantics
    section: "An instance “S” of Stereotype is a kind of (meta) class
    ". I think "a kind of" as well as putting "(meta)" in parenthesis
    is confusing. I suggest to say: "An instance “S” of the Stereotype
    metaclass is itself a metaclass.". Also, the text currently does
    not describe what the name and particularly the namespace of the
    metaclass corresponding to the instance of the Stereotype
    metaclass would be. Because of the current uncertainty, UML tools
    have taken different (and incompatible) interpretations on how an
    applied stereotype should be represented in terms of UML
    metaclasses.

    2. It is not described currently how any property values of applied
    stereotypes are represented in terms of instances of metaclasses.
    When looking at generated XMI, it seems that this representation
    is quite different from Property metaclass instances that are
    ownedAttributes of user model classes, so there is a need to
    clarify this. Because of the current uncertainty, UML tools have
    taken different (and incompatible) interpretations on how these
    values should be represented in terms of UML

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 11 May 2015 23:49 GMT

Section: 7.3.10/Associations

  • Key: UML22-1380
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12383
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Steria Mummert Consulting AG ( Torsten Binias)
  • Summary:

    Please explain why constrainedElement has to be an ordered set and not a set

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Duplicate

  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 21:04 GMT

New proposal for conjugate types for ports

  • Key: UML23-154
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13081
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Mr. Jim Amsden)
  • Summary:

    The SoaML submission team understands the concerns about making UML extensions at all, let alone introducing changes too high up in the hierarchy that might introduce additional unintended inheritance issues. But we are also reluctant to submit to the UPMS RFP without addressing the need to distinguish services from requests, and without addressing the usability issues that result from the need to create separate types for both ends of a connector.

    Recall that the problem is that ports appear on two ends of a connector. It is very often the case that consumers and providers can agree on the provided and required interfaces, and the interaction characteristics (protocol) and should therefore be able to use the same type to highlight that agreement. This is not possible with UML2. Ports don't have direction to indicate whether the owning component is using the operations or providing them. So users are forced to create "conjugate" types that flip the usage and realization relationships between classes and interfaces. This is especially troubling for the common simple case where the port is typed by a simple Interface.

    There have been a number of suggestions about how to solve this problem, many involving how ports define provided and required interfaces, and whether they need a type at all. We wanted to solve this problem without making a lot of changes to UML that may have other unintended consequences, or not sufficiently address the issues. So our updated proposal is very simple, and hopefully not something that would in any way effect future changes to UML2.

    We suggest the addition of a new Enumeration called PortDirection which has literals incoming and outgoing. Then add a new ownedAttribute to Port called direction: PortDirection = incoming. This would provide a direction on port that would be used to change how the provided and required interfaces are calculated. If direction=incoming, then the provided interfaces are those realized by the port's type and the required interfaces are those used by its type. If the direction is outgoing, the calculations are reversed: the provided interfaces are those used by the port's type, and the required interfaces are those realized by the port's type. Therefore, provided and required interfaces are calculated from the point of view of the owner of the port based on whether they are using the capabilities defined by the port's type, or providing them.

    This does not provide similar capabilities for things like connected collaborationRole Properties in a Collaboration. These properties are of course not Ports, and there is no specific specialization of Property (i.e., Role) that distinguishes the usage of a property in a collaboration that could specify the direction from other usages of property where direction is not relevant. We will miss that capability, but don't want to expand the scope of the UML change to address it at this time. Rather we'll wait and see if the UML2 RTF comes up with a more general solution that is also consistent with port direction.

    Is this acceptable?

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Thu, 6 Nov 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    This is a verbatim duplicate of 13080 which I will address soon.

    Revised Text:
    None.

    Disposition: Duplicate.

  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 15:01 GMT

proper content for Figure 13.8

  • Key: UML23-153
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10083
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Capability Measurement ( Karl Frank)
  • Summary:

    The UML 2.1 spec, 06-04-02, has lost the proper content for Figure 13.8, by duplicating the content of Figure 13.7 again and labeling it 13.8. See pages 442 and 443 as paginated in the pdf, 462 and 463 as paginated by Adobe in onscreen display.

    above from the 06-04-02 spec, below from the 05-07-04 spec

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Wed, 2 Aug 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — UML 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion: Fixed in an earlier release; also duplicate of10469 Revised Text: N/A Disposition: Closed, no change

  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 15:01 GMT

Section: 15.3.8

  • Key: UML23-152
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10082
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    It is unclear what exactly is a path in the context of history pseudo states. For example: "Entry actions of states entered on the path to the state represented by a shallow history are performed." Is it the shortest path? The history path? What happens if the history state isn't the first state after the initial state, but located somewhere in the middle of the statemachine?

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Wed, 2 Aug 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    The word 'Path' has raised ambiguity with respect to how the history state will restore the active state configuration. There is only one way that the history will restore the active state, and that is through an implicit direct path from the history state to the last active state being reactivated (as though a transition is drawn directly from H to the last active substate). It in no way implies a state-by-state approach. (e.g. a path from the initial state to the last active state)

  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 15:01 GMT

7.3.41 Parameter (from Kernel, AssociationClasses)"

  • Key: UML22-1375
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9338
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Please note however, that (as far as I can see) Parameter only occurs in Kernel, NOT in AssociationClasses. So the correct statement would be "Parameter (from Kernel). This might bear a relation to the already existing FTF issue 8117.

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This is an exact duplicate of issue 9337 Revised Text: N/A Disposition: Duplicate

  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 14:22 GMT

UML 2 Super / Activities / missing subsets

  • Key: UML23-150
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8668
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    Activity::node, Activity::edge, and Activity::group do not subset Namespace::ownedMember, but they should

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Wed, 30 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 14:22 GMT

Profiles::ObjectNode has wrong default multiplicity

  • Key: UML22-1374
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8455
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    ObjectNode::upper should have default multiplicity unbounded (“*”) in order of object nodes to be multi-valued by default.

    Recommendation:

    Redefine inherited MultiplicityElement::upper to have default “*” in ObjectNode.

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Fri, 4 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 8454 for disposition

  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 14:22 GMT

Instance modeling does not take into account stereotypes properties

  • Key: UML22-1372
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13291
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( James Bruck)
  • Summary:

    Instance modeling does not take into account stereotypes properties.

    Assume I create a stereotype that I apply to some Class. That stereotype adds some property 'p' of type String. Now assume I create an InstanceSpecification of that Class.

    I believe I should be able to create a slot for 'p' and assign some value to it.

    Constraint [1] on InstanceSpecification 7.3.22 seems to restrict this since it mentions that the defining feature of each slot is a structural feature of a classifier of the instance specification. The properties contributed by the stereotype are not considered to be part of the features of the Classifier (assuming the stereotype is applied to a Classifier)

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    withdrawn by issue submitter

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:56 GMT

Comments owned by Packages (02)

  • Key: UML22-1371
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12262
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    Typo in attributes section of comment: Remove "multiplicity" (red colored) before attribute body.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Wed, 5 Mar 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:56 GMT

Comments owned by Packages

  • Key: UML22-1370
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12261
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    A package can only own packageable elements. That excludes comments. On the other hand the comment definition states: A comment can be owned by any element. That's a contradiction. It's important that packages can own comments. Therefore I propose a change of the package to allow the ownership of comments.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Wed, 5 Mar 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion: It is not quite right to say that “a package can only own packageable elements”. The spec only says that “Only packageable elements can be owned members of a package.” That is, any owned members of the package, considered as a namespace, must be packageable elements – this is because packagedMember subsets the ownedMember derived union and no other property of Package does. However, a namespace (and hence a package) can have owned elements that are not owned members. In fact, all elements inherit the Element::ownedComment property that subsets ownedElement. For a namespace, ownedMember also subsets ownedElement, so the owned elements of a namespace (and hence a package) include both comments and namespace members. However, while a comment can thus owned by a namespace, it cannot be a member of the namespace, since it is not a named element. Disposition: Closed, no change.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:56 GMT

section 15.3.14 Transition :: Constraints

  • Key: UML22-1369
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12170
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( James Bruck)
  • Summary:

    Using the 07-02-03, 2.1.1 spec we have the following (pg 569 or 583/732 section 15.3.14 Transition :: Constraints)):
    [5] Transitions outgoing pseudostates may not have a trigger. source.oclIsKindOf(Pseudostate) and ((source.kind <> #junction) and (source.kind <> #join) and (source.kind <> #initial)) implies trigger->isEmpty()

    This OCL erroneously states that Junctions and Joins may have outgoing transitions with triggers. As far as I understand, one can never be waiting in a junction point or join for a trigger to occur.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Tue, 8 Jan 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:56 GMT

Regarding the quote on p128

  • Key: UML22-1368
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12169
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( James Bruck)
  • Summary:

    In the 2.1.1 specification (070205):

    Regarding the quote on p128:
    "All redefinitions should be made explicit with the use of a

    {redefines <x>}

    property string. Matching features in subclasses without an explicit redefinition result in a redefinition that need not be shown in the notation. Redefinition prevents inheritance of a redefined element into the redefinition context thereby making the name of the redefined element available for reuse, either for the redefining element, or for some other."

    I interpret the following quote from the UML 2.1.1 spec to mean that when a subclass includes a property whose name is equal to a property in one of its general classes, then it should be treated as a redefinition even if there is no explicit redefinition between those properties in the model.
    This should be clarified in the spec. It is unclear and also includes at least one spelling mistake. Alternatively, we should ban implicit redefinitions and flag them as simple name conflicts.

    Two features of the same kind defined in a class and a superclass (i.e., they are both either structural features or behavioral features) does indeed imply a redefinition and, therefore, must conform to the compatibility constraint on redefinitions.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Tue, 8 Jan 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:56 GMT

Section: Composite Structures/Abstract syntax

  • Key: UML22-1367
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11503
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Validas AG ( Reinhard Jeschull)
  • Summary:

    There are two diagrams on page 164, 'Connectors' and 'The port metaclass'. The two diagrams are the same. Can you send me the picture of this diagram via e-mail? We need it to create a metamodel.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    withdrawn, this issue has been resolved

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:56 GMT

ptc/06-01-02:14.3.14, Notation

  • Key: UML22-1366
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9606
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Mr. Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    The following notation expression isn’t well formed:

    <interactionconstraint> ::= [‘[‘ (<Boolean-expression’ | ‘else‘) ‘]’]

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Mon, 24 Apr 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    withdrawn by submitter

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:55 GMT

Output tokens

  • Key: UML22-1142
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8675
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: FUNDP ( Pierre Yves Schobbens)
  • Summary:

    In: [4] The output tokens are now available Replace ``available'' by ``offered''

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Tue, 5 Apr 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — UML 2.1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:25 GMT

Diagram metaclass shall be introduced and shall be subclass of Element

  • Key: UML22-1122
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10819
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    Diagram metaclass shall be introduced and shall be subclass of Element, because every tool need to add Diagrams into packages (and uses hacks to do that) , Dependencies between diagrams is usable also. Stereotypes for diagrams are also used and even represented in DiagramFrame notation

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion: This is definitely outside the scope of an RTF. However, it is also very much against one of the fundamental architectural principles of UML, that the abstract and concrete syntaxes are to be kept distinct. For instance, it should be possible to provide a UML concrete syntax that is completely textual and, hence, has no notion of diagram. Finally, the question of defining concrete syntaxes for MOF-based modeling languages and the issue of how these relate to the models themselves is being addressed by a separate RFP (the “Diagram Definition RFP”). Disposition: Closed, no change

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

Setting structural features of a data type

  • Key: UML22-1121
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10816
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Mr. Ed Seidewitz)
  • Summary:

    Document: Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure, Version 2.1.1 (formal/2007-02-03)
    Sections: 11.3.12 (ClearStructuralFeatureAction) and 11.3.53 (WriteStructuralFeatureAction)

    (This issue surfaced during work on the Semantics of a Foundational Subset for Executable UML Models submission.)

    Background:

    Use the term "structured" data type to refer to a data type that is not a primitive type or an enumeration. Such a data type may have attributes, which can be read and written by the read and write structural feature actions (for the purposes of this discussion, consider clear structural feature action to be a kind of write structural feature action).

    Semantically, the main difference between a data value that is an instance of a structured data type and an object that is an instance of a class is that a data value is passed "by value" while an object is passed "by reference". That is, a data value is itself a true value that can be passed as a parameter value to behavior and can flow on "object" flow edges ("object flow" really isn't a better name than "data flow", but the way...). On the other hand, an object exists with its own identity in the extent of their class at a specific locus, and only references to an object can be passed as values.

    Thus, there may be many references all to the same object. As a result of this, any change to the attributes of an object via one reference will be reflected in future reads of that attribute via different references to that object.

    In the case of a structured data value, however, a change to one of its attributes will only be reflected in the value actually being acted on. If that value is not then itself passed on, this change will not be visible in any other data value. Unfortunately, write structural feature actions do not have output pins. The assumption seems to be that such writes always happen "in place". This works for objects that have their own identity, but there is no clear "place" for which the change can happen for structured data values.

    Note that this would still be an issue even if variables were allowed in fUML (and so it is an issue in full UML 2 with variables, too). To change a value in a variable, one needs to use a read variable action. If the value in the variable is a structured data value, then the read variable action will place a "by value" copy of the data value on the output pin of the action (since data values don't have identity or references, it can't really do anything else...). Therefore, a write structural value action acting on the output of a read variable action will make a change to this copy, not the value in the variable. But then, since the write structural value action has no output pin, there is no way to get the changed copy back into the variable (or use it in any other way, for that matter.)

    Proposed resolution:

    Add an output pin to write structural feature actions. If the "object" being acted on is really an object (that is, an instance of a class), then the input reference to that object is just place on the output pin. But if the "object" being acted on is a data value (that is, an instance of a structured data type), then the value placed on the output pin is a copy of the input data value, but with the given structural feature value appropriately updated.

    (Note that the output pin is not strictly necessary for a true object update, but it seems simpler to always have the output pin. In the case of a write to an object, the output pin can simply be ignored – though it might sometimes be convenient even in this case for "chaining" actions on an object.)

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Fri, 9 Mar 2007 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Figure 7.14: "Type" does not show its inheritance from "PackageableElement"

  • Key: UML22-1124
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10828
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Andreas Maier)
  • Summary:

    In the Superstructure spec 2.1.1, in figure 7.14, the "Type"
    metaclass is shown right below the "PackageableElement" metaclass,
    but without any inheritance arrow between them. This is not wrong,
    since a class diagram is not obliged to show all existing
    relaitonships.

    However, it would ease the understanding and be consistent if in this
    case, the inheritance arrow between these two metaclasses was shown
    in that figure.

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion: This strikes me as a matter of taste; someone else might object to the generalization being shown in this diagram since it would clutter the diagram. Disposition: Closed, no change

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

ConnectorEnd shall have references to provided or required interfaces

  • Key: UML22-1123
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10820
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    ConnectorEnd shall have references to provided or required interfaces. It helps to use assembly connectors in composite structure diagrams between parts and ports, connector will be able to display two compatible interfaces using "ball in socket" notation.
    Now it is impossible to implement that, because there are no references to interfaces.

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution: There are two problems with this issue: (a) The ball-and-socket notation is unique to the components chapter, so this issue cannot be resolved in general for ConnectorEnd, but would have to be addressed specifically in the components chapter by introducing a subtype of ConnectorEnd. More importantly, though, (b) connectors do not have a semantic relation to interfaces. They connect ports or parts based on their compatability. The compatability between interfaces is a derived notation, and does not require metamodel support. Disposition: Closed, no change

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

constraining Classifiers

  • Key: UML22-1134
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11243
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    It should be possible to specify multiple constraining classifiers for ClassifierTemplateParameter.
    For example, Java programming language allows to specify multiple interfaces as constraining types of template parameter, I see no reasons why UML can't allow several constraining types.

    Resolution:

    17.5.8
    Change multiplicity of "constrainingClassifier" from [0..1] to [0..*].

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Mon, 6 Aug 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 9.3.11 p 182

  • Key: UML22-1129
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11087
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: UPM ( Juan Pedro Silva)
  • Summary:

    All rolenames in non-navigable associations in the UML metamodel should be stated, to allow reaching from one element of the association to the other using OCL. Currently, this is limited to un-ambigous type names if the rolename is not stated. For example, in section "9.3.11 Port (from Ports)", Port has required and provided interfaces, and has no rolename on both associations. There is no current way, using OCL, of getting from one Interface to a Port that provides or requires it, as "self.port" is ambigous because it doesn't specify if the programmer is looking for Ports providing or requiring such Interface. The situation repeats in many other associations.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Thu, 31 May 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion: It is not required for the specification to name such associations. Navigation is not that hard if this is really desired: find all ports and select the subset that has the appropriate interface. Also, OCL is not constrained by navigability. Discussion: Closed, no change

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

Section: 9.3.8

  • Key: UML22-1127
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11004
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Peter Denno)
  • Summary:

    In UML 2.1.1 L3 metamodel (and the UML 2.1.1 Superstructure spec) EncapsulatedClassifier.ownedPort is declared to be derived. No derivation is provided and it seems unlikely that one was intended. For a list of other properties declared derived for which there is no derivation, see the 2006-12-09 entry here: http://syseng.nist.gov/se-interop/plugfest/tools/changelog

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Mon, 14 May 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion: This derivation is given: EncapsulatedClassifier.ownedPort is all ownedAttributes that are of type Port. Disposition: Closed, no change

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

Change multiplicity of ClassifierTemplateParameter role

  • Key: UML22-1136
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11400
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    Problem:
    The same Classifier could be used only in one template parameter as "constrainingClassifier", it brokes usage of ClassifierTemplateParameters.

    Solution:
    Change multiplicity of ClassifierTemplateParameter role from "1" to "*" on association between ClassifierTemplateParameter and Classifier in Figure 17.18 - Classifier templates

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Any ownedBehavior should be able to have AcceptEventAction

  • Key: UML22-1135
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11265
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Mr. Jim Amsden)
  • Summary:

    Section 13.3.31, Trigger indicates the receipt of an event by and active object can either directly cause the occurrence of a behavior, or is delivered to the classifier behavior. This is insufficient. An Event should be able to be handled by any active AcceptEventAction in any thread of control in any running method Activity that is an ownedBehavior of the receiving object. This is how events are commonly handled in business process models and BPEL. It allows an active object to indicate when it is able to accept a call or signal event at a specific point in an already running method activity. If there are more than one such AcceptEventAction, then the AcceptEventAction that handles the event is arbitrary.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Thu, 9 Aug 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

TimeEvent

  • Key: UML22-1138
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11409
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    TimeEvent has "when" property for time value.

    13.3.27 TimeEvent

    • when: TimeExpression [1] Specifies the corresponding time deadline.

    However in Figure 13.13 - SimpleTime Time Event has association with ValueSpecification.

    Model shall correspond to text, so Figure 13.13 shall be fixed.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Figure 14.5 - Messages.

  • Key: UML22-1137
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11401
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    Problem:
    Only one MessageEnd could have the same Message as "message", because of multiplicity [0..1] near MessageEnd on association between Message and MessageEnd in Figure 14.5 - Messages.

    Solution:
    Change multiplicity [0..1] near MessageEnd on association between Message and MessageEnd to [0..2] in Figure 14.5 - Messages.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 7.3.7

  • Key: UML22-1140
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11625
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Volvo Technology Corporation ( Hans Blom)
  • Summary:

    nestedClassifier should subset Namespace::ownedMember. There is no ownedMember in Element, i.e. Element::ownedMember is incorrect.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This is a subset of the problem raised in issue 10829 Revised Text: N/A Disposition: Duplicate

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

Figures 9.4 identical to figure 9.3

  • Key: UML22-1139
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11524
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Figures 9.4 should show the Port metaclass, but it is identical to Figure 9.3, Connectors

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion: Fixed in an earlier release Revised Text: N/A Disposition: Closed, no change

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

Flowing data into decision input behaviors

  • Key: UML22-1120
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10815
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Mr. Ed Seidewitz)
  • Summary:

    Document: Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure, Version 2.1.1 (formal/2007-02-03)
    Sections: 12.3.22, DecisionNode

    (This issue surfaced during work on the Semantics of a Foundational Subset for Executable UML Models submission.)

    Background

    There is no direct way to flow a supporting value into the decision input behavior of a decision node.

    Suppose one wants to set up a decision node with a decision input behavior that, say, takes an object as an input and tests whether an attribute of that object has a certain value. Further, suppose that value is given by an input parameter of the enclosing activity. The value of the parameter is provided via an activity parameter node, but there is no direct way to connect an object flow from the activity parameter node to the test for the decision node.

    Currently, a decision input behavior can only have a single input parameter, which will get the object flowing into the decision node that is to be tested. And, since it is a separate behavior from the enclosing activity, a flow from the enclosing activity can't be connected into the decision behavior. Of course, it would be possible to save the parameter value into an attribute of the enclosing activity, and then read that attribute in the decision behavior – but this seems awfully round about!

    Note that there is no problem using a Conditional Node since, in that case, the test is not a separate behavior, and data can flow from the enclosing action into the test. It is just with (the supposedly simpler) Decision Node that there is a problem.

    Proposal

    Decision nodes may optionally have one additional incoming edge identified as the "decision input". If there is no decision input behavior, tokens offered on the decision input edge are made available to the guards on outgoing edges to determine whether the offer on the other incoming edge is passed along that edge. If there is a decision input behavior and a decision input edge, the token offered on the decision input edge is passed to the behavior (as the only argument if the regular incoming edge is control flow, as the second argument if it is object flow). Decision nodes with the additional decision input edge will offer tokens to outgoing edges only when one token is offered on each incoming edge.

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Fri, 9 Mar 2007 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Adopt as proposed

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

Section: Composite Structures

  • Key: UML22-1119
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10814
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Figure 9.4 duplicates 9.3

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion: Fixed in 2.1.2 Revised Text: N/A Disposition: Closed, no change

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

issue regarding required and provided interfaces

  • Key: UML22-1107
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10354
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( James Bruck)
  • Summary:

    There appears to be an issue with required and provided interfaces of Components in the UML2 Super Structure specification 2006-04-02 section 8.3.1., p.151 .

    In the OCL and the paragraph discussing required and provided interfaces there is no mention of inheriting provided or required interfaces from the supertypes of the component.
    Should we also consider required or provided interfaces of inherited ports?
    Should we also consider supertypes of realizing classifiers?

    The fact that Components don't consider supertypes is contrary to how Ports get required and provided interfaces on p187. Ports consider supertypes of the classifiers that type them when collecting required and provided interfaces.

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

UML 2: Semantics of isOrdered need to be clarified

  • Key: UML22-1106
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10151
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    Text should read something like:

    isOrdered : Boolean For a multivalued multiplicity, this
    attribute specifies whether the values in an instantiation of this
    element are maintained in the order that they where insertedsequentially
    ordered. Default is false.

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Fri, 1 Sep 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Actually, the original description is more general, since the ordering can be based on different ordering criteria, not just based on the order of insertion. Revised Text: N/A Disposition: Closed, no change

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

Ptc/06-04-02/Pg 188

  • Key: UML22-1118
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10788
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Mr. Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    Where the spec currently says:

    “If the port was typed by a class, the interaction point object will be an instance of that class. The latter case allows elaborate specification of the communication over a port. For example, it may describe that communication is filtered, modified in some way, or routed to other parts depending on its contents as specified by the classifier that types the port.”

    Consider whether this should in fact be defined as a semantic variation point.

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution: The dynamic semantics of a port, when it is typed by a class, is already a semantic variation point. Most of the text above is an example, rather than a definition of behavior. The only normative text above is that the interaction point object will be an instance of the type of the port, if the port is typed by a class. That aspect is currently used by tools to give dynamic semantics to ports in a domain-specific manner. If such is not desired, the modeler can always close the semantic variation point as to the meaning of this construct to behave as desired, e.g., to reduce to the case where the type of the port is an interface. Disposition: Closed, no change

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

Section: 7.3.32

  • Key: UML22-1117
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10783
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Mr. Yves Bernard)
  • Summary:

    It should be possible to set the upperBound of a MultiplicityElement to 0 (it's currently forbidden by the constraint [1]). Example : if a class A is associated to a class B with a multiplicity of "0..*" (on the role of B). It should be possible to derive from the class A a class C of which the multiplicity of the role of B is always "0".

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

A notation for Trigger

  • Key: UML22-1116
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10777
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Dr. Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    My new question is about the notation for Trigger. In on ehand, I understand the notation as described in section 13.3.31 (p. 475) for specifyng the trigger of a transition in a statemachine (even if it is not so clear because the notation for Trigger refers in fact to the notation of event (p475) ?). But how is it possible to describe the Trigger owned by a classifier? What is the notation for a class to specify which Trigger a class is owning?
    In previous version of UML, it was clear in my head (it does no harm just this once that the description of the behavioral features (either Operations, or Receptions) of a class was implicitly the description of what kind of events a class may reponse to. But now, one hand a class specify its behavioral features, but what happen with its Triggers? Is the description of the behavioral features of a class the implicit description of its Triggers? But in this case, as Trigger are linked to Events, what is the need this intermediate concept of Triggers?

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion: There is no notation for trigger independent of its specific notation in a behavioral feature. (Note that this notation reduces to the specific notation for the associated event.) For example, in state machines, a notation is defined for representing triggers on states or transitions. Disposition: Closed, no change

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

Section: Activities - Action semantic clarification

  • Key: UML22-1102
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9875
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Mr. Ed Seidewitz)
  • Summary:

    Action semantic clarification. In Activities, Action, Semantics, bullet [1], third sentence, after "offered", insert "all necessary".

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    accepted

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

Section: Activities -StartClassifeirBehaviorAction and classifier behaviors

  • Key: UML22-1101
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9872
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Mr. Ed Seidewitz)
  • Summary:

    StartClassifeirBehaviorAction and classifier behaviors. StartClassifeirBehaviorAction should support passing values to the classifier behavior.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: Activities - isSingleExecution default

  • Key: UML22-1100
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9871
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Mr. Ed Seidewitz)
  • Summary:

    isSingleExecution default. Default of isSingleExecution is in text, but not in metamodel diagram.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This is already resolved in UML 2.1.1 (formal/2007-02-03). Disposition: Closed, no change

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

consistent descriptions of semantics of event consumption needed

  • Key: UML22-1115
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10776
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Pr. Dr. François Terrier)
  • Summary:

    make consistent the descriptions of semantics of event consumption in section 13.3.4 and in section 13.3.2

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Section 13.3.2 is generic and does not define details of the semantics of event consumption. In fact it states that this is handled by BehavioredClassifier, section 13.3.4. I do not see any inconsistency between these two sections. Disposition: Closed, no change

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

section 13.3.2 – doc ptc/2006-04-02, v.2.1

  • Key: UML22-1114
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10775
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Pr. Dr. François Terrier)
  • Summary:

    Issue a: ) in behaviour description (section 13.3.2 – doc ptc/2006-04-02, v.2.1) precise more formally and explicitely which elements can have behaviors, and how the behavior context is defined.

    Typically clarification should say something like:

    • [A] Any subclasses of BehavioredClassifier (that is: Collaboration, Class, Actor, UseCase) can have a Behavior and its context is defined through the “context” association
    • [B] Any subclasses of BehavioralFeature (that is: xxx to be listed xxx) can have a Behavior and its context is defined through the “specification” association
    • [C] Additionally, Transitions and States can have a Behavior and its context is defined by the first BehavioredClassifier reached through their “owned” relation
    • [D] A Behavior can stand alone and be its own context (e.g. as equivalent to a C/C++ program)

    è Is it here necessary to add a context association from the Behavior to itself…? or should we consider that in this case it is always owned by a modelling element (eg a package) that defines its context… and should we explicitly define to which kind of element this can be considered and add these elements to the list of the [C] situation ?

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion: The issue is somewhat confusing in its wording when it asks what “elements can have behaviors”. In one reading, only BehavioredClassifier can have behaviors. Probably the issue means to ask what “elements can own behaviors”. It would be not in the style of the UML specification to summarize in a central location such information, as this would conflict with the object-oriented style of the specification, or it would cause a maintenance difficulty. Behavior::context clearly defines how the context object is determined, independent of the type of behavior or its owner. Disposition: Closed, no change

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

Uses notation "Subsets Element::ownedElement" and similar

  • Key: UML22-1113
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10731
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology ( Thomas Weigert)
  • Summary:

    Uses notation "Subsets Element::ownedElement" and similar. I believe this should be "Element.ownedElement", as :: is a separator for path. Please check the document throughout.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion: In one of the earlier revisions, the decision was made to use the “::” operator as a qualifier and not the “.” operator. Disposition: Closed, no change

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

UML2: Behavior without a specification should not be a classifier behavior

  • Key: UML22-1112
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10655
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Mr. Jim Amsden)
  • Summary:

    Section 13.3.3, in the description of Behavior::specification says: "If a behavior does not have a specification, it is directly associated with a classifier (i.t., it is the behavior of the classifier as a whole."

    This appears to be incorrect. Assuming the "associated classifier" is the context Classifier: a Behavior might not be an ownedBehavior of any Classifier and has no context. For example, and Activity in a Package. Such a Behavior could not have a specification, but is not the behavior of any associated classifier.

    An ownedBehavior of a context Classifier can be explicitly designated as the behavior of the classifier using the BehavioredClassifier::classifierBehavior property. So there should be no need to define implicit classifier behaviors.

    Finally, a BehavioredClassifier might contain any number of ownedBehaviors that factor out reusable, private functions that are used in the implementations of other ownedBehaviors. These behaviors could be invoked using CallBehaviorActions and do not need specification operations. These behaviors would need a parameter for self if they need to refer to information in the context classifier.

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Fri, 9 Feb 2007 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The issue correctly points to that the text in Behavior::specification is misleading

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

Figure 13.8 shows the wrong diagram

  • Key: UML22-1109
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10469
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    diagrams for UML 2.1.1 - Figure 13.8 shows the wrong diagram

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion: This was fixed in an earlier release. Revised Text: N/A Disposition: Closed, no change

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

Section: 13.3.25

  • Key: UML22-1108
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10383
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Bergson Technology ( Marc Hamilton)
  • Summary:

    SignalEvent notation interpretes Signal as an Operation. Details: A SignalEvent is associated to a Signal. The notation of SignalEvent contains an <assignment-specification> that consists of a list of <attr-name>. Quote: "<attr-name> is an implicit assignment of the corresponding parameter of the signal to...". Signal is however a Classifier and has no parameters. Either Signal should be an Operation or the notation of SignalEvent must utilize the explicit assignment of "corresponding attributes of the signal". In the latter case, this assignment should include the attribute name of the signal since the attributes of a Classifier are not ordered.

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Fri, 6 Oct 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The issue is correct. What is meant was the attributes of the signal

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

Section: 13 SimpleTime

  • Key: UML22-1111
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10643
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    What the time model needs is the concept of an optional time reference that can be attached to a time observation (e.g. to model a spacecraft/ground station situation). The MARTE profile has done some excellent work on this and it should be taken into account when resolving the issue

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Mon, 5 Feb 2007 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution: The simple time model is just that: a very simple model to attach time specifications to observations, for example. When a more sophisticated handling of time is required, profiles such as the MARTE profile should be used. The proposal is not to attempt to enhance the simple time model but only fix problems with that model. Disposition: Closed, no change

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

Section: 13.2

  • Key: UML22-1110
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10513
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: UFRJ (Federal Uniersity of Rio de Janeiro) ( Felipe Gomes Dias)
  • Summary:

    In the UML Superstructure 2.1 available in the download section, the picture 13.8 is the same as the picture 13.7, in the page 463 of the document. The picture 13.8 should be explaining about the classes "Behavior" and "Constraint", as shown in the UML Superstructure 2.0 version.

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion: Fixed in an earlier release; also duplicate of10469 Revised Text: N/A Disposition: Closed, no change

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

Section: Activities - Join node edge constraint

  • Key: UML22-1099
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9867
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Mr. Ed Seidewitz)
  • Summary:

    Join node edge constraint. Join node should have a constraint between the incoming and outgoing flow kinds (control vs data).

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Constraint [2] in Section 12.3.34 (JoinNode) of formal/2007-02-03 already says “If a join node has an incoming object flow, it must have an outgoing object flow, otherwise, it must have an outgoing control flow.” Since the intent is to allow a join node to have both incoming control and object flows, it is not clear what other constraint might be needed. Disposition: Closed, no change

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

Section: Activities - Offer ordering on joins

  • Key: UML22-1098
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9866
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Mr. Ed Seidewitz)
  • Summary:

    Offer ordering on joins. Is the ordering of offers from joins the same as they were offered to the join?

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    According to the Semantics in Section 12.3.34 (JoinNode) of formal/2007-02-03: “Tokens are offered on the outgoing edge in the same order they were offered to the join.” Disposition: Closed, no change

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

Section: Activities - Multiple activity parameters nodes for a single inout

  • Key: UML22-1097
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9865
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Mr. Ed Seidewitz)
  • Summary:

    Multiple activity parameters nodes for a single inout. Can there be multiple activity parameters nodes for a single inout parameter? If not, the node will have both incoming and outgoing edges, which violates constraint [3] of ActivityParameterNode.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    There is nothing that prevents a single inout parameter having multiple activity parameter nodes, one with outgoing flows and one with incoming flows. Further, the semantics for activity parameter nodes deals with this case consistently. However, there are actually no limits on the number of activity parameter nodes for a parameter at all, without clear semantics for the general case.

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

Section: 9.3.13 - connectors

  • Key: UML22-1087
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9619
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Unisys ( Paul Koerber)
  • Summary:

    Connectors cannot be properly represented in a UML model using only constructs available in Compliance Level 1. The Connector class is part of the InternalStructures package which is in Level 1. The class that can own Connectors is StructuredClassifier through the ownedConnector association. This class is also in Level 1 but is abstract. All non-abstract subclasses of StructuredClassifer (such as Collaboration and EncapsulatedClassifier) are in Level 2. Because of this there is no class that can own Connector instances in a model that uses only Level 1 constructs. Therefore Connectors can’t be used in a Level 1 compliant model

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Mon, 8 May 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution: This was a decision made in the design of UML 2. A tool that wants to offer internal structure with only compliance level 1 would have to at least define a profile that introduces a concrete subtype of StructuredClassifier. Disposition: Closed, no change

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

Section: Activities - Semantics of fork node wording

  • Key: UML22-1096
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9864
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Mr. Ed Seidewitz)
  • Summary:

    Semantics of fork node wording. The semantics for fork node should say it copies the tokens onto outgoing edges. The wording currently used is the same as initial node and decision node, which do not copy tokens ("offered to all outgoing edges")

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The Semantics for ForkNode (formal/2007-02-03, Section 12.3.30) begins: “Tokens arriving at a fork are duplicated across the outgoing edges.” The fact that tokens are duplicated by a fork node is emphasized several times in the subsequent text. Disposition: Closed, no change

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

ReadLinkAction

  • Key: UML22-1095
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9859
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Mr. Ed Seidewitz)
  • Summary:

    ReadLinkAction. In Actions, ReadLinkAction, Semantics, second paragraph, before the fourth sentence (the one starting "The multiplicity of"), add the sentence "The order of the retrieved values in the output pin is the same as the ordering of the values of the links." This aligns with the text added to ReadStructuralFeatureAction and ReadVariableAction by issue 8036 in the UML 2.1 RTF.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    accepted

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

Section: Activities - Weight notation

  • Key: UML22-1094
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9857
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Mr. Ed Seidewitz)
  • Summary:

    Weight notation. In Activities, ActivityEdge, Notation, Package CompleteActivities subheading, the text in the first paragraph about weight notation is inconsistent with the figure below it.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Correct text as below

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

Section: Activities - Weight description

  • Key: UML22-1093
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9856
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Mr. Ed Seidewitz)
  • Summary:

    Weight description. In Activities, Attribute and Semantics sections, the description of weight in these are not the same. Should be as in the Semantic section.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Fix the Associations and Semantics headings under Section 12.3.5, ActivityEdge

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

Section: Activities

  • Key: UML22-1092
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9855
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Mr. Ed Seidewitz)
  • Summary:

    StructuredActivityNode. In Activities, StructuredActivityNode, Semantics, Package CompleteStructuredActivities subheading, first sentence, replace "An object node attached to" with "The contents of an input pin of".

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The remainder of the paragraph discusses both input and output pins on structured activity nodes. Both input and output pins are “accessible” within the structured activity node, in the sense that data can flow out of the input pin and into the output pin. Thus, the sentence should refer to all pins, not just input pins.

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

Section: 9.3.11

  • Key: UML22-1091
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9821
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Dr. Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    Semantics of ports needs to be define with regard to interfaces having attributes and associations

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Mon, 12 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Attributes and associations of interfaces do not affect the semantics of ports, and thus, no further definition is required. Disposition: Closed, no change

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

Section: 9.3.11

  • Key: UML22-1090
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9814
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Dr. Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    Could you clarify the semantics of port according to its visibility property, i.e. clarify the following sentence: "A port by default has public visibility. However, a behavior port may be hidden but does not have to be."

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Fri, 9 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The last sentence was added to clarify that a port is not necessarily public, and to highlight that often behavior ports are hidden. However, as the issue submitter points out, that “clarification” is probably more confusing than it is worth. It would be better placed in the description section, but that would require explaining behavior port there. Best to drop.

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

Section: 9.2

  • Key: UML22-1089
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9813
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Dr. Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    In Figure 9.4, the role name "required" of the association between Port and Interface is not at the right place.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Fri, 9 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution: In the current version of the spec, the name is at the correct place. Disposition: Closed, no change

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

Section: 13.3.24 Signal (from Communications)

  • Key: UML22-1086
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9576
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Replace • signal: Signal [1] The signal that is associated with this event. with * ownedAttribute: Property[*] The owned attributes of the signal

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Sun, 16 Apr 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

UML 2.2 superstructure section 9.3.11 page 184: Port.isService

  • Key: UML22-458
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13083
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Mr. Steve Cook)
  • Summary:

    The definition of Port.isService appears to be redundant with the concept of public/private visibility. Is it valid for an isService=true Port to be private, or for an isService=false Port to be public? What about protected and package visibility for Ports?

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    From Bran Selic:
    Please note that isService=false is intended for modeling so-called SPPs (service provision points) in UML-RT. SPPs are ports that are used by the implementation of a structured class to access run-time services of the underlying support layers. In contrast to ports for which isService=true, SPPs are implementation specific – in other words, they are not part of the services that a component publishes to its clients. On the other hand, they must be public ports or you will not be able to connect to them from the outside.

    It is a subtle distinction but an important one. The notion of implementation-specific interfaces is one that has, unfortunately, been generally missed in programming languages. It is a key element of layering.

    If you remove this capability, you will certainly invalidate a lot of models based on this notion.

    Revised Text:
    None.

    Disposition: Closed, no change.

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

Could you please clarify what does the UML2 specifications intend for "provided port" and "required port"?

  • Key: UML22-456
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12985
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Could you please clarify what does the UML2 specifications intend for "provided port" and "required port"? Intuitively, it seems that a port could provide (respectively require) the interface which types it. This is in contradiction with the UML2 definition of port. Nevertheless, I belive a port should be able to require the interface tpeing it: the type of a port and its role (provide/require) should be decoupled. This is basically what the graphical front-end of Rhapsody does. It is also the same approach used for SysML ports, where direction is decoupled from the type of the port.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The idea of decoupling the type from the interface is addressed by 13080. The clarification is addressed here by the text revisions below.

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

Inconsistency in Superstructure 2.2 p. 550

  • Key: UML22-455
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12915
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( James Bruck)
  • Summary:

    There seems to be an inconsistency in the spec.

    Supersturcture v2.2 ptc/2008-05-xx
    p 550

    The spec mentions:
    A state with isSimple=true is said to be a simple state. A simple state does not have any regions **and it does not refer to any submachine state machine.**

    It also says in the constraints section ( constraint [4] ) :
    A simple state is a state without any regions. isSimple = region.isEmpty()

    The constraint seems to be missing the part about not refering to any submachine state machine.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Tue, 7 Oct 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The submitter is correct. Add the missing constraint to the isSimple() operation of State by adding that the
    isSubmachineState attribute has to be false

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

InstanceSpecifications

  • Key: UML22-454
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12912
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: University of Kassel ( Carsten Reckord)
  • Summary:

    To better express links with InstanceSpecifications, InstanceSpecification should be able to reference Slots owned by other InstanceSpecifications similar to an Association's memberEnd. Currently, when modelling an object diagram with a link like the one in fig. 7.54 on p.85, the specification is unclear on which of the involved InstanceSpecifications (Don, Josh, assoc) should own which Slots (father, son). Assuming that the involved association ends are ownedAttributes of the respective classes (Person), one would expect the object specifications (Don, Josh) to have Slots for these ends. Similarly one would expect the link InstanceSpecification to somehow reference its ends. Since a Slot can only belong to one InstanceSpecification, this is currently only possible by duplicating Slots and InstanceValues between object and link InstanceSpecifications (at least that is how e.g. Rational does it). This leads to two problems. First there is of course a lot of redundancy and chances for inconsistency. Second, and more importantly, there is no easy way to navigate from an object InstanceSpecification to the "connected" link InstanceSpecifications. On type level, an association can reference member ends that are owned by other classifiers. For the sake of consistency and simplicity, we would suggest something similar on the instance level for the InstanceSpecification-Slot relationship, i.e. a memberSlot referencing Slots owned by other InstanceSpecifications (maybe in a specialized LinkSpecification). I have created some diagrams to better illustrate the problem, albeit for a different example: - The example: http://www.reckord.de/uml/example.png - What it currently looks like on the meta level: http://www.reckord.de/uml/example-metaobjects.png - What it could look like: http://www.reckord.de/uml/example-meta-fixed.png

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Mon, 6 Oct 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merged with 9961

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

specificMachine association should be changed to be type StateMachine

  • Key: UML22-453
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12855
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NASA ( Alexander Murray)
  • Summary:

    The specificMachine association of metaclass ProtocolConformance is of type ProtocolStateMachine, which would seem to prohibit the specificMachine from being a BehaviorStateMachines::StateMachine. However, the text sections of section 15.3.5, including the Description and Semantics sections, are very clear that the conforming StateMachine may be a BehavioralStateMachine::StateMachine, which make sense. So the specificMachine association should be changed to be type StateMachine. Also, Figure 15.5 should be similarly changed.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The protocol conformance relationship was explicitly intended to model relationships between protocol state machines
    (this is clearly stated in the spec). It is unclear what would be the precise meaning of that type of relationship between
    different kinds of state machines, but, whatever it might be, it is likely to be complex, dealing with issues such as
    behavioral equivalence. This is still an open research topic with many different approaches and not something one
    should standardize as yet.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

p269-p270 Constraint

  • Key: UML22-452
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12851
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Architecture Technology Institute ( Hiroshi Miyazaki)
  • Summary:

    [2] The type and ordering of the result output pin are the same as the type and ordering of the open association end.
    let openend : AssociationEnd = self.endData->select(ed | ed.value->size() = 0)>asSequence()>first().end in

    "AssociationEnd" -> "Propertye"

    [3] The multiplicity of the open association end must be compatible with the multiplicity of the result output pin.
    270 UML Superstructure Specification, v2.2
    let openend : AssociationEnd = self.endData->select(ed | ed.value->size() = 0)>asSequence()>first().end in

    "AssociationEnd" -> "Propertye"

    [4] The open end must be navigable.
    let openend : AssociationEnd = self.endData->select(ed | ed.value->size() = 0)>asSequence()>first().end in

    "AssociationEnd" -> "Propertye"

    [5] Visibility of the open end must allow access to the object performing the action.
    let host : Classifier = self.context in
    let openend : AssociationEnd = self.endData->select(ed | ed.value->size() = 0)>asSequence()>first().end in

    "AssociationEnd" -> "Propertye"

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 6462 (resolved in UML 2.3) for disposition

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

operation allConnections

  • Key: UML22-451
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12850
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Architecture Technology Institute ( Hiroshi Miyazaki)
  • Summary:

    1)>[1] The operation allConnections results in the set of all AssociationEnds of the Association.

    "AssociationEnds" is "Properties", isn't it?

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

TYPO p.54 Additional Operations

  • Key: UML22-450
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12848
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Architecture Technology Institute ( Hiroshi Miyazaki)
  • Summary:

    [3] The query allParents() gives all of the direct and indirect
    ancestors of a generalized Classifier.
    Classifier::allParents(): Set(Classifier);
    allParents = self.parents()>union(self.parents()>collect(p |
    p.allParents())

    It seems to be lack of the last parenthesis.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Indeed, there is a missing closing parenthesis.

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

Classifier has association end "attribute"

  • Key: UML22-446
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12844
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Architecture Technology Institute ( Hiroshi Miyazaki)
  • Summary:

    Classifier has association end "attribute". The association should have the opposite
    side of "attribute". Such association end should be "Classifier::attribute".
    In the case of "Class", "Datatype", "StructuredClassider" (however, there is a typo),
    "Signal", such element have "Classifier::attribute" association end.
    However, Interface and Artifact don't have such association end.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Mon, 8 Sep 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

Typo 9.3.13 p190

  • Key: UML22-445
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12843
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Architecture Technology Institute ( Hiroshi Miyazaki)
  • Summary:

    ownedAttribute : Property[0..*]
    References the properties owned by the classifier. (Substes StructuredClassifier:: role,
    Classifier.attribute...
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Classifier::attribute?

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Mon, 8 Sep 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Metaclass Property is denoted in Interfaces Package on p.36

  • Key: UML22-449
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12847
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Architecture Technology Institute ( Hiroshi Miyazaki)
  • Summary:

    However, according to the class description for Property,
    Property is "from Kernel and AssociationClass".
    Property is defined in Interfaces Package.
    Therefore, it seems Property is "from Kernel, Interfaces and AssociationClass".

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

7.3.33 p100

  • Key: UML22-448
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12846
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Architecture Technology Institute ( Hiroshi Miyazaki)
  • Summary:

    "clientDependency: Dependency[*]
    Indicates the dependencies that reference the client."

    This explanations is described in "Attribute" clause, not Associations" of NemedElment.
    It seems to be in incorrect clause.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Mon, 8 Sep 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

Property 7.3.44 p125

  • Key: UML22-447
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12845
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Architecture Technology Institute ( Hiroshi Miyazaki)
  • Summary:

    "A property related to a classifier by ownedAttribute represents an attribute..."
    and in its semantics
    "When a property is owned by a classifier other than an association via ownedAttribute, then it represents an attribute of
    the class or data type."

    However, in the case of "StructuredClassifier", "Signal", "Artifact",
    "Interface".
    "attribute" is not necessary

    The specification should modified as followings.

    p125 L7:
    "A property related to a classifier by attribute represents an attribute,"

    and

    p128 L17
    "When a property is owned by a classifier other than an association, then it represents an attribute of the classifier."

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Mon, 8 Sep 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The issue is not correct. All attributes are in fact owned via a property called ownedAttribute, different in each case,
    but this is true for all subclasses of Classifier including Interface, Signal, Artifact, etc. So the text is correct.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

7.3.44 additional operation P128

  • Key: UML22-444
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12842
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Architecture Technology Institute ( Hiroshi Miyazaki)
  • Summary:

    [4]The query isAttribute() is true if the Property is defined as an attribute of
    some classifier.
    context Property::isAttribute(p : Property) : Boolean
    post : result = Classifier.allInstances->exists(C|c.attribute->includes(p))

    This OCL means there is at least one element of Property.
    Then, it is better to represent as "not classifier->isEmpty, not "Classifer.allinstances"
    like opertation [3]. It is better to represent similar style in a same block.

    This issue relates to aleady mentioned issue(Issue 11120). However, it is not exactly same.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Mon, 8 Sep 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merged with 11120

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

first paragraph of section 7.8 UML kernel

  • Key: UML22-399
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12436
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NASA ( Dr. Nicolas F. Rouquette)
  • Summary:

    The first paragraph of section 7.8 suggests that the UML kernel is the merge of Core::Abstractions packages. To obtain Classifier in the UML kernel, we would have to merge Classifiers, Super and Generalizations from Core::Abstractions. How is this possible given that: a) there are no generalization relationships among Classifier metaclasses in these Abstractions packages b) there are two matching operations:

    {Super,Generalizations}

    ::Classifier::parents (a) means that Generalizations::Classifier::parents cannot redefine Super::Classifier::parents. Even if there were a generalization, the resulting merged model would be ill-formed because it would include a generalization self-loop. (b) means that the merge is ill-formed because it violates constraint #4 defined in the general package merge rules in 11.9.3 (p. 164) POSSIBLE WORKAROUND: - split Core::Abstractions::Super in two packages: Super and SuperParents which only defines Classifier::parents - ditto for Core::Abstractions::Generalizations - if Super is to be merged but Generalizations isn't, then merge SuperParents as well. - if both Super and Generalizations are to be merged, then merge GeneralizationsParent but not SuperParents This is a kludge but that's the only short-term workaround I can find for this bug at this time.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Sun, 11 May 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

Section: 7.3.7 and 8.3.1

  • Key: UML22-398
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12432
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: THALES ( Sebastien Madelenat)
  • Summary:

    page 50, the "nestedClassifier" association of Class is described like this: "References all the Classifiers that are defined (nested) within the Class. Subsets Element::ownedMember" page 148, the "packagedElement" association of Component is described like this: packagedElement: PackageableElement [*] "The set of PackageableElements that a Component owns. In the namespace of a component, all model elements that are involved in or related to its definition may be owned or imported explicitly. These may include e.g., Classes, Interfaces, Components, Packages, Use cases, Dependencies (e.g., mappings), and Artifacts. Subsets Namespace::ownedMember." This means a Class may own a Component and this Component may own a Package. I wonder what a Class owning (transitively) a Package could mean.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Fri, 9 May 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This is one example of the unintended consequences of Component inheriting from Class. We may observe a related consequence, that it is possible for a Component to own another Component in two ways: as a nestedClassifier, and as a packagedElement. There is no distinction, notationally or otherwise, between these two modes of ownership.
    We can resolve these by adding two constraints to Component:
    · A Component's nestedClassifier collection is always empty.
    · If a Component is nested in a Class, then its packagedElement collection is empty.

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

Port

  • Key: UML22-401
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12492
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Dr. Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    for Port, there is a constraint that say :

    [1] The required interfaces of a port must be provided by elements to which the port is connected.

    I believe that ports are connected by delegation connector, this constraint may not be checked!

    Am I right?

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Thu, 15 May 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    You are right, and this constraint is more correctly covered by a revised constraint [1] in chapter 8.

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

Section 14 Interaction

  • Key: UML22-400
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12455
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Research Group Software Construction, RWTH Aachen ( Alexander Nyßen)
  • Summary:

    As it is intended by the current specification, an Interaction may be modeled independent of any BehavioredClassifier, which owns it. This would e.g. allow to use Interactions to model communication between analysis objects at a very early analysis stage, where no classes have been designed yet. The intention is manifested in the specification by allowing that a Lifeline or Messages does not have to specify a Property (Multiplicity of 0..1 of Lifelines->represents) or a Connector (Multiplicity of 0..1 of Message->connector) respectively (and that an Interaction does not have to be owned by a BehavioredClassifier). However, the restriction that every OccurrenceSpecification, and as such also every MessageOccurenceSpecification has to be associated with an event (compare Figure 14.5 on page 462) prevents that an Interaction may be used in above described manner. The reason for this is is as follows: 1) As the absense of a MessageEnd has another semantics (the MessageKind is inferred from it), in above described scenario, MessageEnds should indeed be specified (a complete message would be the only appropriate kind to model communication between objects as in above described scenario) 2) Because of above described multiplicity constraint, the MessageOccurenceSpecifications serving as sendEvent and receiveEvent of the message have to refer to some SendSignalEvent/ReceiveSignalEvent or SendOperationEvent/ReceiveOperationEvent respectively. 3) Those events in turn require to specify a Signal or Operation (see Figure 14.2 on page 459). 4) The Signal or Operation would have to be owned by some Classifier. There is however no Classifier in above described scenario, with exception of the Interaction itself (adding the Signals or Operations to the Interaction itself, would however require that all Signals and Operations are named unique, which is inappropriate). I would thus propose to change the specification, so that MessageOccurenceSpecifications (or OccurenceSpecifications) may, but do not have to specify an event (i.e. change multiplicity from 1 to 0..1).

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Wed, 14 May 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Changing this cardinality in the metamodel is a breaking change, and is unnessary.
    It seems that, if you are modeling the sending of a message, then you are modeling that something is being sent. This
    .something. can be modeled as a signal, even if, at an early stage of analysis, this is just a placeholder for more detail
    to be added later.
    There are no constraints requiring that a message signature refer to an operation or signal reception defined for the
    type of the ConnectableElement associated with a Lifeline.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

Section: 15.3.11/Notation

  • Key: UML22-389
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12380
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Steria Mummert Consulting AG ( Torsten Binias)
  • Summary:

    In chapter 15.3.12 (p. 568) the keyword "final" is informally introduced for states: "the states VerifyCard, OutOfService, and VerifyTransaction in the ATM state machine in Figure 15.42 have been specified as

    {final}" This should be mentioned in capter 15.3.11 (State (from BehaviorStateMachines, ProtocolStateMachines)) in section "Notation". Suggestion: "A state that is a leaf (i.e. isLeaf=TURE) can be shown using the keyword {final}

    after or below the name of the State."

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agreed. The “final” keyword should be explained in the section describing the notation for state machines
    and not in the examples paragraph, it should also be added to the list of keywords in Table C.1 in the
    appendix

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

Section 11.3.25 gives the definition of MultiplicityExpression::isConsisten

  • Key: UML22-388
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12379
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Oracle ( Dave Hawkins)
  • Summary:

    Section 11.3.25 gives the definition of MultiplicityElement::compatibleWith as: compatibleWith(other) = Integer.allInstances()-> forAll(i : Integer | self.includesCardinality implies other.includesCardinality) While technically correct, this may be a little impractical for any OCL interpreting tool. I think an alternative, that simply uses the upper and lower bounds, would be: compatibleWith(other) = other.includesMultiplicity(self)

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

interpreting InstanceSpecification

  • Key: UML22-396
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12427
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dell Technologies ( Mr. George Ericson)
  • Summary:

    Various readers are interpreting InstanceSpecification differently. One interpretation is that a particular InstanceSpecification specifies a particular instance. A second interpretation is that a particular InstanceSpecification may be used to specify more than one instance. I prefer the second interpretation. This is supported by the Note at the bottom of page 83 that refers to "... such structures."

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Fri, 2 May 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    It is clear from this sentence: “As an InstanceSpecification may only partially determine the properties of an
    individual, there may actually be multiple individuals in the modeled system that satisfy the requirements
    of the InstanceSpecification.”
    But some of the earlier text seems to imply different - this text is changed.

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

Figure showing an AssociationClass as a ternary association

  • Key: UML22-395
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12406
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Please insert a figure showing an AssociationClass that is a ternary association to make clear whether the dashed line is to be connected to a line or the diamond. (Use can re-use figure 7.21 on page 44).

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merged with 8974

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

Section: 7.3.10/Associations

  • Key: UML22-391
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12382
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Steria Mummert Consulting AG ( Torsten Binias)
  • Summary:

    Please explain constrainedElement has to be an ordered set and not a set.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The order of the constrainedElements may make a significant difference on the meaning of the constraint. For instance,
    a constraint on two numeric elementsmay require that one is less than the other, or a constraint on two sets may require
    one to be a subset of the other.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

Section: 13.3.3/ Changes from previous UML

  • Key: UML22-390
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12381
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Steria Mummert Consulting AG ( Torsten Binias)
  • Summary:

    Chapter 13.3.3, section “Changes from previous UML“: “The metaattributes isLeaf and isRoot have been replaced by properties inherited from RedefinableElement.” RedefinableElement does not have the property isRoot.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

Car dependency example

  • Key: UML22-394
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12405
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    The car dependency example on page 63 of the UML Super Structure Specification appears wrong to me. The description indicates to me that the arrow should be going from the car to the carfactory not the other way around as depicted.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merged with 11489

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

Section: 12.3.8/Generalizations

  • Key: UML22-393
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12385
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    ActivityNode need not specialize “NamedElement (from Kernel, Dependencies)” because is specializes ““RedefinableElement (from Kernel)” which in turn specializes “NamedElement (from Kernel, Dependencies)”.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

qualifiers

  • Key: UML22-387
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12369
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    Are qualifiers displayed at opposite end of association than role name (or multiplicity) or near the role name (or multiplicity)?

    E.g. composition diamond is displayed at opposite end, multiplicity value – at the same end. How about qualifiers?

    UML 2.1.2 page 124:

    qualifier : Property [*] An optional list of ordered qualifier attributes for the end.

    Notation (page 128):

    The qualifier is attached to the source end of the association.

    What is the “source of the association” ???

    Look at figure from UML spec (first sample):

    Are these qualifiers owned in association end typed by Bank or Person?

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

Section: 15 StateMachines: doActivity and internal transitions

  • Key: UML22-397
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12431
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    What happens with the do activity if a internal transition fires? It is not mentioned in the specification.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Wed, 7 May 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Since the state is not exited, the do activity is unaffected by the firing of the internal transition.
    Add a clarifying statement to make this point explicit

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

Section: 7.3.10/Associations - insert reference

  • Key: UML22-392
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12384
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Steria Mummert Consulting AG ( Torsten Binias)
  • Summary:

    “Certain kinds of constraints (such as an association “xor” constraint) are predefined in UML” Please insert a reference to the document containing the predefined constraints

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 9617 for disposition

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

Unspecified constraint [1] on ActivityNode

  • Key: UML22-432
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12790
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NASA ( Dr. Nicolas F. Rouquette)
  • Summary:

    Source: UML 2.2 Superstructure document and XMI

    http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ptc/08-05-05
    http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ptc/08-05-12

    Nature: Unspecified OCL constraint

    Summary:

    The following constraint on ActivityNode (12.3.8) is unspecified:

    [1] Activity nodes can only be owned by activities or groups.

    Discussion:

    OCL 101.

    Revised Text:

    Change the specification of the constraint to the following:

    [1] Activity nodes can only be owned by activities or groups.
    self.activity=self.owner xor self.inGroup->includes(self.owner.oclAsType(ActivityGroup))

    Change the Superstructure XMI accordingly.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue is obsolete. All constraints have been specified in UML 2.5.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

constraint [4] on AcceptEventAction and unordered result:OutputPin property

  • Key: UML22-431
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12789
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NASA ( Dr. Nicolas F. Rouquette)
  • Summary:

    Source: UML 2.2 Superstructure document and XMI

    http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ptc/08-05-05
    http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ptc/08-05-12

    Nature: Unspecified OCL constraint

    Summary:

    The following constraint on AcceptEventAction (11.3.2) is unspecified:

    [4] If isUnmarshalled is true, there must be exactly one trigger for events of type SignalEvent. The number of result output
    pins must be the same as the number of attributes of the signal. The type and ordering of each result output pin must be the
    same as the corresponding attribute of the signal. The multiplicity of each result output pin must be compatible with the
    multiplicity of the corresponding attribute.

    This constraint implicitly requires that the AcceptEventAction.result property should be ordered to enable order-sensitive comparison with corresponding properties in Signal.ownedAttribute.

    • result: OutputPin [0..*]
    Pins holding the received event objects or their attributes. Event objects may be copied in transmission, so identity
    might not be preserved.

    {Subsets Action::output}

    The
    [4a] If isUnmarshalled is true, there must be exactly one trigger for events of type SignalEvent.
    [4b] The number of result output pins must be the same as the number of attributes of the signal.
    [4c] The type and ordering of each result output pin must be the same as the corresponding attribute of the signal.
    [4d] The multiplicity of each result output pin must be compatible with the multiplicity of the corresponding attribute.
    self.isUnmarshall implies
    (self.trigger->size() = 1 and let e:Event = self.trigger.event->asSequence()->first() in
    e.oclIsKindOf(SignalEvent) and
    let s:Signal = e.oclAsType(SignalEvent).signal in
    Set

    {1..s.ownedAttribute->size()}->forAll(i|
    let ai:Property=s.ownedAttribute->at in
    let ri:OutputPin= self.result->asOrderedSet()->at in
    ai.type = ri.type and ri.lower <= ai.lower and ri.upper >= ri.upper))


    Discussion:

    OCL 101.

    Revised Text:

    Change the specification of the result property to the following:

    • result: OutputPin [0..*]
    Pins holding the received event objects or their attributes. Event objects may be copied in transmission, so identity
    might not be preserved. This association end is ordered. {Subsets Action::output}

    Change the specification of the constraint to the following:

    [4] If isUnmarshalled is true, there must be exactly one trigger for events of type SignalEvent. The number of result output
    pins must be the same as the number of attributes of the signal. The type and ordering of each result output pin must be the
    same as the corresponding attribute of the signal. The multiplicity of each result output pin must be compatible with the
    multiplicity of the corresponding attribute.

    (self.trigger->size() = 1 and let e:Event = self.trigger.event->asSequence()->first() in
    e.oclIsKindOf(SignalEvent) and
    let s:Signal = e.oclAsType(SignalEvent).signal in
    Set{1..s.ownedAttribute->size()}

    ->forAll(i|
    let ai:Property=s.ownedAttribute->at in
    let ri:OutputPin= self.result->at in
    ai.type = ri.type and ri.lower <= ai.lower and ri.upper >= ri.upper))

    Note: if the result property is not ordered, this constraint can be approximated in the following manner:

    (self.trigger->size() = 1 and let e:Event = self.trigger.event->asSequence()->first() in
    e.oclIsKindOf(SignalEvent) and
    let s:Signal = e.oclAsType(SignalEvent).signal in
    Set

    {1..s.ownedAttribute->size()}

    ->forAll(i|
    let ai:Property=s.ownedAttribute->at in
    let ri:OutputPin= self.result->asOrderedSet()->at in
    ai.type = ri.type and ri.lower <= ai.lower and ri.upper >= ri.upper))

    Change the Superstructure XMI accordingly.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merged with 8702

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

figure 13.12

  • Key: UML22-434
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12792
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( James Bruck)
  • Summary:

    In the latest 2.2 version of the UML spec, there was a change for issue : 11409 - redirect TimeEvent::when to TimeExpression (from ValueSpecification).
    In the resolution to that issue, figure 13.13 (p427) was properly updated but it looks like figure 13.12 has a problem in that the association from TimeEvent should go to TimeExpression

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    At first it seems like this would be any easy resolution - just update Figure 13.12. The problem is that the Event classes in Figure 13.12, including TimeEvent, are in the CommonBehaviors::Communications package, which is merged in at L1, while TimeExpression is in CommonBehaviors::SimpleTime, which is merged in at L2. Thus, having TimeEvent associated with TimeExpression - which is actually the case in the metamodel - causes a problem in the construction of L1 (which causes issues with the generation of XMI for L1).
    Now, one possibility would be to make the TimeEvent class in SimpleTime a merge increment. But the merging of typed elements has the constraint (see 7.3.40):
    "Matching typed elements (e.g., Properties, Parameters) must have conforming types. For types that are classes or data types, a conforming type is either the same type or a common supertype. For all other cases, conformance means that the types must be the same."
    While not entirely clear, the implication is that the resulting type is the common supertype. In this case, TimeEvent::when has type ValueSpecification in Communications and type TimeExpression, a subclass of ValueSpecification, in SimpleTime. The common superclass is thus ValueSpecification - but if you end up with TimeEvent::when having type ValueSpecification in the merged L2, then there isn't much point in typing it as TimeExpression in SimpleTime!
    Another possibility would be to leave the type of TimeEvent::when as ValueSpecification, which would allow a TimeExpression to be used when SimpleTime is included at L3. But this was explicitly changed in the UML 2.2 RTF, indicating a strong desire that the type of TimeEvent::when be TimeExpression (which does make some sense).
    It also doesn't seem to be a good idea to merge SimpleTime into L1 instead of L2, just to be able to have TimeExpression available for TimeEvent.
    So, the proposed resolution is that TimeEvent be moved into SimpleTime. This means that time events would only be allowed at L2, not L1. But since state machines aren't included until L2 and accept event actions not until L3, it seems unlikely that this would be a real problem.

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

Unspecified constraint [1] on ActivityNode (StructuredActivities)

  • Key: UML22-433
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12791
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NASA ( Dr. Nicolas F. Rouquette)
  • Summary:

    Source: UML 2.2 Superstructure document and XMI

    http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ptc/08-05-05
    http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ptc/08-05-12

    Nature: Unspecified OCL constraint

    Summary:

    The following constraint on Activity (12.3.8) is unspecified:

    [1] Activity nodes may be owned by at most one structured node.

    Discussion:

    OCL 101.

    Revised Text:

    Change the specification of the constraint to the following:

    [1] Activity nodes may be owned by at most one structured node.
    self.inStructuredNode->notEmpty() implies (self.inStructuredNode.oclAsType(ActivityGroup)->includesAll(self.inGroup)
    and self.inStructuredNode.oclAsType(Element)->includes(self.owner))

    Change the Superstructure XMI accordingly.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue is obsolete. All constraints have been specified in UML 2.5.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

Clarification on use of Profiles.

  • Key: UML22-436
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12833
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( James Bruck)
  • Summary:

    would like to get some clarification on the use of Profiles.

    Although it does not explicitly state this in the UML superstructure specification, there seems to be an implication that only Profiles should actually own Stereotype. The fact that Stereotype can be owned by any Package seems to be an unintended side effect of inheritance. Is it true that the only feature intended to own a Stereotype is Profile::ownedStereotype ?

    If it is true that only Profile can own a Stereotype, then it makes working with profiles with many stereotypes somewhat unruly (consider having 50 stereotypes). It would be nice to be able to group stereotypes within nested packages under a profile.

    Nesting profiles within profiles does not seem like an appropriate solution since: in order to satisfy constraint [2] in 18.3.6 the nested profile would also have to reference a metamodel; inconvenient. And, how would users use such a profile? Would they apply each nested profile separately? This seems to raise more problems than it solves.

    Either way, I would suggest that the spec. should provide some rules or guidelines in this area.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Thu, 4 Sep 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Property – Additional Operations, page 127.

  • Key: UML22-435
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12794
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Mr. Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    Property – Additional Operations, page 127.

    In the description of “isConsistentWith” –

    [1] The query isConsistentWith() specifies, for any two Properties in a context in which redefinition is possible, whether redefinition would be logically consistent. A redefining property is consistent with a redefined property if the type of the redefining property conforms to the type of the redefined property, the multiplicity of the redefining property (if specified) is contained in the multiplicity of the redefined property, and the redefining property is derived if the redefined attribute is property.”

    The last word, “property”, should be “derived”.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

7.3.44 Property P128

  • Key: UML22-443
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12841
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Architecture Technology Institute ( Hiroshi Miyazaki)
  • Summary:

    [3] The query isNavigable() indicates whether it is possible to navigate across the property.
    Propery::isNavigable():Boolean
    isNavigable = not classifier->isEmpty() or
    association.owningAssociation.navigableOwnedEnd->includes(self)
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    "association", and "owningAssociation" are also associationend on Property.
    Then, expression "association.owningAssociation" is not appropriate.
    It seems "association" in the expression should be suppressed.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Mon, 8 Sep 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

18.3.8 Stereotype

  • Key: UML22-442
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12840
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Architecture Technology Institute ( Hiroshi Miyazaki)
  • Summary:

    For example in UML, States, Transitions, Activities,
    Use cases, Components, Attributes, Dependencies, etc.
    ~~~~~~~~~~
    In UML2.2, Attribute isn't model element.
    This seems incorrect.
    This explanation is example, then, it seems term "Attributes" should be suppressed.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Mon, 8 Sep 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Problem is now out of date.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

Unspecified constraint [3] on Activity

  • Key: UML22-430
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12788
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NASA ( Dr. Nicolas F. Rouquette)
  • Summary:

    Source: UML 2.2 Superstructure document and XMI

    http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ptc/08-05-05
    http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ptc/08-05-12

    Nature: Unspecified OCL constraint

    Summary:

    The following constraint on Activity (12.3.4) is unspecified:

    [3] The groups of an activity have no supergroups.

    Discussion:

    OCL 101.

    Revised Text:

    Change the specification of the constraint to the following:

    [3] The groups of an activity have no supergroups.
    self.group->forAll(superGroup->isEmpty())

    Change the Superstructure XMI accordingly.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue is obsolete. All constraints have been specified in UML 2.5.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

Typo P205 10.3.4

  • Key: UML22-440
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12838
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Architecture Technology Institute ( Hiroshi Miyazaki)
  • Summary:


    Attribute -> Attributes

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Mon, 8 Sep 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

On the table 2.3, page 8

  • Key: UML22-439
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12836
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Architecture Technology Institute ( Hiroshi Miyazaki)
  • Summary:

    Sturcute CompositeStructure::InternalStructure.
    Is it correct?
    It seems typo. "CompositeStructures"

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Mon, 8 Sep 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

On the communication diagram in Fig 6.2 (second issue)

  • Key: UML22-438
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12835
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Architecture Technology Institute ( Hiroshi Miyazaki)
  • Summary:

    The sequence expression is denoted as "A1", "B1", "A3".
    According to the specification, those messages means
    asynchronous messages.
    If so, the diagram doesn't show original intention.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Mon, 8 Sep 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

On the communication diagram in Fig 6.2 (P12)

  • Key: UML22-437
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12834
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Architecture Technology Institute ( Hiroshi Miyazaki)
  • Summary:

    There are underlined lifeline.
    According to UML 2.2 specfication (chapter 14),
    lifeline label refrains from underlined notation.
    It seems these are not appropriate

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Mon, 8 Sep 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

7.3.11 DataType, P61

  • Key: UML22-441
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12839
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Architecture Technology Institute ( Hiroshi Miyazaki)
  • Summary:

    "The Attributes owned by the Data Type. This is an ordered collection.
    ~~~~~~~~~~
    Subsets Classifier::attribute and Element::ownedMember."

    Attributes->attributes

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Mon, 8 Sep 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Well spotted.

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

UML 2.1.2:18.3.5 Package (from Profiles)

  • Key: UML22-383
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12278
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Mr. Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    18.3.5 Package (from Profiles)

    Description

    A package can have one or more ProfileApplications to indicate which profiles have been applied.

    Because a profile is a package, it is possible to apply a profile not only to packages, but also to profiles.”

    A Profile is a subclass of InfrastructureLibrary::Constructs::Package, which cannot own ProfileApplications and so you can’t apply a profile to a profile.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Profiles does subclass Constructs::Package, but when Profiles is merged with Kernel::Classes::Package in UML compliance level L3, Package gets the ability to have applied profiles, as does its subclass, Profile. So whether a profile can be applied to a profile depends on what Profiles is merged with.

    Note that Profiles cannot stand alone, with just an import of Constructs since it defines Class as a merge increment (in order to add extensions). Profiles::Class has no ownedAttributes, so without a merge, Stereotypes would not be able to have Properties.

    However, applying a profile to a profile would extend the extensibility mechanisms of UML in non-standard ways that would not be supported by most tools. This would limit interoperability and break model interchange. So it should not be possible to apply a profile to another profile.
    Disposition: Closed, no change.

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

UML Super 2.1.2:Feature

  • Key: UML22-382
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12275
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Mathworks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    The Semantics section for Feature says:

    “A feature represents some characteristic for its featuring classifiers; this characteristic may be of the classifier’s instances considered individually (not static), or of the classifier itself (static).

    A Feature can be a feature of multiple classifiers. The same feature cannot be static in one context but not another.”

    It seems to me that the second sentence is simply a reiteration of the description of property “/ featuringClassifier: Classifier [0..*]

    The third sentence could be expressed more usefully as a constraint.

    I’m also puzzled by the 0..* multiplicity on featuringClassifier. It would be useful if the description of Feature explained when a feature can have more than one featuring classifier.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Much of this issue refers to obsolete text. This resolution addresses its final paragraph. We discussed
    this in our face-to-face meeting in Reston in March 2013 and decided to change the multiplicity of Feature::
    featuringClassifier to 0..1 (because this is a logical consequence of the remainder of the UML spec and
    does not affect serialization), and change the wording accordingly, pointing out the special case of Properties
    used as qualifiers which have no featuringClassifier.

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

A final node that returns to the caller but leaves alive any parallel flow

  • Key: UML22-384
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12284
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: France Telecom R&D ( Mariano Belaunde)
  • Summary:

    The regular ActivityFinalNode stops all possible parallel flows in the activity before
    returning to the caller.
    There are some cases where it would be interesting to have a variant of this behavior
    which would allow returning immediately but without affecting the execution of any
    parallel flow.

    A use case for this "soft return" construct: An application process a user "search" request.
    When it founds a first set of results it returns immediately the response to the user but it
    the meantime continues looking for another set of requests to anticipate possible additional
    request from the user, without loosing the context of the user request.

    For this use case we will use the "soft return" final node to return when finding the first
    set of responses and will use a FlowFinalNode at the end of a parallel branch looking for
    additional responses.
    For sure, it is always possible to encode this use case differently, but such new kind of
    final node would allow to model the intended behavior more directly.

    Rq: What would happen if a "soft return" is reached after a "soft return" already happened:
    I guess the semantics would be to behave as a FlowFinalNode (cannot return twice).
    And what if a "regular" ActivityFinalNode is reached after a "soft return": I guess all
    existing parallel are stopped but there is no return to the caller (since already returned).

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    A behavior that is initially invoked via a synchronous call does not have its own thread of control, so it would be a fundamental semantics change to somehow allow it to continue executing after returning from the call. Fortunately, however, the functionality desired by the submitter can be easily achieved using existing UML mechanisms, by first starting the activity asynchronously, either as a classifier behavior or as a standalone behavior execution. Such an executing activity can then accept client requests using an accept event action and respond to them without terminating, as the submitter envisions. The activity can even accept a synchronous call via an accept call action and reply using a reply action, without terminating. In this case, the reply action acts, in effect, as the "soft return" suggested by the submitter.
    Revised Text:
    None
    Disposition: Closed No Change

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

section '10.3.12 Property (from Nodes)'

  • Key: UML22-380
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12271
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: OFFIS e.V. ( Christian Mrugalla)
  • Summary:

    In section '10.3.12 Property (from Nodes)', the Description states "In the metamodel, Property is a specialization of DeploymentTarget", but a corresponding generalization is not defined under 'Generalization'. Proposed resolution: Add '"DeploymentTarget (From Nodes)" on page 205' to the Generalization section of 10.3.12.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

PackageableElement (from Kernel), subsection: "Attribute"

  • Key: UML22-379
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12266
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: System ( Mehran Touhidi)
  • Summary:

    section: PackageableElement (from Kernel), subsection: "Attribute" is writen "Default value is false." that it cannt has that value because its type is VibilityKind and can only has one of its enumerated value.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Sat, 8 Mar 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 10379 for disposition

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

CMOF file for UML2 does not have derived Associations marked as such

  • Key: UML22-386
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12357
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    For example A_ownedMember_namespace

    Has both its ends marked with isDerived=”true” but not the Association itself.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

Section: 8.3.3

  • Key: UML22-385
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12356
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: University Karlsruhe ( Conny Kuehne)
  • Summary:

    On Page 23 of the UML Infrastructure Spec. it is stated, that "The multiplicity of an association end is suppressed if it is ‘*’ (default in UML).". This implies that omitting to define the multipl. of an association end A means that the multiplicity of A is * (between zero and infinity). However this contradicts most books I know and some examples in the specification itself.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

description of MessageOccurenceSpecification

  • Key: UML22-378
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12263
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Dr. Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    The description of MessageOccurenceSpecification defines a property called event. It is useless, because MessageOccurenceSpecification inherits from OccurenceSpecification that already owns this property, as denoted in the figure 14.5.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Wed, 5 Mar 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 14629 for disposition

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

The list of literal described for the ennumeration MessageSort is not compl

  • Key: UML22-377
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12259
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Dr. Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    The list of literal described for the ennumeration MessageSort is not complete according to it sdescription as shown in figure 14.5.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Tue, 4 Mar 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

undefined term 'Element::redefinedElement' occurs three times in standard

  • Key: UML22-381
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12273
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: OFFIS e.V. ( Christian Mrugalla)
  • Summary:

    The undefined term 'Element::redefinedElement' occurs three times in the standard where 'RedefinableElement::redefinedElement' is expected.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

Section: 7.4 figure 7.1 missing dependency

  • Key: UML22-419
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12749
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: YTCA ( Trent Lillehaugen)
  • Summary:

    The first sentence of 7.4 states: As was depicted in Figure 7.1, the Profiles package depends on the Core package, .... Figure 7.1 does not shown any dependency between the Profiles package and the Core package

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Tue, 5 Aug 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

UML2: Need a better mechanism for integrating UML2 Profiles

  • Key: UML22-418
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12587
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Mr. Jim Amsden)
  • Summary:

    UML2 Superstructure specifies how to define a Profile, how Profiles can reference other Profiles through PackageImport and ElementImport, and how one stereotype could extend another through generalization/specialization. However, this is insufficient for profile integration as it results in too much coupling between profiles. What is needed is a more flexible mechanism for integrating UML2 profiles.

    For example, both UPDM and SysML are UML2 profiles. UPDM would like to reuse certain stereotypes from SysML in order to provide effective integration in cases where consumers want to use both. However, UPDM would also like to be able to stand alone in cases where SysML isn't needed. The problem is how to model the overlapping stereotypes and classes without creating coupling that would require all applications of the UPDM profile to also require an application of SysML.

    Consider a concrete example of overlap between the profiles, the stereotype ViewPoint. Both UPDM and SysML have a similar concept of ViewPoint, for similar purposes. However, each has its own specializations of ViewPoint, and possibly associations between ViewPoint and other stereotypes. There are a number of approaches for handling this overlap, but none are adequate or practical.

    1. Profile refactoring: Each profile could factor its stereotypes into packages, and arrange the navigability of its associations to decouple its stereotypes in order to support anticipated reuse. This is what UML2 did, quite unsuccessfully, with the Abstractions packages. This isn't practical because 1) no existing profiles do it, 2) it is impossible to anticipate all the possible reuse opportunities and to design a profile to support them, and 3) it is sometimes impossible to define the associations between stereotypes to ensure the necessary decoupling.

    2. Use ElementImport to select only the stereotypes you need, then subclass to minimize the coupling: This can work, but it results in complex profiles with possibly a lot of subclasses simply to integrate with other profiles. For example, UPDM couldn't use ViewPoint directly, it would have to create a subclass, either coming up with a new name, or putting its ViewPoint in a different Package so that it wouldn't collide with SysML. This is confusing, and results in stereotypes with either the same meaning but different names, or two stereotypes with the same name in different packages. This also requires both profiles to exist, even though the both don't need to be applied. This is again an undesirable side-effect of too much coupling.

    Both of these approaches end up inhibiting profile integration and reuse resulting in limited integration between OMG submissions. UPMS had wanted to include integrations with many other submissions including RAS, BPDM, BPMN, ODM, QoS, and BMM. However we could not determine a practical way to do this with current technologies and did not include many of these integrations because of the resulting risk, complexity and coupling. This is a particular problem when we consider the OMG specifications, profiles, and metamodels in an enterprise architecture context where the relationships between the parts are critical to delivering value.

    UML2 provides a solution to this problem for extensions created using MOF metamodels to model capabilities. PackageMerge can be used to merge metaclasses with the same name from different capabilities in order to mixin their capabilities. What is needed is a similar capability for UML2 profiles.

    A proposed solution would be to extend UML2 Profiles to include similar merge semantics when multiple profiles containing the same classes or stereotypes are applied to the same model. When a Profile is applied to a Package, the Classes and Stereotypes in the Profile would be merged with Classes and Stereotypes of other Profiles that have already been applied. The rules for PackageMerge can be used to define how this merge is done as they already apply to Class, and can equally apply to Stereotype which is a specialization of Class. Conflicts resulting from the merge could be considered defects against the profiles that could be handled in an RTF.

    Consider the same example above; both UPDM and SysML define ViewPoint.

    3. Profile Merge: The UPDM submitters would be careful to use ViewPoint is a manner that is semantically consistent with SysML since SysML already existed. However UPDM conuld extend ViewPoint with additional properties and associations for its purposes. The UPDM submission could note to users that ViewPoint is a stereotype in UPDM that represents a "placeholder" to ViewPoint in SysML. Users could then apply UPDM to a model, and get UPDM's ViewPoint capabilities without any coupling or need for SysML. Later on, another user could decide to apply SysML to the same model in order to use its modeling capabilities. The SysML::ViewPoint would be merged with the UPDM::ViewPoint allowing the shared semantics to be supported without making any changes to the existing model. Similarly, users could have started with SysML and later applied UPDM to achieve the same effect.

    This is a significant change to UML2, but may be an urgent issue due to the number of other profiles and submissions looking for a solution to this problem.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Regression in XMI from UML 2.1.2 to UML 2.2

  • Key: UML22-421
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12774
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NASA ( Dr. Nicolas F. Rouquette)
  • Summary:

    At 03:12 PM 8/13/2008, Pete Rivett wrote:

    Well-spotted Nicolas: though from your example fragments you’re wrong to say that at 2.2 the ends are given a generic name – they are given a generic xmi:id and no name at all!
    Both the change of name and (to a lesser extent) xmi:id, without being mandated by an issue resolution are IMHO serious bugs.
    The xmi:id case is more controversial, since xmi:ids do not in general have to be stable. However, since they are frequently used for referencing the elements from outside the file (e.g. using XMI hrefs) then for standard metamodels I think we should keep them stable.

    In fact I’d say that we should probably treat this as an urgent issue and produce a new XMI file ASAP.

    >From the difference between the 2 fragments I spotted another discrepancy/bug in UML 2.2 – there is an incorrect owningAssociation attribute on the Property. This must not be serialized since it’s the opposite of the composite owner of the Property (Association.ownedEnd) and so redundant.

    Clearly we should do more to perform diffs between the different versions of XMI files in order to catch inadvertent changes such as this.

    Pete

    From: Nicolas Rouquette [ nicolas.rouquette@jpl.nasa.gov]
    Sent: 13 August 2008 19:15
    To: uml2-rtf@omg.org; executableUMLFoundation@omg.org; Conrad Bock; Bran Selic; Ed Seidewitz; Stephen Mellor
    Subject: unalabelled association-owned memberEnd property names affect the name of an association

    I noticed strange differences between the XMI serialization of the UML superstructure in:

    UML 2.1.2, i.e: http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/20061001/Superstructure.cmof
    UML 2.2 beta1, i.e: http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ptc/08-05-12

    For example, in UML 2.1.2, we have:

    <ownedMember xmi:type="cmof:Association" xmi:id="Actions-CompleteActions-A_result_readExtentAction" name="A_result_readExtentAction" memberEnd="Actions-CompleteActions-ReadExtentAction-result Actions-CompleteActions-A_result_readExtentAction-readExtentAction">
    <ownedEnd xmi:type="cmof:Property" xmi:id="Actions-CompleteActions-A_result_readExtentAction-readExtentAction" name="readExtentAction" lower="0" type="Actions-CompleteActions-ReadExtentAction" association="Actions-CompleteActions-A_result_readExtentAction"/>
    </ownedMember>

    whereas in UML 2.2beta1, we have:

    <ownedMember xmi:type="cmof:Association" xmi:id="Actions-CompleteActions-A_result_readExtentAction" name="A_result_readExtentAction" memberEnd="Actions-CompleteActions-ReadExtentAction-result Actions-CompleteActions-A_result_readExtentAction-_ownedEnd.0">
    <ownedEnd xmi:type="cmof:Property" xmi:id="Actions-CompleteActions-A_result_readExtentAction-_ownedEnd.0" type="Actions-CompleteActions-ReadExtentAction" lower="0" owningAssociation="Actions-CompleteActions-A_result_readExtentAction" association="Actions-CompleteActions-A_result_readExtentAction"/>
    </ownedMember>

    In both cases, this association is described in Fig. 11.13 Object Actions (CompleteActions) in a way where the name of an association-owned memberEnd property isn't shown whereas the name of a class-owned memberEnd property is shown according to the conventions specified in clause 6.4.2 of the UML superstructure spec.

    http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ptc/08-05-05
    http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.1.2/Superstructure/PDF/

    The problem here is that the unlabelled association-owned memberEnd properties have been given generic names such as ownedEnd.0 instead of the convention defined in clause 6.4.2 – i.e., the name of the class with a lowercase initial.

    Is it OK for association names to change in this manner from one rev to another or is this a bug?

    Regardless of whether it is a bug or not w.r.t. current OMG specs, there is certainly a very undesirable consequence in name-level changes between revisions for a given concept when these revisions have not changed the semantics of that concept. Such incidental name-level changes create a lot of problems w.r.t. a stable notion of identity across revisions for detecting semantically-relevant changes from semantically irrelevant changes.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

Section: 2.2-2.4 compliance level clarifiction needed

  • Key: UML22-420
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12750
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: YTCA ( Trent Lillehaugen)
  • Summary:

    Section 2.2 introduces two compliance levels: L0 and LM. Section 2.3 states: "Compliance to a given level entails full realization of all language units that are defined for that compliance level. This also implies full realization of all language units in all the levels below that level. “Full realization” for a language unit at a given level means supporting the complete set of modeling concepts defined for that language unit at that level. Thus, it is not meaningful to claim compliance to, say, Level 2 without also being compliant with the Level 0 and Level 1." This is confusing as there is no such thing as Level 1 or Level 2 defined. This concept is repeated in section 2.4: "(as a rule, Level (N) includes all the packages supported by Level (N-1))" It may be worth mentioning that the superstructure document will introduce further levels on top of the infrastructure level L0. Also, if I understand it correctly: LM builds on L0, and so does L1. So we have two parallel paths of compliance: L0 <- LM and L0 <- L1 <- L2 <- L3 So how does LM fit in with the L(N) compliant is also L(N-1) compliant scheme? Do you need to specify L2 and LM compliance?

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Tue, 5 Aug 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

Unspecified constraint [1] on AcceptEventAction

  • Key: UML22-424
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12782
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NASA ( Dr. Nicolas F. Rouquette)
  • Summary:

    Source: UML 2.2 Superstructure document and XMI

    http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ptc/08-05-05
    http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ptc/08-05-12

    Nature: Unspecified OCL constraint

    Summary:

    The following constraint on AcceptEventAction (11.3.2) is unspecified:

    [1] AcceptEventActions may have no input pins.

    Discussion:

    OCL 101.

    Revised Text:

    Change the specification of the constraint to the following:

    [1] AcceptEventActions may have no input pins.
    self.input->isEmpty()

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merged with 8702

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

Incorrect OCL expression for constraint [1] on BehavioredClassifier

  • Key: UML22-423
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12781
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NASA ( Dr. Nicolas F. Rouquette)
  • Summary:

    Source: UML 2.2 Superstructure document and XMI

    http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ptc/08-05-05
    http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ptc/08-05-12

    Nature: incorrect OCL constraint

    Summary:

    The following constraint on BehavioredClassifier (13.3.4) is incorrectly specified:

    [1] If a behavior is classifier behavior, it does not have a specification.
    self.classifierBehavior->notEmpty() implies self.specification->isEmpty()

    Discussion:

    self.specification does not resolve to any attribute of BehavioredClassifier.
    self.classifierBehavior resolves to a Behavior which can have 0 or 1 BehavioralFeature specification.
    Hence, the correct OCL navigation expression should be self.classifierBehavior.specification instead of self.specification.

    Revised Text:

    Change the specification of the constraint to the following:

    [1] If a behavior is classifier behavior, it does not have a specification.
    self.classifierBehavior->notEmpty() implies self.classifierBehavior.specification->isEmpty()

    Change the Superstructure XMI accordingly.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    agreed

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

OCL 2.0 8.2 Real

  • Key: UML22-415
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12583
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Dr. Edward Willink)
  • Summary:

    OCL reuses Boolean, Integer, String, UnlimitedNatural from UML Infrastructure.

    OCL uses Real in a very similar fashion, but there is no corresponding
    definition of Real in either OCL or UML Infrastructure.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The primitive type “Real” needs to be added to the PrimitiveTypes package for consistency with the OCL Real type. “Real” has also been defined separately by SysML and MARTE specifications and the new Diagram Definition Submission, so adding it to the PrimitiveTypes package will encourage reuse.
    Another argument for adding a primitive type “Real” is that there is currently no normative way to notate real numerals in UML models. So, even if some model library adds a “Real” primitive type, there is technically still no normative way to write a literal for that type in a UML model. This suggests the need for a Real Literal definition as well.
    (Note that the revised text below presumes the resolution to Issue 13993.)

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

UML2 issue regarding RedefinableTemplateSignature

  • Key: UML22-414
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12580
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( James Bruck)
  • Summary:

    UML Superstructure V2.2, Section 17.5.9 RedefinableTemplateSignature.

    The paragraph in the "Semantics" section RedefinableTemplateSignature mentions the following:
    All the formal template parameters of the extended signatures are included as formal template parameters of the extending signature, along with any parameters locally specified for the extending signature.

    I beleive this would imply that the "parameter" feature would need to be derived which it is currently not.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    /inheritedParameter is indeed derived and is a subset of parameter, which corresponds to the semantics.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

Unspecified constraint [1] on ActivityEdge (CompleteStructuredActivities)

  • Key: UML22-427
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12785
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NASA ( Dr. Nicolas F. Rouquette)
  • Summary:

    Source: UML 2.2 Superstructure document and XMI

    http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ptc/08-05-05
    http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ptc/08-05-12

    Nature: Unspecified OCL constraint

    Summary:

    The following constraint on ActivityEdge (12.3.5) is unspecified:

    Package CompleteStructuredActivities
    [1] Activity edges may be owned by at most one structured node.

    Discussion:

    OCL 101.

    Revised Text:

    Change the specification of the constraint to the following:

    Package CompleteStructuredActivities
    [1] Activity edges may be owned by at most one structured node.
    self.inStructuredNode->notEmpty() implies
    (self.inStructuredNode.oclAsType(ActivityGroup)->includesAll(self.inGroup)
    and self.inStructuredNode.oclAsType(Element)->includes(self.owner))

    Change the Superstructure XMI accordingly.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue is obsolete. All constraints have been specified in UML 2.5.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

Unspecified constraint [2] on ActivityEdge

  • Key: UML22-426
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12784
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NASA ( Dr. Nicolas F. Rouquette)
  • Summary:

    Source: UML 2.2 Superstructure document and XMI

    http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ptc/08-05-05
    http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ptc/08-05-12

    Nature: Unspecified OCL constraint

    Summary:

    The following constraint on ActivityEdge (12.3.5) is unspecified:

    [2] Activity edges may be owned only by activities or groups.

    Discussion:

    OCL 101.

    Revised Text:

    Change the specification of the constraint to the following:

    [2] Activity edges may be owned only by activities or groups.
    self.source.activity = self.activity and self.target.activity = self.activity

    Change the Superstructure XMI accordingly.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue is obsolete. All constraints have been specified in UML 2.5.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

Unspecified constraint [2] on Activity

  • Key: UML22-429
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12787
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NASA ( Dr. Nicolas F. Rouquette)
  • Summary:

    Source: UML 2.2 Superstructure document and XMI

    http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ptc/08-05-05
    http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ptc/08-05-12

    Nature: Unspecified OCL constraint

    Summary:

    The following constraint on Activity (12.3.4) is unspecified:

    [2] An activity cannot be autonomous and have a classifier or behavioral feature context at the same time.

    Discussion:

    OCL 101.

    Revised Text:

    Change the specification of the constraint to the following:

    [2] An activity cannot be autonomous and have a classifier or behavioral feature context at the same time.
    self.isActive implies (self.getContext()>isEmpty() and self.classifierBehavior>isEmpty())

    Change the Superstructure XMI accordingly.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue is obsolete. All constraints have been specified in UML 2.5.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

Unspecified constraint [1 on Activity

  • Key: UML22-428
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12786
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NASA ( Dr. Nicolas F. Rouquette)
  • Summary:

    Source: UML 2.2 Superstructure document and XMI

    http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ptc/08-05-05
    http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ptc/08-05-12

    Nature: Unspecified OCL constraint

    Summary:

    The following constraint on Activity (12.3.4) is unspecified:

    [1] The nodes of the activity must include one ActivityParameterNode for each parameter.

    Discussion:

    OCL 101.

    Revised Text:

    Change the specification of the constraint to the following:

    [1] The nodes of the activity must include one ActivityParameterNode for each parameter.
    self.node->select(oclIsKindOf(ActivityParameterNode)).oclAsType(ActivityParameterNode).parameter->asSet()>symmetricDifference(self.ownedParameter>asSet())->isEmpty()

    Change the Superstructure XMI accordingly.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue is obsolete. All constraints have been specified in UML 2.5.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

Section 7.3.50 "substitution"

  • Key: UML22-417
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12586
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Mr. Yves Bernard)
  • Summary:

    As describe, a "Substitution" looks more like a derived property than like a relationship, except if it must be interpreted as an explicit inheritence restricted to the external contracts (with possible redefinition). The point is that is not clear with the current description

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The revised text in UML 2.5 is clearer.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

Keyword ambiguity for DataType Section

  • Key: UML22-416
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12584
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: ModelFoundry ( Sam Mancarella [X] (Inactive))
  • Summary:

    Keyword ambiguity for DataType Section 7.3.11 Describes the use of the 'dataType' keyword (along with Figure 7.36). Whereas, the example depicted in Figure 7.39 shows a DataType with the 'datatype' keyword.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

Unspecified constraint [1] on ActivityEdge

  • Key: UML22-425
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12783
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NASA ( Dr. Nicolas F. Rouquette)
  • Summary:

    Source: UML 2.2 Superstructure document and XMI

    http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ptc/08-05-05
    http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ptc/08-05-12

    Nature: Unspecified OCL constraint

    Summary:

    The following constraint on ActivityEdge (12.3.5) is unspecified:

    [1] The source and target of an edge must be in the same activity as the edge.

    Discussion:

    OCL 101.

    Revised Text:

    Change the specification of the constraint to the following:

    [1] The source and target of an edge must be in the same activity as the edge.
    self.source.activity = self.activity and self.target.activity = self.activity

    Change the Superstructure XMI accordingly

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Change the specification of the constraint to the following:

    [1] The source and target of an edge must be in the same activity as the edge.
    let edgeActivity:Set(Activity) = self.inGroup->closure(inGroup).inActivity->asSet()>union(self.activity>asSet()) in
    let sourceActivity:Set(Activity) = self.source.inGroup->closure(inGroup).inActivity->asSet() in
    let targetActivity:Set(Activity) = self.source.inGroup->closure(inGroup).inActivity->asSet() in
    edgeActivity->symmetricDifference(sourceActivity)->isEmpty() and
    edgeActivity->symmetricDifference(targetActivity)->isEmpty()

    Change the Superstructure XMI accordingly.

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

Section: 9.3.8

  • Key: UML22-422
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12775
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: YTCA ( Trent Lillehaugen)
  • Summary:

    There is an association of EncapsulatedClassifier (9.3.8) ownedPort which is derived and subsets Class::ownedAttribute. The problem I have is that I don't see how ownedPort can subset Class::ownedAttribute. I don't see an inheritance path from EncapsulatedClassifier to Class. Also, which Class is it referring to? Class (from Kernel), Class (from StructuredClasses), etc. This problem exists for all "subsets" statements in the specification. Thank you.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    It should in fact refer to StructuredClassifier::ownedAttribute

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

Section 10.3.10

  • Key: UML22-406
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12545
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Mr. Yves Bernard)
  • Summary:

    Shouldn't be a constraint or a redefinition in order to specify that the client of a manisfestation is its owning artefact?

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The requested logic is already provided because artifact subsets owner. Since artifact also subset client, the artifact is
    clearly identified as the client. No additional constraints are required.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

definition of RedefinableElement::isLeaf

  • Key: UML22-405
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12532
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( James Bruck)
  • Summary:

    Version of Spec: 2.1.1 2007--2-05, Section 7.3.46 p.130

    The definition of RedefinableElement::isLeaf indicates that "If the value is true, then it is not possible to further specialize the RedefinableElement". However there is no explicit constraint that actually enforces this (at least none that I could find). I believe that a constraint should be created to address this.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue is not a duplicate of issue 9831 which is closely related to issue 10515.

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

Behavior's parameter list

  • Key: UML22-404
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12530
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( James Bruck)
  • Summary:

    We are concerned with the UML specification forcing an Behavior's parameter list to be in sync with its behavioral feature.

    >From the UML 2.1.1 07-02-03, page 431 (or 445/732) it states in the 13.3.2 Behaviors section the following constraint:
    [1] The parameters of the behavior must match the parameters of the implemented behavioral feature

    We feel that this constraint is unnecessary. The parameter list of a Behavior element can be derived from its behavioral feature. Forcing the Behavior to have its own list of parameters has practical implementation problems such as needlessly increasing the size of the UML model, and worse, forcing one to preform the tedious task (or the tool to preform the extra overhead) of keeping the parameter lists of the Behavior and its behavioral feature in sync.

    We would like to request that this constraint is removed from the specification.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merged with 7626

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

PackageMerge relationships

  • Key: UML22-403
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12528
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Mr. Yves Bernard)
  • Summary:

    The way the PackageMerge relatrionships are used in the specification doesn't seem to be rigorous or, at least, are not clear. For instance: * §7.3.7 indicates that the "Class" from Kernel metaclass is a specialization of “Classifier (from Kernel, Dependencies, PowerTypes)”. That is not correct if you refere to the corresponding package diagram: "Class" from Kernel doesn't inherit from Dependencies and PowerType merge increment of "Classifier" * §7.3.6 "BehavioredClassifier" from Interfaces) is a merge increment of "BehavioredClassifier" from BasicBehavior) but not for "BehavioredClassifier" from Communications (it's the opposite). * etc... Then, i suggest to define PackageMerge relationships of the metamodele in a more formal way than simple diagrams and to validate that metaclass definition are consistent with these relationships.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

Section: 7.3.36

  • Key: UML22-413
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12569
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Motorola ( Andrzej Zielinski)
  • Summary:

    Problem 6. 6.1 Operation is having very wide type (Type) as an exception instance (raisedException). Theoretically it is possible that Association may be thrown as an exception. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ from Bran Selic <bran.selic@gmail.com> hide details Jun 9 to Andrzej Zielinski <072404@gmail.com> date Jun 9, 2008 7:46 PM subject Re: UML 2.x issues mailed-by gmail.com Bran Selic: Agreed. I wish that this was the only place where the metamodel suffers from overgeneralization. Unfortunately, this is almost endemic in how things are done in UML.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    If we were to constrain the type of exceptions, we might invalidate user models. There seems no reason to make a
    change here.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

Section: 11.3.30,12.3.23

  • Key: UML22-412
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12567
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Motorola ( Andrzej Zielinski)
  • Summary:

    Problem 4 4.1. Exceptions raising is provided on L2 compliance level (RaiseExceptionAction from Actions/StructuredActions) while handling is provided on L3 (ExceptionHandler from Activities/ExtraStructerdActivities). That functionality is an integrated part and raising and handling exceptions should be provided on the same compliance level. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ from Bran Selic <bran.selic@gmail.com> hide details Jun 9 to Andrzej Zielinski <072404@gmail.com> date Jun 9, 2008 7:46 PM subject Re: UML 2.x issues mailed-by gmail.com Bran Selic: Agreed. We did not focus too much on the modeling of exceptions – it was not a priority item at the time. It should probably be so now. Your work is definitely timely. Andrzej Zielinski: That is about my Ph.D thesis

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion
    This issue is obsolete. There are no compliance levels in UML 2.5.

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

Section: 13.3.3

  • Key: UML22-410
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12564
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Motorola ( Andrzej Zielinski)
  • Summary:

    Problem 2 2.1 Relation raisedException of Operation and BehavioralFeature classes not consistently set (CommonBehaviors/Communications) (L2 compliance). Operation (Classes/Kernel) (L1 compliance level ) inherits from BehavioralFeature (Classes/Kernel) (L1) and redefines raisedException to Type. On that level there is no problem. But in CommonBehaviors/Communications BehavioralFeature redefines raisedExceptions to point to Classifier. As a result Operation points to Type, while BehavioralFeature to Classifier. Classifier is more specific than Type (Classifier inherits from Type) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ from Bran Selic <bran.selic@gmail.com> hide details Jun 9 to Andrzej Zielinski <072404@gmail.com> date Jun 9, 2008 7:46 PM subject Re: UML 2.x issues mailed-by gmail.com Bran Selic: Yes, that is a problem. I will relay it on to the OMG to be officially registered.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    There does not seem to be any reason for Communications::BehavioralFeature to have a raisedException attribute. It is not used anywhere in Communications. Kernel::BehavioalrFeature already has a raisedException property that will be included when the BehavioralFeature merge increments are actually merged.

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

Section: 12.2

  • Key: UML22-411
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12565
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Motorola ( Andrzej Zielinski)
  • Summary:

    Problem 1 Some classes in certain packages are abstract, while they are not in packages that are on a higher (or the same) compliance level. 1.3. Pin in Activities/BasicActivities (L1 compliance level) (Fig. 12.4 p.299 ) and Activities/CompleteActivities (L3) (Fig.12.16 p. 305) are not abstract, while in they are in package ActionsBasicActions (L1) (Fig. 11.3 p. 221) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ from Bran Selic <bran.selic@gmail.com> hide details Jun 9 to Andrzej Zielinski <072404@gmail.com> date Jun 9, 2008 7:46 PM subject Re: UML 2.x issues mailed-by gmail.com Bran Selic: Yes, that is a problem. I will relay it on to the OMG to be officially registered.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    agreed

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

The behavior of an OpaqueExpression should itself be opaque

  • Key: UML22-408
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12557
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Mr. Yves Bernard)
  • Summary:

    The behavior of an OpaqueExpression should itself be opaque

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Under Subclause 13.3.21, it says that the extension to OpaqueExpression "Provides a mechanism for precisely defining the behavior of an opaque expression." It is hard to see how one can precisely define behavior, if the behavior is itself opaque. Indeed, specifying the behavior of an OpaqueExpression with, say, an activity is the only way to model an expression in UML in terms of executable actions, so this should not be precluded.
    Revised Text:
    None.
    Disposition: Closed No Change

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

Section: 13.3.23

  • Key: UML22-409
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12558
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Mr. Yves Bernard)
  • Summary:

    The multiplicity of the "signal" property of a Reception is [0..1]. What's the semantic of a Reception that would be associated with no signal?

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Areception should be required to specify a signal.

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

Classifiers

  • Key: UML22-402
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12516
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Mr. Yves Bernard)
  • Summary:

    Classifiers are specialized to hold useCase properties in the UseCases package but this package is not merged/imported by any other ones. Does it formally mean that - for instance - no version of the metaclass "Class" should be able to hold use cases?

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Wed, 4 Jun 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

Section: 7.3.35

  • Key: UML22-407
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12556
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Airbus Group ( Mr. Yves Bernard)
  • Summary:

    In order to be complinat with the semantics, "body" and "language" properties of an OpaqueExpression shall be ordered

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Packaging Issues with Stereotype Extension

  • Key: UML22-468
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13306
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Mr. Ed Seidewitz)
  • Summary:

    Section: 18.3.2 (Extension)

    Extension::metaclass has the type Class. When the Profiles package is merged into L2, Profiles::Class is merged into L2::Class. This means that the metaclass for an extension has to be represented as a UML Class (at L2 or, after further merging, at L3).

    However, the UML abstract syntax metamodel is not actually a UML model, but a CMOF model. This means that UML metaclasses are instances of CMOF::Class, not UML::Class (at L2 or L3). This means that it is not possible to actually construct a stereotype extension that points to a metaclass representation of the correct type.

    UML tools currently get around this my referencing metaclasses from a version of the UML abstract syntax metamodel that is expressed in terms of UML L3, rather than CMOF. Or they just don't worry about the type checking. But that is not technically correct, and it means that stereotypes in each tool are referencing non-normative representations of the UML metamodel, rather than standard metaclass object IDs.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The problem is resolved by shipping a normative version of the UML metamodel expressed in terms of UML, and changing the text accordingly.
    A couple of decisions need making about this metamodel, which we?ve discussed extensively in email:
    1. Which compliance level of UML is used to create it? We?ll use the lowest compliance level that we can, which is L1. This means we cannot use Model, so the root of the metamodel will be a uml:Package.
    2. Do we apply any stereotypes such as «metamodel» or «metaclass» in the normative UML model? The answer is no and follows from (1): since we don?t use Model, we cannot use «metamodel». Also, using stereotypes in order to specify stereotypes (see 14092) might give circularity or fixed-point issues. We are justified in omitting these by the wording of PresentationOptions in 18.3.1: “A Class that is extended by a Stereotype may be extended by the optional stereotype «metaclass» …”

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

inconsistency with how constraints are specified in UML and OCL

  • Key: UML22-467
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13258
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( James Bruck)
  • Summary:

    In OCL 2.0 specification, section Operation Body Expression, it specifies that
    expression must conform to the result type of the operation.

    However, in UML 2.1.2 specificaiton, it is specified that bodyCondition of an
    operation is a constratin which must evaluates to a boolean expression.

    The problem is that UML equates the term "constraint" with "boolean-valued
    expression that holds true at some time." The OCL usage of the term is not so
    narrow. A constraint is a model element that specifies more precise semantics
    for another model element than what its structure alone can achieve.

    So, for example, an attribute constrains its values to conform to some type,
    but a derivation expression (whose value conforms to the attribute type) more
    precisely constrains its values. Likewise the operation body expression
    constrains the value of an operation by computing it from the parameters and
    the context object. Note that OCL actually calls this constraint a "body
    expression," not a "body condition" as UML does. OCL's notion of "constraint"
    even extends to definition of helper operations and attributes.

    Consider what it means to require boolean values for operation body
    constraints. They must be formulated like postconditions, as boolean
    expressions on the "result" variable. In OCL, the body condition does not have
    a "result" variable; only post-conditions have it. Furthermore, consider an
    example: an operation phi() defined in the Real primitive type. According to
    UML's rules, it could be defined like this:

    context Real::phi() : Real
    body: result = (1.0 + 5.0.sqrt()) / 2.0

    or like this:

    context Real::phi() : Real
    body: (result - 1.0) = (1.0 / result)

    These are isomorphic constraints, but neither is friendly to OCL tool
    implementations (certainly not the second). According to OCL, the constraint
    would by formulated like this:

    context Real::phi() : Real
    body: (1.0 + 5.0.sqrt()) / 2.0

    and there really is no other kind of formulation. IMO, this is much more
    practical for all concerned.

    Consider an operation that has parameters, for which I write an ineffectual
    body constraint like this:

    context Foo::doSomething(bar1 : Bar, bar2 : Bar) : Baz
    body: bar1 <> bar2

    What does this mean?

    All in all, it is far mare useful to have an OCL expression that can readily be
    evaluated to compute the value of the operation. This leaves no room for
    ambiguity.

    The UML stipulation that Constraints in all contexts must be boolean
    expressions, as in operation precondition and classifier invariant context, is
    unnecessary. What is the benefit? It would be nice to see it removed in UML
    2.3.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    merged with 15259

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

Allowing multiple Associations in a Package with the same name

  • Key: UML22-470
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13330
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    I had a recent ‘argument’ with Steve Cook on his blog. There is a lot of confusion with regards to whether there can be multiple Associations with the same name in a Package. Steve made the valid point that Association does not redefine “isDistinguishableFrom”, which it gets from being a NamedElement. This is overridden for BehavioralFeature, but not for Association, thus based on that rule from NamedElement, I assume that there may not be multiple Associations with the same name (including empty) in a Package.

    However, I came across the following cases that seem to ignore this notion:

    1) In the rules for PackageMerge (7.3.40), they allow for the ability to have multiple Associations with the same name by taking into account their member ends: “Elements that are a kind of Association match by name (including if they have no name) and by their association ends where those match by name and type (i.e., the same rule as properties).”

    2) The MOF 2.0 XMI file almost never names its’ Associations, thus having many Associations with the same name.

    3) The UML 2.1.1 Superstructure XMI file also has multiple associations with the same name. As an example, see the package with id “AuxiliaryConstructs-Templates”. It owns 3 associations with the name “A_templateParameter_parameteredElement” (ids “A_templateParameter_parameteredElement”, “A_templateParameter_parameteredElement.1” and “A_templateParameter_parameteredElement.2”).

    Is it intended that multiple Associations with the same name be allowed in a Package or not? If not, then we need to fix Superstructure, MOF, and we can also relax the PackageMerge rule for Associations. If we do allow it, then we should add a new redefinition of “isDistinguishableFrom” for Association that specifies a similar rule to the one described in PackageMerge, that an Association type is distinguishable from another Association if the set of its name and the names of all its member ends is not equal to the corresponding set of the other Association.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    A redefine of isDistinguishableFrom for Association is not desired. As such, the PackageMerge rule for Association, which implies the possibility of multiple Associations in a Package with the same name, including if they have no name, provided their member ends differ in some way, is to be amended as it can result in ill-formed merged Packages. This is supported by the following 2 constraints:

    1. MOF 2.0 Specification, under section "12.4 EMOF Constraints" there is the following constraint (which would be violated if the Associations have no name):
    "[3] Names are required for all Types and Properties (though there is nothing to prevent these names being automatically generated by a tool)."

    2. In "9.14.2 Namespace" of the UML 2.1.2 Infrastructure Specification there is the following constraint (which would be violated if the Associations have the same name):
    "[1] All the members of a Namespace are distinguishable within it."

    As such, explicit rules are also to be added to PackageMerge requiring well-formedness of the merged Package.

    The XMI elements cited as examples of clashing Association names are to be renamed.

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

P479L.14 Section "Notation" in 14.3.10 ExecutionOccurences - Typo

  • Key: UML22-469
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13327
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Architecture Technology Institute ( Hiroshi Miyazaki)
  • Summary:

    Regarding UML 2.2 Superstructure

    P479L.14 Section "Notation" in 14.3.10 ExecutionOccurences

    ExecutionOccurences
    ~~

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Figure 18.2 (which describes the contents of the Profiles package) is currently misleading

  • Key: UML22-472
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13844
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PTC ( Phillip Astle)
  • Summary:

    Figure 18.2 (which describes the contents of the Profiles package) is currently misleading. On this diagram the majority of the elements have their specializations to infrastructure elements shown (either directly or indirectly). However, Class and Package (which are also infrastructure specializations) do not have their specializations shown. This makes them appear to be the superstructure Class and Package when they aren't (as the diagram is being shown in the context of the superstructure specification). I suggest that you add the missing specializations to make the diagram clearer. Due to the differences between infrastructure Class and superstructure Class, you wouldn't want to confuse them.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

ParameterableElement as a formal template parameter

  • Key: UML22-466
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13257
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( James Bruck)
  • Summary:

    Say we want to expose a ParameterableElement as a formal template parameter.
    If we want to create the following List<E>, then the template parameter would refer to some parameterable element E whose type we would have to choose (say uml:Class).
    Now, say we wanted to create List< Interface >, or List < Class >, or List < DataType >. I don't think we would be able to then create TemplateParameterSubstitution for all these elements since the type of formal and actual parameters are inconsistent.

    The problem is that we must pick a concrete type for that ParameterableElement - we can't for example use Classifier as the template parameter because it's abstract.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This is a general issue with the way TemplateParameters are handled in the UML abstract syntax, and it would require
    a major change in the approach to templates to resolve it in general. However, the specific (and most common) case
    mentioned in the issue, that of a template for which it is desired to expose a Classifier as a parameter, is actually
    covered by a special case in the specification.
    In the UML 2.5 specification, subclause 9.3.3 describes the semantics of ClassifierTemplateParameters, which are
    TemplateParameters where the parameteredElement is a Classifier, optionally constrained by a set of constraining-
    Classifiers. Toward the end of this section, it says “if the constrainingClassifier property is empty, there are no constraints
    on the Classifier that can be used as an argument.” Thus, in defining a template List<E>, it is possible for the
    parameteredElement of the formal TemplateParameter E to be a Class, but to still, in a binding for List, substitute for
    E with an argument that is any kind of Classifer (including Interface, DataType, etc.).
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

UML. Clarify relationship of Substitution and InterfaceRealization

  • Key: UML22-465
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13164
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Mr. Steve Cook)
  • Summary:

    The specification of ClassifierTemplateParameter has a flag allowSubstitutable. The definition of ClassifierTemplateParameter::constrainingClassifier says “If the allowSubstitutable attribute is true, then any classifier that is compatible with this constraining classifier can be substituted”. What does “compatible” mean? If we look in Templates::Classifier we find this:

    Semantic Variation Points If template parameter constraints apply, then the actual classifier is constrained as follows. If the classifier template parameter:

    • has a generalization, then an actual classifier must have generalization with the same general classifier.

    • has a substitution, then an actual classifier must have a substitution with the same contract.

    • has neither a generalization nor a substitution, then an actual classifier can be any classifier.

    If template parameter constraints do not apply, then an actual classifier can be any classifier.

    Firstly, the spec for classifier template parameters needs to clarify what compatible means; and this clarification must surely include the possibility that the relationship between the constrainingClassifier and the template parameter can be an InterfaceRealization as well as a Substitution.

    Secondly, this text for Semantic Variation Points is weird. Presumably it means that the constraints on substitutability of ClassifierTemplateParameter are a SVP. If so it should say so, and the SVP text should be under ClassifierTemplateParameter.

    Finally, it appears that given the existence of Substitution, InterfaceRealization is completely redundant. A good simplification would be to eliminate InterfaceRealization altogether; failing that to make it a subclass of Substitution to clarify that it has contract compatibility semantics.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Most of this issue is obsolete: these semantic variation points have been clarified in the text. Changing the metamodel
    as suggested in the final point would be too disruptive.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

UML2 section 8.3.1 OCL derivations on Component.provided and Component.required are still invalid

  • Key: UML22-462
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13146
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Mr. Steve Cook)
  • Summary:

    The OCL definitions of how Component.provided and Component.required are still invalid, even though they were altered in 2.2. The subexpressions self.implementation and self.realizingClassifier, which appear in both derivations, are not valid: there are no such properties on Component.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Fri, 5 Dec 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    It seems that the first "let" clause of each constraint is supposed to do what the second "let" actually does. So we'll delete the first one.

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

transitionkind Constraints

  • Key: UML22-464
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13163
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Individual ( Jerry Wang)
  • Summary:

    In transitionkind Constraints, the document said: [1] The source state of a transition with transition kind local must be a composite state. [2] The source state of a transition with transition kind external must be a composite state. Does these two constraint means that simple state can not have a outgoing transition?

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The cited constraints are not present in the UML 2.5 version of the spec.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

UML 2.2 figure 8.10 has arrows the wrong way around

  • Key: UML22-463
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13147
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Mr. Steve Cook)
  • Summary:

    The dependencies in 8.10 should surely point from the Component (the client) to the realizing Classifiers (the suppliers). Also there is a redundant sentence “Alternatively, they may be nested within the component shape” above that figure which is repeated below.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Fri, 5 Dec 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The first part of this issue is wrong (see resolution to 11008 for explanation). The notation for the diagram is wrong which will be fixed by 10651.
    The second part is correct.

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

UML2.2 Section 9.3.1 Presentation Options section

  • Key: UML22-461
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13142
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Mr. Steve Cook)
  • Summary:

    The Presentation Options section of 9.3.1 seems both inappropriately named and in entirely the wrong place. It is about usage dependencies, constructors and instance specifications and should appear somewhere in chapter 7.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Thu, 4 Dec 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

UML 2.2 Section 9.3.1 nested classes paragrpah in wrong chapter

  • Key: UML22-460
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13141
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Mr. Steve Cook)
  • Summary:

    In Section 9.3.1 the second paragraph starts “A class acts as the namespace ...”. This semantic about nested classes is part of normal classes and should be moved to 7.3.7.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Thu, 4 Dec 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

Figure 2.2 contains more than four packages, description referes to four packages

  • Key: UML22-471
  • Legacy Issue Number: 13665
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Institute for Defense Analyses ( Steven Wartik)
  • Summary:

    In the paragraph describing Figure 2.2, the text refers to "four packages". Figure 2.2 contains more than four packages. The corresponding figure in Version 2.0 of the Superstructure displayed four packages; presumably the text wasn't updated along with the figure.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Mon, 9 Mar 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

Behaviors Owned by State Machines

  • Key: UML22-327
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11076
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Mr. Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    State and Transition currently own the behaviors that they invoke. This is very restrictive because it makes it impossible to reuse Behaviors across state machines, or even across transitions and states.

    Consider allowing States and Transitions to merely reference behaviors rather than owning them.

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Fri, 25 May 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Interesting idea, but it's too large a change to be considered for the current RTF. This therefore needs to be postponed to a more major revision, when we will have time to investigate this proposal and see if and how it can be accommodated.

    Revised Text:
    N/A
    Disposition: Closed, out of scope

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

Section: 12.3.41 Streaming parameters for actions

  • Key: UML22-326
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11069
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    Semantics, 2nd paragraph about streaming: "Streaming parameters give an action access to tokens passed from its invoker while the action is executing. Values for streaming parameters may arrive anytime during the execution of the action, not just at the beginning." Since an action represents a single step and is atomic. I think it is not possible that an atomic action comsumes further parameters during execution.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Fri, 25 May 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The stated issue presumes that action execution is atomic, which is not necessarily the case, and is certainly not the case for a call action to a behavior with streaming parameters. The whole point of streaming parameters is the semantics given in the quoted sentence, and they would be useless if this was not possible.
    However, the quoted sentence is poorly worded, since it is behaviors that have parameters and are invoked, not actions. This may be causing the confusion and should be corrected.

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

Section: 13.3.24

  • Key: UML22-316
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10960
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Mr. Anders Ek)
  • Summary:

    There is an association defined for the Signal metaclass as follows: signal: Signal [1] The signal that is associated with this event. It is unclear what this associaiton is intended to represent. Should this association really be there?

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Disucssion: Duplicate of 9576. Disposition: Duplicate

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

Section: 15.3.14

  • Key: UML22-315
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10959
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Mr. Adam Neal)
  • Summary:

    On page 569 in section 15.3.4 (Transitions), constaint # 5 identifies which outgoing transitions, given their source pseudostates, may not have triggers: [5] Transitions outgoing pseudostates may not have a trigger. source.oclIsKindOf(Pseudostate) and ((source.kind <> #junction) and (source.kind <> #join) and (source.kind <> #initial)) implies trigger->isEmpty() This OCL is incorrect since transitions leaving either a Junction Point, Initial State or a Join should not have triggers. The given OCL specifies the inverse - that only those pseudostates may have triggers. One contradiction to the above OCL exists on page 537 in section 15.3.8 (Pseudostates), constraint #9: [9] The outgoing transition from an initial vertex may have a behavior, but not a trigger or guard. (self.kind = PseudostateKind::initial) implies (self.outgoing.guard->isEmpty() and self.outgoing.trigger->isEmpty()) Furthermore, transitions leaving a fork are also not allowed triggers (constraint #1), so this could also be contained in the transition's OCL constraint (#5). Therefore the OCL for constraint #5 should be written as: [5] Transitions outgoing pseudostates may not have a trigger. source.oclIsKindOf(Pseudostate) and ((source.kind = #junction) or (source.kind = #join) or (source.kind = #initial) or (source.kind = #fork)) implies trigger->isEmpty()

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Text has already been fixed in the UML 2.2 specification to be
    [5] Transitions outgoing pseudostates may not have a trigger (except for those coming out of the initial pseudostate).
    (source.oclIsKindOf(Pseudostate) and
    (source.kind <> #initial)) implies trigger->isEmpty()
    which resolves the above issue

    Revised Text:
    N/A

    Disposition: ClosedNoChange

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

Wrong subsets

  • Key: UML22-321
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11008
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    Realization is a specialized abstraction relationship between two sets of model elements, one representing a specification (the supplier) and the other represents an implementation of the latter (the client).

    ComponentRealization incorrectly subsets supplier to define realizing Classifiers (implementation).

    Required changes:

    "abstraction" must subset "supplier" and "realizingClassifier" must subset "client".

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Wed, 16 May 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Section 7.3.45 does indeed make it clear that the specification is the supplier and the implementation is the client. The implementation depends upon the specification; the specification does not depend upon the implementation.

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

Section: 15.3.11

  • Key: UML22-320
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10976
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Paranor AG ( Earl Waldin)
  • Summary:

    State.stateInvariant should subset ownedRule The stateInvariant property of State currently subsets Element.ownedElement. Given that a State is a Namespace and a stateInvariant is a Constraint, the stateInvariant property of State should subset ownedRule. Likewise, the opposite end of this association should subset Constraint.context instead of Element.owner. This change is needed so that a state invariant has a context and, thus, can be specified using OCL.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

information flow source and target

  • Key: UML22-328
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11090
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    UML 2.1.1 includes fix - "source" and "target" of InformationFlow are renamed to "informationSource" and "informationTarget".
    These changes are made in diagrams, but not in text under InformationFlow chapter (17.2.1).

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Wed, 6 Jun 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

description of 14.3.24 MessageSort (from BasicInteractions) - typo

  • Key: UML22-318
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10967
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Mr. Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    On page 495, in the description of 14.3.24 MessageSort (from BasicInteractions) , the definition of createMessage seems not to start on a new line, instead following straight on from the definition of asynchSignal

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

drawing a frame to represent Combined Fragment or an Interaction Occurrence

  • Key: UML22-317
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10966
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Mr. Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    I seem to remember that when drawing a frame to represent a Combined Fragment or an Interaction Occurrence there is a notation that indicates whether a given lifeline overlapped by the frame is actually covered by the fragment/occurrence or not. I believe that it hinged on whether the frame obscured the lifeline or not. However, I can't find reference to it in the spec. It would be good to have this notation described with an example, to avoid different vendors inventing their own notations.

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion: It is correct that there is no such notation suggested in the standard. The ITU standard Z.120 has a specific notation for lifelines that are not covered by a combined fragment, but we have not included that in UML 2. The reason, I believe, is that it is basically a matter of taste whether you want to include as covered in a combined fragment a lifeline that has no internal fragments (such as occurrence specifications). Disposition: Closed, no change

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

Section: 14 Interactions: Lifeline representing an actor

  • Key: UML22-325
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11068
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    It is common usage to model a lifeline in a interaction that represents an actor. I can't see how that could be done formally correct. A lifeline represents a connectable element, e.g. a property. It is not allowed to define a property that is typed by an actor.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Fri, 25 May 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 9 Composite Structures / Port notation

  • Key: UML22-324
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11067
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    It is unclear if it is allowed to show the provided and required interfaces of a port in a composite structure diagram (ball and socket notation). That notation is already used for example in SysML. However I can't find the definition of it.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Fri, 25 May 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Ball and socket notation is only allowed for Components.

    Revised Text:

    Disposition: Closed, no change.

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

Section: 16.3.2 Classifier (from UseCases)

  • Key: UML22-323
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11055
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    The notation section of the classifier refers to the standard notation for nested classifiers. 1. I can't find that standard notation in the spec. 2. Nested classifiers are a feature of classes and not of classifiers. It seems that nesting and owning of classifiers is mixed up here

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Wed, 23 May 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section 18.3.1

  • Key: UML22-322
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11054
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Mr. Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    18.3.1 – Class claims that it is a merge increment on InfrastructureLibrary::Constructs::Class, when in fig 18.1 it seems that Profile merely imports Constructs rather than merging it.

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Thu, 24 May 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Duplicate of 9830

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

Section: Common Behavior - isReentrant should default to true

  • Key: UML22-247
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9873
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Mr. Ed Seidewitz)
  • Summary:

    isReentrant should default to true

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Having isReentrant default to false, as it currently does, means that, by default, there can be no concurrent invocations of a behavior, nor can a behavior be recursive. This does not seem to be the normal expectation of modelers when they model the invocation of behavior. Rather, the expected default it that behaviors are reentrant-with the ability to declare them not to be if that makes sense.
    On the other hand, it is often the case that, within an activity modeling, for example, a business or manufacturing process, an action invoking a behavior may be locally non-reentrant, in the sense that one invocation must complete before a new one can begin, because there is only a single performer to carry out the action. However, this case is more specifically addressed by Issue 6111. Once this is resolved at the local level, the default for the "global" isReentrant property on Behavior can be allowed to default to true, while "local" reentrancy for actions defaults to false.

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

Actions on non-unique properties with location specified

  • Key: UML22-246
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9870
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Mr. Ed Seidewitz)
  • Summary:

    Actions on non-unique properties with location specified. Clarify what happens in the actions applying to non-unique features / association ends when they specify location and an existing value (eg, RemoveStructuralFeature and Destroy actions) if the value to be acted on is not at the position specified.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Currently, the WriteStructuralFeatureAction and WriteVariableAction superclasses specify a required value input pin, so all kinds of write structural feature actions must have such a pin in all cases. However, when a removeAt pin is required for a RemoveStructuralFeatureValueAction or RemoveVariableValueAction (that is, when the feature or variable is ordered and non-unique and isRemoveDuplicates is false), the expectation is that whatever value is at the given position is removed. Having to provide any value at all is counterintuitive. If the value is ignored, then it is pointless. If the value has to be the same as the value at the given position, then it is extremely inconvenient and redundant to have to read the value at that position just to remove it!
    Therefore, the remove value actions should not have a value input pin in the case they are required to have a removeAt pin. This means that the value input pin should be optional in the write action superclasses, but should then be constrained to be required for the add value actions.

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

Section: Actions - Output of read actions for no values

  • Key: UML22-243
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9863
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Mr. Ed Seidewitz)
  • Summary:

    Output of read actions for no values. In the various read actions (links, structural features, variables), what is the output when there are no values read? Is it a null token or no tokens at all?

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Suppose the result output pin of a read action is connected by an object flow to an action with an input pin with a multiplicity lower bound of zero. Assuming the second action has no other inputs or incoming control flows, it still will not fire unless it receives some token on its input pin (note that this semantic interpretation of enabled actions is explicit in the Foundational UML specification). Thus, if the read action produces no token in the case that no values are read, then the second action will not fire, even though its input is optional. In order to ensure that the second action can actually fire with no input values, it would be necessary to also model an explicit control flow from the read action to the second action, which is inconvenient and can lead to ordering and sequencing issues between control and object tokens in the case when the read action does produce values.
    On the other hand, if the read action produces a null token when no values are read, then this will be offered to the second action, which can accept it, since its input multiplicity allows the case of no values. The second action will thus fire with an empty input, as would be intuitively expected. Note that if the second action's input pin had a multiplicity lower bound greater than zero, the semantics would not be effected by the offering of a null token, since this still would not provide the minimum number of values required for the action to fire.
    Therefore, in the framework of the token offer semantics of activities, it makes the most sense for a read action to produce a null token when there are no values to read. Note that this is also consistent with the semantics for call actions implied by the statement in Subclause 12.3.41 that if, at the time an activity finishes execution, "some output parameter nodes are empty…they are assigned null tokens", in which case one would expect the null tokens to be offered by the corresponding output pins of a call action for the activity. That is, call actions should also offer null tokens in the case that an output has no values.

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

Section: Actions - InputPin semantics wording

  • Key: UML22-242
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9862
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Mr. Ed Seidewitz)
  • Summary:

    InputPin semantics wording. In Actions, InputPin, Semantic, second sentence, replace "how many values" with "the maximum number of values that can be".

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    accepted

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

Section: Activities - Output pin semantics clarification

  • Key: UML22-245
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9869
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Mr. Ed Seidewitz)
  • Summary:

    Output pin semantics clarification. The current semantics for Action says it won't complete without the output pins having the minimum number of tokens, as specified by the minimum multiplicity. It should be clarified that the output values are not put in the output pins until it the action completes, so the tokens already in the output pins are not included in meeting the minimum multiplicity.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    agreed

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

Section: Activities - ForkNode semantics wording

  • Key: UML22-244
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9868
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Mr. Ed Seidewitz)
  • Summary:

    ForkNode semantics wording. In semantics of ForkNode, the phrase "keep their copy in an implicit FIFO queue until it can be accepted by the target" should not be different from other situations of ordered offers to refusing targets. In particular, it should be refined to clarify that the acceptance of offers by a fork is the same as acceptance by object nodes in the sense that they can't be revoked once accepted, and that for the edges leading to refusing targets, the offers are standing along those edges in the order they were received.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    In general, the ForkNode semantics needs to be more carefully worded in terms of offers of tokens, rather than just the tokens themselves "arriving" at a fork node.

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

Section: Activities - Preserving order of multiple tokens offered.

  • Key: UML22-241
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9861
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Mr. Ed Seidewitz)
  • Summary:

    Preserving order of multiple tokens offered. In Activities, ActivityEdge, when tokens are offered in groups, for example for weight greater than 1, if the source and target are pins, the multiplicity ordering of the source node, if any, should be preserved in the target node.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The real issue is preserving the ordering of offers as made by the source, whether the source is a pin or not. The relationship of multiplicity ordering on pins to the ordering of offers is handled by the resolution to Issue 9860.

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

definition of 'isCompatibleWith' for ValueSpecification

  • Key: UML22-375
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12251
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: OFFIS e.V. ( Christian Mrugalla)
  • Summary:

    The definition of 'isCompatibleWith' for ValueSpecification starts with 'Property::isCompatibleWith[...]', instead it has to start with 'ValueSpecification::isCompatibleWith[...]'.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

formal definitions of 'isCompatibleWith' (pages 622, 647, 649)

  • Key: UML22-374
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12250
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: OFFIS e.V. ( Christian Mrugalla)
  • Summary:

    The three formal definitions of 'isCompatibleWith' start with: 'isCompatibleWith = p->oclIsKindOf(self.oclType) and [...]'. This is wrong, p and self have to be swapped, that is: 'isCompatibleWith = self.oclIsKindOf(p.oclType) and [...]'. Rationale: As defined in the OCL-specification formal/06-05-01, the function 'oclIsKindOf(t)' determines if t is either the direct type or one of the supertypes of the object, on which this function is called. That is, if the function returns true, the type t is a generalization or equal to the type of the current object. The corresponding has to be valid for 'isCompatibleWith(p)': If the function returns true, the type of p has to be the same or a generalization of the type of the object, on which this function is called (otherwise, the constraints [1] of 17.5.4 and 17.5.5 would make no sense).

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agreed. (The operations in question are ParameterableElement::isCompatibleWith, ValueSpecification::
    isCompatibleWith and Property::isCompatibleWith.)
    This also resolves Issue 17870.

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

association 'ownedTemplateSignature' of a Classifier

  • Key: UML22-373
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12244
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: OFFIS e.V. ( Christian Mrugalla)
  • Summary:

    For the association 'ownedTemplateSignature' of a Classifier, 'Subsets Element::ownedElement' is specified. This should be replaced by 'Redefines TemplateableElement::ownedTemplateSignature' (because a Classifier inherits 'ownedTemplateSignature' from its superclass TemplateableElement). Correspondingly, in figure 17.18 '

    {subsets ownedElement}

    ' should be replaced by '

    {redefines ownedTemplateSignature}

    '.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

term 'templatedElement' not defined

  • Key: UML22-376
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12252
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: OFFIS e.V. ( Christian Mrugalla)
  • Summary:

    There are two occurrences of the term 'templatedElement' in the Standard (both in an OCL-expression), but this term is nowhere defined. I propose to replace 'templatedElement' by 'template' on page 629 respectively 'Template::templatedElement' by 'TemplateSignature::template' on page 636.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

Usage of "Element::ownedMember"

  • Key: UML22-309
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10829
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Andreas Maier)
  • Summary:

    In the Superstructure spec 2.1.1, there are a few occurences where an
    association end "ownedMember" in metaclass "Element" is referenced.
    This should be changed to reference the end "ownedElement" instead.

    The places I found, are:
    "Class::nestedClassifier"
    "Enumeration::ownedLiteral"
    "DataType::ownedAttribute"
    "DataType::ownedOperation"

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    According to the metamodel diagrams,

    {subsets ownedMember}

    would refer to the closest inherited ownedMember attribute which would be Namespace, not Element. For example, see figure 7.12.
    Change all references of Element::ownedMember to Namespace::ownedMember.

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

Consistency in description of ends owned by associations

  • Key: UML22-308
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10827
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Andreas Maier)
  • Summary:

    In the Superstructure spec 2.1.1, association ends owned by
    associations between UML metaclasses are not currently described in
    the descriptions of the metaclasses. Only ends owned by the
    associated classes are. In the abstract syntax diagrams, in a few
    cases, ends owned by the associations have labels and/or other
    specifications.

    It is quite confusing to not mention those association ends in some
    places, but to mention them in others. If the end is important enough
    to be described, this should be done consistently. If the end is
    irrelevant enough not to be described, it should consistently not be
    described (and thus be subject to the default naming rules).

    I suggest to establish consistency by determining for each such end,
    whether it is relevant or not to describe it. If it is relevant to
    describe it, then the end should be labeled in the diagrams, and it
    should be described in the metaclass descriptions. Otherwise, the end
    should be unlabeled and have no specifications in the diagrams and
    should not be described in the metaclass descriptions.

    Here is the set of ends owned by associations that is labeled in
    diagrams:
    Figure 7.5: "ValueSpecification::owningUpper"
    Figure 7.5: "ValueSpecification::owningLower"
    Figure 7.6: "ValueSpecification::expression"
    Figure 7.7: "ValueSpecification::owningConstraint"
    Figure 7.8: "ValueSpecification::owningSlot"
    Figure 7.8: "ValueSpecification::owningInstanceSpec"
    Figure 7.10: "ValueSpecification::owningParameter"
    Figure 7.10: "Parameter::ownerFormalParam"
    Figure 7.11: "Constraint::preContext"
    Figure 7.11: "Constraint::postContext"
    Figure 7.11: "Constraint::bodyContext"
    Figure 7.12: "ValueSpecification::owningProperty"
    Figure 7.12: "Classifier::class"
    Figure 7.14: "PackageableElement::owningPackage"
    Figure 7.15: "NamedElement::supplierDependency"

    Here is the set of ends owned by associations that is unlabeled but
    has specifications in diagrams:
    Figure 7.16: The right end of the aggregation between "Property"
    and "Interface" has a "

    {subsets ...}

    " specification.

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 12.3.30

  • Key: UML22-306
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10818
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: ELIOP ( Ignacio Gonzalez)
  • Summary:

    Figur 12.95 - Fork node example has an error. Instead of: |-> Fill Order Fill Order -->| |> Send Invoice It should be: |> Ship Order Fill Order -->| |-> Send Invoice

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    agreed

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

Section: 15.3.12

  • Key: UML22-312
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10832
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Delphi ( Kirk Bailey)
  • Summary:

    The problem is with the definition of the ancestor query on page 559. I believe that the algorithm, as stated, determines whether s1 is an ancestor of s2, not whether s2 is an ancestor of s1.

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This method is testing that s2 is nested within s1, and such s1 would be the ancestor. The method description is therefore wrong and needs to be fixed as suggested.
    Furthermore, the check that s1 has a container has no bearing on whether s2 is contained within it. And the parameters of the function accept states but we are passing the container which will be a region.

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

"PackageableElement::visibility" uses "false" as default value

  • Key: UML22-311
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10831
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Andreas Maier)
  • Summary:

    In the Superstructure spec 2.1.1, the description of
    "PackageableElement::visibility" says: "Default value is false."
    However, "false" is not a valid value for the type "VisibilityKind".

    I suggest that the default visibility be defined as "public". While
    it may make sense for properties in a class to be private by default,
    this is not the case for packageable elements, here it makes way more
    sense to have a public default. The description should be changed
    accordingly.

    Second, the UML Metamodel CMOF files define metaclass
    "PackageableElement" to be a specialization of metaclass
    "NamedElement" without redefining "visibility". However, the
    metaclass description in the superstructure spec does redefine
    "visibility". The CMOF files should be adjusted to make the same
    redefinitions the description makes.

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Regarding the first point,.PackageableElement::visibility already has „public? as a default value in the normative CMOF models, so the description in the spec text needs to be corrected as suggested in the issue.
    Regarding the second point, PackageableElement::visibility in the CMOF models already redefines NamedElement::visibility, matching the spec doc, so no change is needed.

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

Mismatch between Superstructure ptc/06-04-02 and XML Schema ptc/06-04-05

  • Key: UML22-302
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10778
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MID GmbH ( Mr. Detlef Peters)
  • Summary:

    Possible Mismatch between Superstructure ptc/06-04-02 and XML Schema ptc/06-04-05

    Please clarify the effects of the merge increments of 'Class' on its descendants, esp. on the 'Behavior' subtypes. IMHO the fact that 'behavior' inherits from 'Class (from Kernel)' implies that in turn it does NOT inherit features from 'BehavioredClassifier' or 'EncapsulatedClassifier' even on Compliance level L1. This would mean that e.g. an interaction may not have ownedPorts or ownedBehaviors, but nestedClassifier.

    If this is not the case, please clarify the precedence between the merge and inheritance constructs.
    Example:
    L1 (as seen in Fig. 2.2) merges Kernel, BasicBehaviors and InternalStructures and thus provides the 'Class', 'BehavioredClassifier' and 'EncapsulatedClassifier' constructs simultanously.

    • If inheritance comes before merging (which is what the diagrams suggest), 'Behavior' will have neither ownedPorts nor ownedBehaviors.
    • If merging comes before inheritance (which is what the XSD suggests), 'Behavior' will both have ownedPorts and ownedBehaviors.

    In the second case, the question arises that if even in L1 the three constructs mentioned above are provided, why does 'Behavior' not simply inherit from 'Class (from StructuredClasses)', directly being an EncapsulatedClassifier?

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Page: 155, 162

  • Key: UML22-301
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10651
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: DMR Consulting ( Jasmin Bouchard)
  • Summary:

    In the notation for ComponentRealization on section 8.3.4 (page 162), it is stated that a ComponentRealization is notated in the same way as a realization dependency, "i.e., as a general dashed line with an open arrow-head". This contradicts the notation presented for Realization in section 7.3.45 (page 133), where it is stated that "A Realization dependency is shown as a dashed line with a triangular arrowhead at the end". If the notation of section 8.3.4 is indeed in error, Figure 8.10 (page 155) should be corrected to use triangular arrowheads, since it is a representation of the realization of a complex component.

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Tue, 6 Feb 2007 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    This is a duplicate of 11007 (incorrect arrowhead in text) and 8705 (incorrect fig 8.10).

    Revised Text:
    None.
    Disposition: Duplicate of 8705 and 11007

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

Section: 17/17.5.7

  • Key: UML22-305
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10802
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: CNAM ( Jean-Frederic Etienne)
  • Summary:

    Missing constraint for template binding in classifier context There seems to be an omitted constraint for template binding in the context of the classifier metaclass on page 667. Indeed, there is no restriction to the kind of template element to which a classifier can be bound. For example, nothing forbids a class to be bound to a data type or association or even an operation defined as template. There is a need for a constraint similar to the one defined on page 57, where it is stated that a classifier can only specialize classifiers of a valid type. Something like, self.templateBinding -> forAll(tb | self.oclIsKindOf(tb.signature.template.oclType)) Note that the variable oclType is not a valid OCL expression, even though it is referenced more than once in the UML Superstructure document (e.g definition of maySpecializeType on page 58). We therefore here assume that the oclType expression returns the associated metatype of the uml element to which it is applied. Thanks in advance for any feedback Jean-Frédéric Etienne

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Mon, 5 Mar 2007 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This is covered in constraint [1] of TemplateParameterSubstitution, section 17.5.5.
    Revised Text:
    Disposition: Closed, no Change

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

Port.provided:Interface

  • Key: UML22-304
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10789
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Mr. Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    ptc/2006-04-02/p187.

    The spec for Port.provided:Interface says: “References the interfaces specifying the set of operations and receptions that the classifier offers to its environment, and which it will handle either directly or by forwarding it to a part of its internal structure. This association is derived from the interfaces realized by the type of the port or by the type of the port, if the port was typed by an interface.”

    This would seem to indicate that a Port typed by an Interface cannot have more than one provided interface. Clarify that this was the intention, or fix if not.

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    I cannot see how it can mean anything else. This specification was modified in the resolution to 13080 and the meaning is clear there.

    Revised Text:

    Disposition: Closed, no change.

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

Section: 14.3.28 ReceiveSignalEvent (from BasicInteractions)

  • Key: UML22-300
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10650
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Softeam ( Cédric MARIN)
  • Summary:

    About "8784 - add ReceiveOperationEvent and ReceiveSignalEvent metaclasses" issue, the "ReceiveSignalEvent" (14.3.28 p522) metaclass seems to have the same meaning as "SignalEvent" (13.3.25 p468) and is then redundant. This issue should be resolved by either: - detailing the differences between ReceiveSignalEvent and SignalEvent - removing the ReceiveSignalEvent metaclass

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Tue, 6 Feb 2007 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 14629 for disposition

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

Section: 12.3.38

  • Key: UML22-299
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10637
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    Is "Set of <name>" a keyword? Or is it allowed to write for example "<name>List" or "<name>Container"?

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Fri, 2 Feb 2007 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue applies to Figure 15.49 in Subclause 15.4.4 of the UML 2.5 beta specification. Since ObjectNodes
    are not MultiplicityElements, the only way that an ObjectNode can contain a set or other collection is if its
    type is a collection type. Since UML does not provide any standard such types, the notation cannot be fully
    standardized

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

UML2: Actor cannot have ownedAttributes

  • Key: UML22-303
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10780
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Mr. Jim Amsden)
  • Summary:

    Constraint [1] in section 16.3.1 is incorrect.
    [1] An actor can only have associations to use cases, components, and classes. Furthermore these associations must be binary.
    self.ownedAttribute->forAll ( a |
    (a.association->notEmpty()) implies
    ((a.association.memberEnd.size() = 2) and
    (a.opposite.class.oclIsKindOf(UseCase) or
    (a.opposite.class.oclIsKindOf(Class) and not a.opposite.class.oclIsKindOf(Behavior))))

    An Actor is a BehavioredClassifier and therefore cannot have ownedAttributes. The constraint above would have to iterate over all the associations in the model and insure that if one ownedEnd is an Actor or UseCase, the other ownedEnd must be a UseCase or Actor respectively.

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agreed. This also resolves issues 13948 and 14875

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

State Machines

  • Key: UML22-314
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10931
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Execution semantics of deferrable triggers. The execution semantics of deferrable triggers in the notation section of Transition, under Figure 15.44, conflicts with the semantics given in State. The description of deferrable trigger in the State attribute and semantics sections say a deferred event remains deferred until the machine reaches a state where it is consumed. The notation section of Trigger says the deferred event is lost when the machine reaches a state where the event is not consumed and not deferred

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 18.3.8

  • Key: UML22-313
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10930
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    The description how values of a stereotyped element can be shown offers three ways. But all of them requires a graphical node. There is no description how to show the values of a stereotyped element that has no graphical notation, e.g. an attribute

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution: Duplicate of 9877

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

"Constraint::context" is marked as derived in the metaclass description

  • Key: UML22-310
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10830
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Andreas Maier)
  • Summary:

    In the Superstructure spec 2.1.1, the description of the "context"
    association end in metaclass "Constraint" has the leading slash,
    marking it as derived. This is probably wrong. Besides not making
    much sense for this end to be derived, the following places support
    the view that "context" is meant to be non-derived:

    • The text in the description of the "context" end does not state
      from what or how the end would be derived.
    • In the UML Metamodel CMOF files, the end is not defined to be
      derived.
    • In figure 7.7, the "context" end is shown as non-derived.

    The description of the "context" end in the Superstructure spec
    should be changed to remove the derived-mark (leading slash) from it.

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Constraint::context is not derived in the metamodel. See figure 7.7. This is already correct in InfrastructureLibrary.

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

discrepancies between package dependencies and XMI file for Superstructure

  • Key: UML22-222
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9818
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Technolution ( Mick Baggen)
  • Summary:

    I verified the alignment between the package dependencies (packageImport and packageMerge) in the XMI file Superstructure.cmof (contained in ptc-06-01-04) and the package dependency diagrams in the convenience document, and noticed some discrepancies. Assuming the XMI file is correct, these discrepancies are: - Part I, Figure 1 (p.19): the packageImports from Classes to CommonBehaviors and AuxiliaryConstructs are missing. - Figure 7.2 (p.22): the packageImport from Dependencies to Kernel is missing. - Figure 9.1 (p.168): the packageImports from Ports to Kernel and Interfaces are missing. - Figure 10.1 (p.202): the packageImport from Nodes to Kernel is missing. - Part II, Figure 1 (p.225): the packageImports from StatesMachines, Activities and Interactions to CompositeStructures are missing. - Part II, Figure 1 (p.225): the packageImport from Activities to StateMachines is missing. - Part II, Figure 1 (p.225): the packageImport from CommonBehaviors to Actions is missing. - Part II, Figure 1 (p.225): the packageImport from UseCases to CommonBehaviors is not correct: it is not present in the XMI file. There only exists a packageMerge relation from UseCases to BasicBehaviors. - Figure 11.1 (p.230): the packageImports from CompleteActions to Kernel and BasicBehaviors are missing. - Figure 11.1 (p.230): the packageImport from IntermediateActions to Kernel is missing. - Figure 11.1 (p.230): the packageMerge from IntermediateActions to BasicBehaviors is missing. - Figure 12.1 (p.309): the packageImports from CompleteActivities to Kernel and BasicBehaviors are missing. - Figure 12.1 (p.309): the packageImports from IntermediateActivities to Kernel and BasicBehaviors are missing. - Figure 12.1 (p.309): the packageMerge from BasicActivities to BasicBehaviors is missing. - Figure 15.1 (p.546): the packageMerge from BehaviorStateMachines to Communications is missing. - Part III, Figure 1 (p.631): the packageImport from AuxiliaryConstructs to Classes is missing.

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: Figure 14.5

  • Key: UML22-224
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9820
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Technolution ( Mick Baggen)
  • Summary:

    The editorial fix in Figures 14.5 is not carried out: OccurenceSpecification is still abstract, not concrete. Please note that there is no editorial fix planned for, or applied to Figures 14.3 and 14.4. However, in these figures OccurenceSpecification is also shown as abstract. All of the figures pertaining to the package BasicInteractions should at least show the same view of OccurenceSpecification

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: Appendix F

  • Key: UML22-223
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9819
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Technolution ( Mick Baggen)
  • Summary:

    The Classifier taxonomy in Appendix F shows a Generalization from Collaborations::Collaboration (child) to Collaborations::Classifier (parent). This Generalization is not present in the metamodel in Figure 9.6 (p. 172), and I therefore believe it to be in error.

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 8.3.1

  • Key: UML22-218
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9807
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    Fig. 8.12 shows delegate connectors that are directly connected with an interface. According to the metamodell that's not possible. A connector end can only be connected with connectable elements.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Wed, 7 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Resolved by the changes specified in 8168.

    Revised Text:
    None.
    Disposition: Duplicate of 8168.

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

Section: 7.3.44

  • Key: UML22-225
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9822
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Dr. Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    In the defintion of the Property concept, the type of the default attribute is a String. I believe it would be more powerful to type default with ValueSpecification

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Mon, 12 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Actually, Property::defaultValue is a ValueSpecification, which gives what is required. Property::/default is
    a derived string, although its current documentation—“A String that is evaluated to give a default value for
    the Property when an instance of the owning Classifier is instantiated” — is misleading. Property::/default
    only exists at all because of earlier efforts to align superstructure and infrastructure through package merge.
    Its derivation makes no sense for default values that are not strings. Since it is derived, removing it would
    not affect model serialization. Delete it.

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

Section: 7.2

  • Key: UML22-221
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9817
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Technolution ( Mick Baggen)
  • Summary:

    In paragraph 7.2 it says: "Figure 7.2 shows the package dependencies of the Kernel packages". However, this should read "...dependencies of the Classes packages." The caption of figure 7.2 is correct.

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Page: 64 & 112

  • Key: UML22-220
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9812
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Dr. Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    The section 7 contains two concepts, ElementImport and PackageImport, that seems to quite redundant. I believe that the semantics of ElementImport covers the semantics of PackageImport. SO, either clarify the difference (if there are?), or delete the PackageImport or make PackageImport a specialization of ElementImport.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Fri, 9 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

UML 2.2 scope statement

  • Key: UML22-334
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11152
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    Current Scope section in UML 2.1.1 Infrastructure
    =================================================

    This UML 2.1.1: Infrastructure is the first of two complementary
    specifications that represent a major revision to the Object Management
    Group's Unified Modeling Language (UML), for which the previous current
    version was UML v1.5. The second specification, which uses the
    architectural foundation provided by this specification, is the UML 2.1.1:
    Superstructure. The UML 2.1.1: Infrastructure defines the foundational
    language constructs required for UML 2.1.1. It is complemented by UML
    2.1.1: Superstructure, which defines the user level constructs required for
    UML 2.1.1.

    Current Scope section in UML 2.1.1 Superstructure
    =================================================

    This Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure is the second of two
    complementary specifications that represent a major revision to the Object
    Management Group's Unified Modeling Language (UML), for which the most
    current version is UML v2.0. The first specification, which serves as the
    architectural foundation for this specification, is the Unified Modeling
    Language: Infrastructure.

    This Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure defines the user level
    constructs required for UML 2. It is complemented by Unified Modeling
    Language: Infrastructure which defines the foundational language constructs
    required for UML 2. The two complementary specifications constitute a
    complete specification for the UML 2 modeling language.

    Proposed Scope section
    ======================

    This specification defines the Unified Modeling Language (UML), revision 2.
    The objective of UML is to provide system architects, software engineers,
    and software developers with tools for analysis, design, and implementation
    of software-based systems as well as for modelling business and similar
    processes.

    The initial versions of UML (UML 1) originated with three leading
    object-oriented methods (Booch, OMT, and OOSE), and incorporated a number
    of best practices from modelling language design, object-oriented
    programming and architectural description languages. Relative to UML 1,
    this revision of UML has been enhanced with significantly more precise
    definitions of its abstract syntax rules and semantics, a more modular
    language structure, and a greatly improved capability for modelling
    large-scale systems.

    One of the primary goals of UML is to advance the state of the industry by
    enabling object visual modeling tool interoperability. However, to enable
    meaningful exchange of model information between tools, agreement on
    semantics and notation is required. UML meets the following requirements:

    • A formal definition of a common MOF-based metamodel that specifies the
      abstract syntax of the UML. The abstract syntax defines the set of UML
      modelling concepts, their attributes and their relationships, as well as
      the rules for combining these concepts to construct partial or complete UML
      models.
    • A detailed explanation of the semantics of each UML modelling concept.
      The semantics define, in a technology-independent manner, how the UML
      concepts are to be realised by computers.
    • A specification of the human-readable notation elements for representing
      the individual UML modelling concepts as well as rules for combining them
      into a variety of different diagram types corresponding to different
      aspects of modelled systems.
    • A detailed definition of ways in which UML tools can be made compliant
      with this specification. This is supported (in a separate specification)
      with an XML-based specification of corresponding model interchange formats
      (XMI) that must be realised by compliant tools.
  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Property::isAttribute() query needs no argument

  • Key: UML22-333
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11120
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    The Property::isAttribute() OCL query (see p. 133 of 07-02-03) is currently defined to take an argument:

    [4] The query isAttribute() is true if the Property is defined as an
    attribute of some classifier
    context Property::isAttribute(p : Property) : Boolean
    post: result = Classifier.allInstances->exists(c|
    c.attribute->includes(p))

    This argument (p) is not necessary, as the query should be based on the context property. Note that the OCL body for this query does not appear to be correct either.

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Wed, 4 Jul 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Yes, this is wrong. Fix it. This also resolves issue 12842.

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

Section: 11.4

  • Key: UML22-330
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11114
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Peter Denno)
  • Summary:

    The derivation of Classifier.inheritedMember is incorrect: self.inheritedMember->includesAll(self.inherit(self.parents()->collect(p | p.inheritableMembers(self))) The "collect" in that should be "select". I'd also appreciate it if someone could tell me why the spec does not match the l3-merged.cmof here, and particularly, whether the transformation of the above into a query/derivation (by removal of the includesAll) was intentional in the l3-merged.cmof, or just some accident which suggests that the l3-merged.cmof is not up-to-date with the specification .pdf.

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 15267 for disposition

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

Section: 11.4 Classifiers Diagram

  • Key: UML22-329
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11109
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Department of Computer Science and Technology, Nanjing University ( Zhang, Tian)
  • Summary:

    In "Figure 11.16 - The Classifiers diagram of the Constructs package", the end of the association between Classifier and Feature are named as "/featuringClassifier" and "/feature". But in "11.4.1 Classifier" the Assciations part illustrates the feature without slash. Also, in "11.4.2 Feature" the featuringClassifier is demonstrated without slash neither. According to UML series specifications, "/featuringClassifier" and "/feature" are different from "featuringClassifier" and "feature".

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Figure 7.10 indicates that Classifier::/feature and Feature::/featuringClassifier are both derived unions. Classifier:: /feature is shown as derived in section 7.3.8 where it is described. Feature::/featuringClassifier is shown as derived in section 7.3.19 where it is described. So there are no issues for Superstructure

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

Actor concept was indeed changed

  • Key: UML22-340
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11200
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Capability Measurement ( Karl Frank)
  • Summary:

    The constraints on associations include a condition that an Actor not be associated with a Behavior, which blocks the owned behavior and classifier behavior, but in that case, it is a mystery to me why Actors were made to be BehavioredClassifiers.

    This is not an issue with the consistency or clarity of the spec.
    It is an issue with understanding the use of UML 2 as contrasted with UML 1.n

    The 2.1.1 spec, section 16.3.1, says:

    Changes from previous UML There are no changes to the Actor concept except for the addition of a constraint that requires that all actors must have names.

    But a very important change was introducing BehavioredClassifier (there was no BehavioredClassifier in UML 1) , and then making it the generalization of Actor, which gives Actors

    1. ability to own behaviors
    2. ability to have a unique classifier behavior
    3. and own triggers.

    some remarks on the intended pragmatics of this change would make UML spec better.

    Merely citing the change in the "Changes.." section provide accuracy without value, but explaining what use is foreseen for this change, would provide value.

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion
    This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

Section: 13.3.3

  • Key: UML22-339
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11162
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Patterndigm ( Ben Bovee)
  • Summary:

    In, "Table 12.1 - Graphic nodes included in activity diagrams," the 'Notation' entry for 'ActivityNode' should exclude "ExecutableNode" (unless such an entry is added--or found elsewhere).

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    agreed

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

composite subsets

  • Key: UML22-343
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11238
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    There are several places in metamodel where non-derived composite property is subset of other non-derived composite property.
    In this case element is owned in two collections, so how it should be reflected in XMI where element could appear just once?
    We can leave element just in subset, and merge collections after load, but is this correct?

    Below are these occurrences:

    classes::mdKernel::Operation::bodyCondition subsets ownedRule

    statemachines::mdBehaviorStateMachines::Transition::guard subsets ownedRule

    classes::mdKernel::Operation::postcondition subsets ownedRule

    statemachines::mdProtocolStateMachines::ProtocolTransition::postCondition
    subsets ownedRule

    classes::mdKernel::Operation::precondition subsets ownedRule

    statemachines::mdProtocolStateMachines::ProtocolTransition::preCondition
    subsets ownedRule

    Profile::metaclassReference subsets elementImport

    uml2.1.1::mdProfiles::Profile::metaclassReference subsets packageImport

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Wed, 1 Aug 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

UML 2.1.2: Path names for CMOF files

  • Key: UML22-342
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11234
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    The (new) path names for the CMOF files, based on the naming proposal that was presented in Brussels, need to be listed next to the bullet points in Appendix H of the UML specification. This change should be made as part of the urgent ballot for UML 2.1.2.

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion
    This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

Section: 7.3.21 figure 7.47

  • Key: UML22-332
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11116
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: myself ( jonathan tanner)
  • Summary:

    Figure 7.47 - Power type notation Specific classifier-2 has powertype 'classifier-1' but inherits from PowerType Classifier-2. Should the inheritance lines not point to the 'General Classifier'?

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Tue, 3 Jul 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 7.3.21

  • Key: UML22-331
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11115
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: myself ( jonathan tanner)
  • Summary:

    Inconsistancy between background fill colouring. Default colour preferences are normally white background, black text, and this issue is then not visible. Changing to a custom colouring to green backgrond, black text, one sees that that some boxes are filled white, whereas others are the same as the selected background colour. Is this intentional? Does this have any semantic meaning? Example in Figure 7.47 (b) Power type notation. The PowerType classifiers use the page background

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Tue, 3 Jul 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: Abstractions (02)

  • Key: UML22-337
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11156
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MEGA International ( Mr. Antoine Lonjon)
  • Summary:

    Generalization of Parameter to NamedElement in redundant in Abstractions. Would be easier on serialization to remove the multiple inheritance.

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion
    This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

Section: Constructs

  • Key: UML22-336
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11155
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MEGA International ( Mr. Antoine Lonjon)
  • Summary:

    Package import is defined in the context of Namespace. This has two consequences: 1. Namespaces such as Classe, Node, and UseCase can import Packages. This does not seem to be a good design goal. 2. There is a circular definition between Package and Namespace: Package is a sub-type of Namespace and Namespace requires the definition of Package and PackagedElement.

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Namespace URI for Standard Profile(s)

  • Key: UML22-338
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11160
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    The UML (Superstructure) specification does not define the namespace URI for the standard profile(s) - it should. Note that the currently recommended convention (from p. 703, section 18.3.6 of 07-02-03) for such URIs is

    nsURI = http://<profileParentQualifiedName>/schemas/<profileName>.xmi

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: Abstractions

  • Key: UML22-335
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11154
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MEGA International ( Mr. Antoine Lonjon)
  • Summary:

    Abstractions should support serialization by itself and interoperably with serialization of Constructs. In particular: - Package and Property should be available in Abstractions, to enable Abstractions to be used for serialization of typical models by itself. - There should be no circular dependencies between packages in Abstractions. - Constructs should only use imports from Abstractions, to enable models using Constructs to interoperate with models using only Abstractions. Package merge produces noninteroperable XSDs

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 14.3.3

  • Key: UML22-341
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11201
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: mit.bme.hu ( Zoltan Micskei)
  • Summary:

    In the Notation part of CombinedFragment, in the part 'Presentation Options for “coregion area"' the text refers to Figure 14.12 for an example of a coregion. However, on Figure 14.12 there is no coregion. The reference should be changed to Figure 14.22

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Invalid redefinitions introduced into metamodel

  • Key: UML22-265
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10079
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    There seem to be cases where redefinitions have appeared in the metamodel that were not in the spec. I think something is needed but overall I think subsetting is probably more appropriate for these cases.

    It appears that these redefinitions between non-navigable properties (owned by associations) may have been inadvertently introduced by the tool processing the metamodel before the ends were assigned names. In the first example I suspect that the opposites of DirectedRelationship::target and Generalization::general were detected as being involved in an implicit redefinition because their names were empty (the same). The tool can probably be tweaked to produce a complete list of such redefinitions which we can then itemize and remove to resolve this issue..

    The cause of the second example is the same, but was likely introduced before Package::ownedMember was renamed to Package::packagedElement and never cleaned up.

    For example, in Fig 7.9, the Classifiers diagram, the end opposite to Generalization::general is completely unlabeled. But in the metamodel we have
    <ownedEnd xmi:type="cmof:Property" xmi:id="A_general_generalization-generalization" name="generalization" type="Generalization" association="A_general_generalization" redefinedProperty="A_target_directedRelationship-directedRelationship"/>

    I'm not sure I see the need for a redefinition here - especially when its sibling (Classifier-generalization) is as follows and has no such redefinition:

    <ownedAttribute xmi:type="cmof:Property" xmi:id="Classifier-generalization" name="generalization" lower="0" upper="*" type="Generalization" association="A_generalization_specific" subsettedProperty="Element-ownedElement" isComposite="true">

    This has no reference at all to the general Association A_source_directedRelationship - to be consistent I would have expected redefinedProperty="A_source_directedRelationship-directedRelationship. As I mentioned at the start though a subsets seems more appropriate - since the other ends use

    {subsets source}

    etc.

    One that has an additional problem is the following:

    <ownedMember xmi:type="cmof:Association" xmi:id="A_ownedStereotype_profile" name="A_ownedStereotype_profile" general="A_packagedElement_owningPackage" memberEnd="Profile-ownedStereotype A_ownedStereotype_profile-profile">
    <ownedEnd xmi:type="cmof:Property" xmi:id="A_ownedStereotype_profile-profile" name="profile" type="Profile" association="A_ownedStereotype_profile" redefinedProperty="A_member_namespace-namespace"/>

    Here the Association inherits from A_packagedElement_owningPackage but the End redefines A_member_namespace-namespace which is not even a direct member of the specialized Association - and furthermore is a derivedUnion - so we have no real Slot to base the end on. If anything I would have expected a redefine of A_packagedElement_owningPackage-owningPackage

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Wed, 2 Aug 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 13.2

  • Key: UML22-267
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10081
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Mr. Adam Neal)
  • Summary:

    The body property of OpaqueBehavior (as well as OpaqueExpression and OpaqueAction) should be declared not unique. The OpaqueBehavior can be used to store user code and the given language that it was written in. The specifiction identifies the lists of languages and bodies to be ordered (and by default unique). It makes sense for the list of languages to be uniuqe, but not the bodies. For example, consider the user has written the same code but in 2 different languages (say c and c+, or written an identical comment in c and c+ and java). Currently the UML specification disallows one to have the same body even though it may semantically make sense in both languages

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Wed, 2 Aug 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agreed. In addition, the body and language attributes should be ordered

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

Section: 11.3.5

  • Key: UML22-266
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10080
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: ISP ( Leonid)
  • Summary:

    The grammar below is wrong, because there is no rule for the non-terminal <prop-property>. <prop-modifier> should be used instead. <property> ::= [<visibility>] [‘/’] <name> [‘:’ <prop-type>] [‘[‘ <multiplicity> ‘]’] [‘=’ <default>] [‘

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

    ’]

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Wed, 2 Aug 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 7.3.3

  • Key: UML22-270
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10140
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thought, Systems Consulting & Engineering, Inc. ( Marc W George)
  • Summary:

    Use of only the link name as the default for the association name limits the use of both namespace::membersAreDistinguishable() and nameElement::isDistinguishableFrom() operations. The full association name for creating the signature of the element should be at least the concatenation of "memberEndA name - link name - memberEndB name".

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Figure 7.31

  • Key: UML22-269
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10087
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    Figure 7.31 shows the association-like notation for attributes. However this still sues the navigability arrow in the 'old' way. It would be consistent to use the new 'dot' notation to show the class owning the property representing the attribute.

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Mon, 7 Aug 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: Annex C.1

  • Key: UML22-268
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10086
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    Language unit for stereotype create should be named Classes::Dependencies instead of just Dependencies

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Fri, 4 Aug 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

StructuredActivityNode [UML 2.1.1]

  • Key: UML22-355
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11646
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Mr. Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    StructuredActivityNode, based on both common sense and its semantics, requires input and output pins. However StructuredActivityNode::input and StructuredActivityNode::output, both inherited from Action are derived unions and so cannot be used directly. StructuredActivityNode::result is a concrete property but has a special meaning.

    What is needed is some solution that subsets StructuredActivityNode::input and StructuredActivityNode::output but can be used to describe input and output pins of StructuredActivityNode.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Thu, 8 Nov 2007 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The semantics of StructuredActivityNode does, indeed, talk specifically about pins on such nodes. Further, having pins on StructuredActivityNodes is assumed as being allowed in and is required by the Java to UML activity model mapping in the Foundational UML specification. The submitter is correct, however, that the abstract syntax model itself does not seem to explicitly support this.

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

UML2 Issue - 'abstract' not listed in keyword Annex

  • Key: UML22-357
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11683
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    I just noticed that in formal/07-02-05 section 7.3.8, Classifier, includes:

    An abstract Classifier can be shown using the keyword

    {abstract}

    after or below the name of the Classifier.

    However this is not listed in Annex B of keywords.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merged with 18454

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

UML2 issue: ProfileApplication treated as Import

  • Key: UML22-356
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11657
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    Section 13.1.6, figure 13.11 (of Infra) and 18.2.7, figure 18.11 (of Super) show an example of a profile containing Types which are available for use when the profile is applied. This rests on the statement “(since profile application is a kind of import)”. However this is not the case: ProfileApplication only inherits from DirectedRelationship.

    To achieve the end effect of the example there seem to be two alternatives:

    a) Alter the metamodel to make ProfileApplication inherit from PackageImport, with appropriate redefinitions.

    b) Explicitly state that ProfileApplication has exactly the same semantics as PackageImport without inheriting from it. More awkward but lower impact. And will mean that generic processing that works off Imports will not pick up ProfileApplications.

    This area is causing significant consternation for groups such as UPDM trying to define sophisticated profiles that make use of common elements or other profiles.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    ProfileApplication makes stereotype names visible to the referenced metamodel, not the model the profile is applied to. ProfileApplication is not a kind of PackageImport because of this crossing of metamodel levels. As with package import, profile application does not expose the names of nested profiles. Therefore alternative b) is the appropriate choice.

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

context of Constraint

  • Key: UML22-348
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11407
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    Context of the Constraint is described as derived property

    • / context: Namespace [0..1] Specifies the Namespace that is the context for evaluating this constraint. Subsets NamedElement::namespace.

    However it is not derived in Figure 7.7 - Constraints diagram of the Kernel package.

    So should it be derived or not? One of these places shall be fixed.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 10830 for disposition

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

Section: 18.3.6 Profile (from Profiles)

  • Key: UML22-347
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11343
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Mid GmbH ( Joachim Back)
  • Summary:

    In the first serialization example, the memberEnd refers to property 'id4' and 'id5'. This would lead to 2 inconsistencies: 1. the 'id7' is in ownedEnd, but not in memberEnd. This contradicts the subset defined in chapter 7.3.3. 2. there are two candidates for the derived 'metaclass' attribute of 'Extension': id4.type and id5.type. This contradicts the definition in chapter 18.3.2. Instead it should refer to id7 and id5. The correct XMI file excerpt looks like that: <ownedMember xmi:type="uml:Extension" xmi:id="id6" name="A_Interface_Home" memberEnd="id7 id5"> <ownedEnd xmi:type="uml:ExtensionEnd" xmi:id="id7" name="extension_Home" type="id3" isComposite="true" lower="0" upper="1"> </ownedEnd> </ownedMember>

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 7.3.33

  • Key: UML22-354
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11630
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Volvo Technology Corporation ( Hans Blom)
  • Summary:

    Figure 7.15 - Contents of Dependencies package There is a rolename supplierDependency that it not defined in §7.3.33 for NamedElement.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    supplierDependency is a non-navigable end and, therefore, cannot be owned by NamedElement. Per the usual style in the UML specification document, non-owned ends are not listed in the documentation for a class.
    Revised Text:
    None.
    Disposition: Closed No Change

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

In section 7.3.12 Figure 7.38

  • Key: UML22-353
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11489
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    As described above the Figure 7.38 I think the arrow should point from Car to CarFactory.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    In the UML 2.5 specification, the corresponding figure is 7.19 in subclause 7.7.5. The direction of the
    dependency in the diagram is correct: the CarFactory instantiates Cars and so depends on the Car class, but
    the Car class does not need to depend on CarFactory specifically instantiating it.
    However, the text above the diagram says “the Car Class has a Dependency on the CarFactory Class”, which
    is incorrect.
    This also resolves duplicate issues 12405, 13136, 13947 and 17804.

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

Incorrect word renders sentence meaningless: Chap. 12.3.41

  • Key: UML22-351
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11414
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Kratzer Automation AG ( Tom Riedl)
  • Summary:

    Incorrect word renders sentence meaningless: Chap. 12.3.41, "Parameter (from CompleteActivities)" Section "Semantics", 1st paragraph, Beginning of last sentence: Suggestion: Replace: "Arrange for separate executions of the activity to use separate executions of the activity..." by: "Arrange for separate invocations of the activity to use separate executions of the activity..."

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    agreed

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

The section titled "Changes from previous UML" is not complete

  • Key: UML22-350
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11413
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: n/a ( Brian Arbuckle)
  • Summary:

    The section titled "Changes from previous UML" is not complete "The following changes from UML 1.x have been made: to be written."

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

first constraint for CombinedFragment

  • Key: UML22-346
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11286
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Mr. Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    The first constraint for CombinedFragment:

    [1] If the interactionOperator is opt, loop, break, or neg, there must be exactly one operand.” ..

    should also include the assert operator.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 12.3.1 AcceptEventAction

  • Key: UML22-345
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11268
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    Figures 12.25-27 show examples of the AcceptEventAction. The actions have an outpin pin which can be omitted in the diagram. But the target actions should show the input pins, e.g. action "Cancel order" needs an input pin "Cancel order request".

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The referenced diagrams are correct as drawn when the edges are interpreted as control flows rather than data flows.
    Revised Text:
    None
    Disposition: Closed, no change

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

RedefinableTemplateSignature

  • Key: UML22-344
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11244
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    RedefinableTemplateSignature::classifier owns this template signature, so it shall redefine inherited TemplateSignature::template, because it is used for the same purpose and subsets Element::owner.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Tue, 7 Aug 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

ElementImport

  • Key: UML22-352
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11488
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    Element is restricted to be imported only once (not possible to import the same element into different namespaces).
    I think this is clear bug in Figure 7.4 - Namespaces diagram of the Kernel package
    ElementImport multiplicity (on association between ElementImport and PackageableElement) shall be changed from [1] to [*] (as multiplicity of PackageImport).

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

UML 2.1.1 - fig 7.14

  • Key: UML22-349
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11408
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Mr. Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    This seems odd to me. The ‘owningPackage’ role of PackageableElement is non-navigable, whereas I would expect it to be navigable so that it is possible from a Packageable Element to find its owner. Interestingly Type, which is a PackageableElement does have a navigable role to its parent, but InstanceSpecification, for example doesn’t.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 7

  • Key: UML22-287
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10515
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Paranor AG ( Earl Waldin)
  • Summary:

    The property isLeaf as inherited by Class from RedefinableElement deals with the concept of redefinition in the context of a classifier. The concept of "this class cannot be subclassed" is missing from UML 2.0 and the current version of UML 2.1. In UML 1.4, the isLeaf property is present in two contexts: Operation and GeneralizableElement. The former refers to the concept of redefinition while the later refers to the concept of subclassing. In UML 2.1, isLeaf from RedefinableElement corresponds to the former. There is nothing corressponding to the later. It is clear from the UML 2.1 specification that redefinition of Classes is related to nesting. In the association class->nestedClassifier between Class and Classifier in Figure 7.12, the source end subsets redefinitionContext. The current constraints for RedefinableElement, Classifier and Class give the following interpretation. Let A be a class with nested class A1, B a class with nested class B1, and B be a subclass of A. Then B1 can redefine A1 as long as A1 has isLeaf = false and A1's visibility is not private. B1 can subclass A1 regardless of the the value of isLeaf on A1. In short, subclassing and redefinition are two separate, orthogonal concepts. The concept of isLeaf for subclassing is not present in UML 2.1.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    In UML 1.5, isLeaf is used in 3 contexts, not two:
    UML 1.5's Operation::isLeaf and Reception::isLeaf in UML 2 correspond to the concept of a redefinable element that cannot be further redefined.
    UML 1.5's GeneralizableElement::isLeaf in UML 2 corresponds to the concept of a classifier that cannot be further specialized in a generalization hierarchy. There are several options to add this capability in UML 2 and the two that are least disruptive to the UML 2 specification are:
    a) Rename RedefinableElement::isLeaf to RedefinableElement::isFinal
    Add Classifier::isLeaf
    b) Keep RedefinableElement::isLeaf
    Add Classifier::isFinal
    c) Keep RedefinableElement::isLeaf
    Add Classifier::isFinalSpecialization
    Option (a) would break compatibility with UML 2.2 in a really bad way because the original meaning of "isLeaf" is now "isFinal" and there is a completely different meaning assigned to "isLeaf".
    Option (b) preserves the UML 2 meaning of "isLeaf" but adds support for the UML 1.x notion of a classifier that cannot be specialized in a generalization hierarchy. However, option (b) creates possible confusion for end users in distinguishing the purpose of isLeaf vs. isFinal.
    Option (c) provides the same advantages as option (b) in addition to providing end users a clue about the role of isLeaf vs. isFinalSpecialization.
    Since option (b,c) represent an upwardly compatible change w.r.t. UML2.2, it is preferred to option (a) which would not only break compatibility with UML 2.2 but also create a lot of confusion in comparing UML 2.2 vs. UML 2.3 models. The rest of this resolution follows option (c).
    Add a property 'isFinalSpecialization' to a Classifier which is the basis for expressing taxonomic relationships among general and specific classifiers.
    Specify a package merge transformation for merging Classifier::isFinalSpecialization according to the principle that a resulting classifier is final if either matching classifier is final.

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

Section: 15

  • Key: UML22-286
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10512
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: fht-esslingen.de ( Dirk)
  • Summary:

    state machines: --------------- I can find a BNF for an behavioral transition but not for a protocol transition. Theres is no explanation why a protocol transition needs the "/" following the trigger. What for is the "/" ? The figure 15.15 on page 521 just shows a protocol trigger but there is no explanation. Wouldn't it be sufficient to write: [pre condition] trigger [post condition] Because of this everyone uses different notations...

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

UML 2.1 Spec, Interactions: 14.3.18

  • Key: UML22-295
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10591
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Mr. Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    I don’t understand why the type of the property ‘InteractionUse.argument’ is Action; I think that there at least needs to be some explanation.

    Also, looking at the syntax for ‘InteractionUse’ in the Notation section:

    “<name> ::=[<attribute-name> ‘=’ ] [<collaboration-use> ‘.’] <interaction-name> [‘(‘ <io-argument> [‘,’ <io-oargument>]* ‘)’] [‘:’ <return-value> <io-argument> ::= <in-argument> | ‘out’ <out-argument>]

    The <attribute-name> refers to an attribute of one of the lifelines in the Interaction.”

    How does the reference to the attribute get stored in the model?

    Finally in Fig 14.18, I don’t see how the notation for the described InteractionUse can be produced from the syntax above, particularly the first part: “:xx.xc=”

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Arguments of InteractionUse shall be ValueSpecifications, as arguments of Message.
    Furthermore introduce a couple of extra attributes/associations to cover the information not easily found today.
    Finally fix the BNF of the concrete textual syntax by a concluding „]?

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

UML 2.1 Spec, Interactions: 14.3.18 - InteractionUse

  • Key: UML22-294
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10590
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Mr. Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    One of the constraints for this element is:

    [2] The InteractionUse must cover all Lifelines of the enclosing Interaction that appear within the referred Interaction.”

    This needs to be rephrased I think – I don’t see how Lifelines can “appear” in more than one Interaction.

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

A_outgoing_source and A_incoming_target should not be bidirectional

  • Key: UML22-293
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10537
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    The A_outgoing_source and A_incoming_target associations between Vertex and Transition should not be bidirectional - it's unreasonable to expect that a vertex be changed in order to create a transition to another vertex, considering that the vertices could be in a different model from the transition (especially in the context of state machine refinement). Note that since pseudostates are not redefinable, there is currently no way to redefine a transition that has a pseudostate as its source/target. There should perhaps be separate, derived Vertex::outgoing and Vertex::incoming properties instead.

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

UML 2 Superstructure/Components/overly stringent constraints

  • Key: UML22-289
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10526
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    The constraints defined for Connectors in the components chapter should be removed: they refer to "provided" and "required" ports (categories no longer supported in UML) but also force very stringent connection rules that get in the way of informal sketching type usage, since they require the explicit declartion of interfaces when doing structure modeling. These types of constraints should only be enforced through a profile.

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Resolved by 7248-7251.

    Revised Text:
    None
    Disposition: Duplicate of 7248 - 7251

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

AcceptCallAction has not operation

  • Key: UML22-288
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10521
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Mr. Jim Amsden)
  • Summary:

    In UML2, AcceptCallAction isA AcceptEventAction --> trigger: Trigger --> event: CallEvent --> operation: Operation. In the notation, there's the accept call action in an activity which has a name, and an operation provided by the performer. In the metamodel, this would mean that a Trigger and Event would have to be created to connect an operation to an AcceptCallAction. This is overkill resulting in a complex metamodel and extra work for modelers to create Trigger and Event model elements that are not needed.

    AcceptCallAction should have an operation: Operation property directly. Then a <<trigger>> keyword should be used to indicate the operation is implemented with an AcceptCallAction rather than a method Behavior

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The proposed change would, indeed, simplify the model, but it would be inconsistent with AcceptCallAction being, syntactically and semantically, a subclass of AcceptEventAction. AcceptCallAction is just a special case of triggering based on a call event, with some syntactic conveniences. Any complexity of the metamodel should be hidden by proper tool support.
    Revised Text:
    None.
    Disposition: Closed, no change.

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

UML2: notation issue

  • Key: UML22-297
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10634
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Dr. Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    In the spec, some elements have a notation which contain a keyword put in quote like for Abstraction or for Interface. But this keywork does not match the stereotype notation.

    So if I applied a stereotype on such elemen, what is the right notation (see both following examples):

    EX1:

    Ex2:

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

A_end_role should not be bidirectional

  • Key: UML22-292
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10536
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    The A_end_role association between ConnectableElement and ConnectorEnd should not be bidirectional - it's unreasonable to expect that a connectable element be changed in order to connect it to another connectable element, considering that the connectable element(s) could be in a different model from the connector. There should perhaps be a separate, derived ConnectableElement::end property instead

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

ReplyAction::replyValue type is incorrct

  • Key: UML22-298
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10636
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Mr. Jim Amsden)
  • Summary:

    Section 11.3.43 shows the replyValue attribute of ReplyAction is of type OutputPin. It is shown as InputPin in figure 11.12. The type should be InputPin in section 11.3.43

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    This was editorially corrected in UML 2.1.
    Revised Text:
    None.
    Disposition: Closed, no change.

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

Section: 7.3.10

  • Key: UML22-205
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9617
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    The description of Constraint mentions the xor-association that is predefined in UML. There's no place in the superstructure (and infrastructure) where that constraint is defined.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Tue, 2 May 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Figure 7.34 shows an

    {xor}

    constraint attached to two associations, indicating an Account can be a property of Person or Corporation, but not at the same time. Section 7.3.10 Constraint references “xor” constraint as an example of a UML predefined constraint.
    The xor constraint is not explicitly defined in UML. Rather it is used as an example of a constraint between associations as in figure 7.34, and as an example of an expression in section 7.3.18. So the parenthetical remark about xor being an example of a UML predefined constraint in section 7.3.10 should be removed.

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

Table 8.2 must be named "Graphic paths..." instead of "Graphic nodes..."

  • Key: UML22-370
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12235
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    Table 8.2 must be named "Graphic paths..." instead of "Graphic nodes..."

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

Datatypes in UML profiles

  • Key: UML22-369
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12224
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Mr. Tomas Juknevicius)
  • Summary:

    The UML Superstructure section on profiling (18, 18.3) is vague about the datatype usage in profiles.
    In particular, it is not clear what (if any) datatypes can the user define and use in his profile as types of the tags.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Datatypes used in profiles (e.g. as types of the tags) are not ordinary UML datatypes, but MOF datatypes (if I am not mistaken).
    Hence it is not obvious if all of the various datatype possibilities, defined in CMOF, can be used by a profile creator.

    It would be nice to have some clarifying statement in the Semantics section of the 18.3.6 Profile paragraph
    In the same manner as the possible associations between stereotypes is clarified there (page 663, at the bottom):

    Stereotypes can participate in associations. The opposite class can be another stereotype, a non-stereotype class that is
    owned by a profile, or a metaclass of the reference metamodel. For these associations there must be a property owned by
    the Stereotype to navigate to the opposite class. The opposite property must be owned by the Association itself rather than
    the other class/metaclass
    (a little side note - I am not sure if this passage is correct - ?metalevel mixing? but this is irrelevant for the issue I am describing)

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I can think of the 4 distinct cases of datatypes that the modeler might use in his profile:

    #1 Enumerations
    #2 New primitive types, narrowing the existing primitive types - String, Integer, Boolean, UnlimitedNatural.
    e.g.

    #3 Completely new primitive types, e.g. Double
    #4 Complex datatypes, defined by the user, composed of fields of primitive types and other complex types.
    e.g.

    #1 and #2 are the least problematic. #1 is widely supported even in the current crop of modeling tools and
    #2 is conceptually simple (handling is the same as existing primitive types + additional constraints)

    What I am worried about is #3 and #4.
    #3 is problematic; the question arises about how the values of this type are then handled in the model and how they are
    serialized into the XMI.
    Maybe we could state here that if the tool allows the user to define his own primitive types, then the user is responsible for
    extending the tool (through some kind of plugin mechanism) - providing at least the rules of how to serialize such datatypes into the string,
    to be written into the XMI.

    #4 Is theoretically non problematic (supposedly, it is described how to serialize such complex datatype values - XMI 2.1.2 spec, 07-12-01.pdf, 4.8.7 paragraph).
    However I haven't seen live implementations of this. Is the usage of such datatypes in the profile legal?

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    So, to summarize, we should clarify here, if all of these cases must be supported by the UML tool. Are there any
    semantic variation points or compliance levels here?

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

TemplateSignature / TemplateParameter / StructuredClassifier

  • Key: UML22-364
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12168
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( James Bruck)
  • Summary:

    Version 2.1.1 2007-02-05 of the spec.

    TemplateSignature p. 625
    parameter : TemplateParameter[] Should mention that it is a derived union of TemplateSignature::ownedParameter ( or show ‘/’ )

    ownedParameter: TemplateParameter[] Should mention that it subsets TemplateSignature::parameter.

    TemplateParameter p. 623

    default : ParameterableElement should mention that it is a derived union of TemplateParameter::ownedDefault ( or show ‘/’ )

    parameteredElement::ParameterableElement[] should mention it is a derived union of TemplateParameter::ownedParameteredElement

    StructuredClassifier p. 186

    There seems to be some discrepency in the spec in regards to Role : ConnectableElement[]. The spec mentions that it is a derived union (it uses the term Abstract union which is inconsistent ) that subsets Classifier::feature. I believe we should have StructuredClassifier::ownedAttribute subsetting StructuredClassifier::role.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Tue, 8 Jan 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

inability to specify ordering of messages connected to gates is problematic

  • Key: UML22-363
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12167
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( James Bruck)
  • Summary:

    In the 2.1.1 specification (070205):

    Gates are simply MessageEnds and not some form of OccurrenceSpecification. This makes relative ordering of messages between gates on different InteractionUse within an interaction impossible.
    In addition to gates on InteractionUse, gates on Interaction that have outgoing messages cannot specify any relative ordering.

    The inability to specify ordering of messages connected to gates is problematic.
    __________________________________

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Tue, 8 Jan 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add clarification that Gates are messageEnds which are ordered by the occurrences at the opposite ends of
    the two messages linked by the gate. UML 2.5 already added several clarification on semantics of Gates.

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

The semantics of an assembly connector remains unspecified

  • Key: UML22-372
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12241
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: AdaCore ( Matteo Bordin)
  • Summary:

    The semantics of an assembly connector remains unspecified: it is not possible to understand which port is the source and which port is the target of the data that are meant to "flow" at run-time on the assembly. The specification indeed refer to "required port" to express the semantics of a connector, but the concept of "required port" doesn't exist in UML. The real problem is the following: it is not possible to specify which interfaces provided/required by a port are involved in an assembly. A possible solution could be: - Have a port typed to an interface - Specify if the interface is provided or required using a tag (in a way similar for the direction of SysML FlowPort)

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    I am not sure that this is really a semantics question. If the semantics are in doubt, that is an issue about connectors in general. I believe this is actually the issue about the ball and socket notation, which is resolved by the changes specified in 8168 and 8900, by restricting the notation to parts with simple ports.

    Revised Text:
    None.

    Disposition: Duplicate of 8168 and 8900.

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

Table 8.2

  • Key: UML22-371
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12236
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    Table 8.2 should contain graphic paths for - delegate connector - component realization

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Table 8.2 shows the assembly connector which is an element of a composite structure diagram. But table 8.2 denotes elements of a structure diagram. A table for composite structure diagram elements that are specific for components is missing.
    The heading of table 8.2 is incorrect. The table doesn't show nodes, but paths.

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

UML2: Missing ActionOutputPin

  • Key: UML22-362
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12161
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Mr. Jim Amsden)
  • Summary:

    UML2 Activities support two different approaches for exchanging data between actions: "push semantics" of token passing over ObjectFlows and "pull semantics" of typical programming languages using ActionInputPins or ValuePin. The fromAction of an ActionInputPin could be a ValueExpression that references a Variable of the Activity or StructuralFeature of the context Classifier. However, support for pull semantics is incomplete. The first issues is 9247 where there is no ReadParameterAction or WriteParameterAction to support pull semantics for Activity Parameters. These Actions should be provided so that ActivityParameterNodes are only needed for ObjectFlows allowing the Activity Parameters to be directly referenced for pull semantics. This would also allow Parameters, Variables and StructuralFeatures to be all handled the same way.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Mon, 7 Jan 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Despite the misleading title, this issue appears to be essentially a duplicate of issues 9247 and 8470. It looks like the text in this issue was just introductory to that of issue 12162, and was incorrectly made an issue of its own.
    Revised Text:
    None.
    Disposition: Duplicate

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

The spec needs to clarify the isConsistentWith() method for transitions

  • Key: UML22-361
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12158
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( James Bruck)
  • Summary:

    In the 2.1.1 specification (070203) states on page 583/732 (or pg.569), it states:
    [1] The query isConsistentWith() specifies that a redefining transition is consistent with a redefined transition provided that
    the redefining transition has the following relation to the redefined transition: A redefining transition redefines all
    properties of the corresponding redefined transition, except the source state and the trigger.

    This restriction seems a little harsh. Consider the use case:
    1) a user has a state machine, in a top level abstract class, and there exists a transition between two states with no triggers.
    2) the users expect to add triggers to the transition in the concrete sub class state machines. (i.e. redefine in the sub class context and add a trigger)

    The way the above constraint is written does not allow new triggers to be added to redefined transitions. I am requesting a clarification point that will state that new triggers can be added to the redefined transition.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Fri, 4 Jan 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merged with 6395

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

paragraph on "deferred events" on page 552

  • Key: UML22-367
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12204
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology ( Thomas Weigert)
  • Summary:

    Towards the bottom of the page there is a paragraph on "deferred events". This appears to be a holdover from UML 1.x, as the current specification speaks of "deferred triggers" (see p.550). Adjust this paragraph to match the current abstract syntax. Similar changes must be made to the corresponding paragraph on p.554.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

Section 14.3.19

  • Key: UML22-366
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12195
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: mit.bme.hu ( Zoltan Micskei)
  • Summary:

    In the description of Lifeline the coveredBy association has a multiplicity of [0..1]. However, in Figure 14.4 the multiplicity is *, in the XMI it has also * as upper bound, and the text talks also about multiple InteractionFragments ("References the InteractionFragments in which this Lifeline takes part").

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

Figure 7.6

  • Key: UML22-360
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11828
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    Figure 7.6 should show properties body and language of OpaqueExpression as multivalued i.e. [0..*].

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 12

  • Key: UML22-359
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11763
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Student at Technische Universität Braunschweig ( Stefan Schulze)
  • Summary:

    The constraint [2] in section 12.3.5 on page 325 ("Activity edges may be owned only by activities or groups") of class ActivityEdge seems to be contrary to the fact that inGroup - the only reference between edge and group - is a simple association but no composition or aggregation. According to figures 12.5 and 12.6 I would think, that edges are always owned by activities (composition) and referenced by groups. There is no composition or aggregation that specifies, that edges can be owned by groups. (http://groups.google.de/group/UMLforum/browse_thread/thread/bdd07d113676a41f/20b33a18f90db3d9?#20b33a18f90db3d9

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Thu, 6 Dec 2007 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

15.3.14: This paragraph refers to signal and change events

  • Key: UML22-368
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12218
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Axel Scheithauer)
  • Summary:

    This paragraph refers to signal and change events, but should refer to signal and call events: >>However, relative to its use for signal events (see “SignalEvent (from Communications)” on page 449) and change events (see “ChangeEvent (from Communications)” on page 435), the <assignment-specification> ... Instead it should read: >>However, relative to its use for signal events (see “SignalEvent (from Communications)” on page 449) and call events (see “CallEvent (from Communications)” on page 434), the <assignment-specification> ... ChangeEvents don't even have an assignment specification, but signal an call events do.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Fri, 8 Feb 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

Section: 8.3.2 Connector

  • Key: UML22-358
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11762
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    In fig. 8.12 on page 153 the delegate connector points directly to an interface or from an interface on the right side. According to the connector definition in 9.3.6 and 8.3.2 it is not allowed to do that. In addition such a notational variant is nowhere described.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Thu, 6 Dec 2007 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

UML 2.1.1 Issue: Invalid association end in Figure 7.20

  • Key: UML22-365
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12193
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    The non-navigable (as indicated by the X) association end typed by classifier ‘B’ in figure 7.20 of 07-02-05 is invalid, since the classifier – not the association – owns that end (as indicated by the dot notation as described on page 42)… recall that an association end owned by a classifier (and not the association) is implicitly navigable.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.2 — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

UML 2 state machines / entry point outgoing transitions

  • Key: UML22-274
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10147
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    In section 15.3.8 of the of the UML spec 06-04-02.pdf on page 563 it says:

    An entry point pseudostate is an entry point of a state machine or composite state. In each region of the state machine or composite state it has a single transition to a vertex within the same region.

    I believe that the intent was to say "at most a single transition", since it is possible that no transition exists as well as having multiple outgoing transitions (with guards) in each region.

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    It is correct that entry points do not 'have' to have an outgoing transition. Updating the text is appropriate.

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

Page 60 of the pdf

  • Key: UML22-278
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10356
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Queen's Unioversity ( Juergen Dingel)
  • Summary:

    Page 60 of the pdf (41 in the doc), right above Figure 7.19:

    • replace "also shows umambiguously that end B is owned by BinaryAssociationAB"
      by "also shows umambiguously that endB is owned by BinaryAssociationAB"
  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The is a space between end and B. end B should be endB.

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

UML2: Parameter::isException overlaps with Operation::raisedException

  • Key: UML22-277
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10353
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Mr. Jim Amsden)
  • Summary:

    Section 12.3.41 in CompleteActivites extends Parameter with an isException property. Operation also has property raisedException. The relationship between parameters with isException true and the operation's raisedExceptions is unclear. Is it the intention that Parameter::isException is a notation for indicating the exceptions raised by an operation. If so, then it should be in Basic where raisedException is introduced and constraints need to be added to ensure these parameters are not included in the operation's ownedParameters, and are include in the operation's raisedException. See also Issue 9406: UML2: No notation for indicating Operation::raisedException. Hopefully this is not the case because it mixes parameter and exceptions together and results in redundancy in the metamodel.

    It is possible isException was added so Activities could have an ActivityParameterNode to output exceptions. But this did not get completely integrated with the rest of UML2. I will raise an issue for this too. Perhaps there should be ActivityExceptionNodes that correspond to an operation's raisedExceptions instead of mixing parameters with exceptions.

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

uml.xsd schema file in ptc/2006-04-05 is not correctly generated

  • Key: UML22-279
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10376
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    New ISSUE on UML 2.1 Schema File

    Source: Tom Rutt (Fujitsu)

    Criticality: URGENT

    Problem Description:

    The UML 2.1 RTF Final report cites the following supporting
    documents:

    ptc/2006-04-02 Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure
    ptc/2006-04-03 Unified Modeling Language: Infrastructure
    ptc/2006-04-04 Unified Modeling Language: XMI specifications
    ptc/2006-04-05 Unified Modeling Language: XSD specifications

    The uml.xsd schema file in ptc/2006-04-05 (which is an
    informative document) is not correctly generated.

    In particular, several of the enum values specified in this
    schema have prefixes attached, which are not specified in the
    Meta Model. For example, the visibilityKind enumeration has its
    values improperly prefixed by the string “vis_” ( vis_public, vis_private …).

    This has caused interoperability problems with existing tools,
    since some of them have used the incorrectly generated xsd file for
    uml There is a need to post a corrected uml 2.1 schema on the document server.

    Also, the OMG document references for the supporting xmi and
    schema files are not up to date in the superstructure specification.

    Proposed Solution:

    Post properly generated schemas in a new UML 2.1 XSD Specification
    file on the server.

    Post an updated version of the UML 2.1 RTF report which refers to
    the correctly generated UML XSD specification file.

    The Document references cited in Annex G of the UML 2.1
    superstructure spec should be corrected to point at the most up
    to date and correct specifications.

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

UML2: ReadSelfAction with a context cannot access behavior owned attributes

  • Key: UML22-284
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10441
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Mr. Jim Amsden)
  • Summary:

    Section 11.3.36 ReadSelfAction, Semantics indicates ReadSelfAction returns the context classifier for a behavior if the behavior has a context, otherwise it returns the behavior itself. This special case should be removed. ReadSelfAction should always result in the behavior. Otherwise if a behavior has a context classifier, there is no action available to access the structural features of the behavior. Having ReadSelfAction always result in the Behavior provides access to both the Behavior's ownedAttributes as well as those of the context classifier. If ReadSelfAction is the context classifier, then only its properties can be accessed.

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Sun, 5 Nov 2006 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Duplicate of issue 8016.
    Revised Text:
    None.
    Disposition: Duplicate

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

12.3.27 ExpansionRegion

  • Key: UML22-273
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10146
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    Typo in paragraph Presentation options on page 385: insert blank between "12.85" and "maps".

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This seems to have already been corrected in UML 2.2 as an editorial change.
    Revised Text:
    None
    Disposition: Closed, no change

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

12.3.26 ExpansionNode

  • Key: UML22-272
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10145
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    Specify constraint that a expansion node can have a regionAsInput and a regionAsOutput, but not both at the same time.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Tue, 1 Aug 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    agreed

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

Meaning of Constraint visibility

  • Key: UML22-281
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10382
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    Constraint inherits visibility from PackageableElement but there is no
    description of what it might mean for a Constraint to be more or less
    visible.
    One option would be to constrain Constraint::visibility to be a specific
    value

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Thu, 5 Oct 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 7.3.38

  • Key: UML22-280
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10379
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: St. Petersburg State University ( Iskander Absalyamov)
  • Summary:

    visibility default value cannot be false

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 10831 for disposition

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

Section: 12.3.2 Action

  • Key: UML22-276
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10351
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    Semantics, rule [2] "If multiple control tokens are available on a single edge, they are all consumed." How does this rule fit to the rule that the default weight of an edge is 1. If multiple control tokens are available only one of them can traverse the edge to the target node

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

redefined properties

  • Key: UML22-271
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10144
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( James Bruck)
  • Summary:

    I believe that Port should subset Property::redefinedProperty to include Ports since Ports are Properties

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    agreed

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

Change references in Infra- and Superstructure to UML 2.1.1- URGENT ISSUE-

  • Key: UML22-282
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10386
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    Change all references to UML 2.1 in the Infrastructure and Superstructure documents to UML 2.1.1

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: Activities - Pin ordering semantics

  • Key: UML22-240
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9860
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Mr. Ed Seidewitz)
  • Summary:

    Pin ordering semantics. In Activities, InputPin, OutputPin, the semantics of ordering inherited from ObjectNode should be related to multiplicity ordering inherited from MultiplicityElement. For example, if an output pin of ReadStructuralFeatureAction has an object node ordering of FIFO, and the structural feature is ordered (which means the multiplicity ordering of the pin is also), then perhaps the multiple values posted by a single execution of the action should be drawn from the pin in the same order as in the structural feature. Since the action will post the values to the output pin at the same time, currently FIFO ordering on the pin will be indeterminant

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add text below.

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

Section Activities: Default weight

  • Key: UML22-239
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9858
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Mr. Ed Seidewitz)
  • Summary:

    Default weight. In Activities, ActivityEdge, Assocations, the default weight should be unlimited . For example, a ReadStructuralFeatureAction of a mult-valued attribute might produce multiple tokens, which flow to the input of an AddStructuralFeatureAction. Do not want the values to be input to separate executions of AddStructuralFeatureAction

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The spec says weight determines the minimum number of tokens that must traverse the edge (offers accepted by target) at the same time. And it requires any tokens offered above the minimum to be taken at the same time:
    When the minimum number of tokens are offered, all the tokens at the source are offered to the target all at once.
    So the default can remain 1 for the example.
    Revised Text:
    None.
    Disposition: Closed No Change

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

Section: 7

  • Key: UML22-226
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9823
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Dr. Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    In UML2, it is possible to describe user defined datatypes and propertis may typed by this typed. But, nothing has been defined in the UML2 specifcation to be abble to describe values (of slots for example) which has to be conform to a datatype. One could add a new metaclass (for example, DataTypeValueSpecification inheriting from ValueSpecification) in the Expression package to be abble to denote datatype values. And to define the underlying notation.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Mon, 12 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merged with 15248

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

Section: 12.3.8

  • Key: UML22-232
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9829
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    Section Associations of ActivityNode: /inGroup:Group[0..*] Groups containing the node. should be /inGroup:ActivityGroup[0..*] Activity groups containing the node.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    agreed

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

Section: 15.3.12

  • Key: UML22-236
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9839
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Engenuity Technologies, Inc. ( Mikon Dosogne)
  • Summary:

    If there are multiple enabled internal transitions within the active state, should they all be fired? The standard suggests that they should all be fired, but is this done in practice? For example, consider the case of two internal transitions within the same state, triggered by the same event, with no guard condition. If that event occurs, will both transitions fire?

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merged with 9840

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

Page: 338, 339

  • Key: UML22-185
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9330
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    The fork node does not provide tokens to outgoing edges with a guard that evaluates to false. Actions with more than one outgoing edge have a implicit fork semantic. It is unclear if a token is provided to edges with false-guards. The specification defines on page 339: "The guard must evaluate to true for every token that is offered to pass along the edge." Does the token exist if the guard evaluates to false? Does the token wait until it evaluates to true? The evaluation is done at runtime. At which time exactly? While offering tokens or all the time during activity runtime?

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion
    In the UML 2.5 beta specification, in Subclause 15.2.3, under “Activity Edges”, it states: “An ActivityEdge may have
    a guard, which is a ValueSpecification that is evaluated for each token offered to the edge.” In 15.3.3, under “Fork
    Nodes”, it further states: “Tokens offered to a ForkNode are offered to all outgoing ActivityEdges of the node.” Thus,
    the guards on outgoing edges are evaluated when the tokens offered to the ForkNode are offered to them. Finally, the
    specification notes: “Any outgoing ActivityEdges that fail to accept an offer due to the failure of their guard, rather
    than their target, shall not receive copies of those tokens.” So, outgoing edgeswith guards that evaluate to false do not
    receive tokens and therefore do not offer them downstream.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

Page: 625

  • Key: UML22-189
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9362
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    Extend (with condition) entry in diagram table: The comment anchor line has a small circle at the end. That's not UML notation, but Pavel Hruby notation

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Wed, 15 Feb 2006 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merged with 18084

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

Section: 12.3.48

  • Key: UML22-196
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9416
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    I've found a implicit constraint: Imagine - for example - a LoopNode. It's part of an activity partition called component1. Within the body of the loop node an action should be called that's part of another activity partition called component2 (It's a common scenario: a component calls another component from within a loop). However that's not allowed: the loop node is in partition component1 while a contained action is in partition component2. Is that right? If yes, I believe it should be allowed.

  • Reported: UML 2.1 — Tue, 14 Mar 2006 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    It is not clear what the submitter means by a loop node "calling" an action. As a structured activity node, a loop node owns the actions within it. However, an activity partition references contained nodes and edges, but it does not own them. Therefore, it is allowable for the actions contained in a loop node to be in different partitions, if this is what is desired.
    Revised Text:
    None
    Disposition: Closed, no change

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

Section: 11.3.2.2 ControlOperator

  • Legacy Issue Number: 11267
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    What happens if a control value from a control operator stops the following action and there are no more tokens left and no actions are active? Does this terminates the execution of the activity? What if the control value suspends the action? Who can resume the action? There are no more tokens and running actions.

  • Reported: UML 2.1.1 — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SysML 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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