UML Diagram Interchange Avatar
  1. OMG Specification

UML Diagram Interchange — Closed Issues

  • Acronym: UMLDI
  • Issues Count: 20
  • Description: Issues resolved by a task force and approved by Board
Closed All
Issues resolved by a task force and approved by Board

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
UMLDI-18 Rename the specification to OMG Diagram Interchange Specification UMLDI 1.0b1 UMLDI 1.0 Resolved closed
UMLDI-19 A schema definition has to be added for the completeness of the specificati UMLDI 1.0b1 UMLDI 1.0 Resolved closed
UMLDI-20 UML diagram interchange: limitation of complex properties UMLDI 1.0b1 UMLDI 1.0 Resolved closed
UMLDI-9 UML diagram interchange: more features in schema? UMLDI 1.0b1 UMLDI 1.0 Resolved closed
UMLDI-11 UML diagram interchange: cut-out diagram feature UMLDI 1.0b1 UMLDI 1.0 Resolved closed
UMLDI-16 UML diagram interchange: containment vs reference UMLDI 1.0b1 UMLDI 1.0 Resolved closed
UMLDI-12 UML diagram interchange: do diagrams have to be nodes? UMLDI 1.0b1 UMLDI 1.0 Resolved closed
UMLDI-13 UML diagram interchange: translucent property unnecessary? UMLDI 1.0b1 UMLDI 1.0 Resolved closed
UMLDI-10 UML diagram interchange: dubious value of leaf elements UMLDI 1.0b1 UMLDI 1.0 Resolved closed
UMLDI-8 UML diagram interchange: limitation of complex properties UMLDI 1.0b1 UMLDI 1.0 Resolved closed
UMLDI-15 UML diagram interchange: association as a graph node UMLDI 1.0b1 UMLDI 1.0 Resolved closed
UMLDI-14 UML diagram interchange: unit of measurement UMLDI 1.0b1 UMLDI 1.0 Resolved closed
UMLDI-17 UML 2 Diagram Interchange / Assigning icons to stereotypes UMLDI 1.0b1 UMLDI 1.0 Resolved closed
UMLDI-6 UML diagram interchange: views may need more context UMLDI 1.0b1 UMLDI 1.0 Resolved closed
UMLDI-5 Introduce a 'Nesting Guide' UMLDI 1.0b1 UMLDI 1.0 Resolved closed
UMLDI-7 UML diagram interchange: inappropriate diagram properties UMLDI 1.0b1 UMLDI 1.0 Resolved closed
UMLDI-2 UML Diagram interchange -- change Rational ref to IBM UMLDI 1.0b1 UMLDI 1.0 Resolved closed
UMLDI-3 Allow a Diagram Element to represent multiple Model Elements UMLDI 1.0b1 UMLDI 1.0 Resolved closed
UMLDI-4 Change role name in DI metamodel UMLDI 1.0b1 UMLDI 1.0 Resolved closed
UMLDI-1 property CoreSemanticModelBridge.element UMLDI 1.0b1 UMLDI 1.0 Resolved closed

Issues Descriptions

Rename the specification to OMG Diagram Interchange Specification

  • Key: UMLDI-18
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7568
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: agnos.ai UK Ltd ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    The current title of the document reflects the original RFP but is far
    too specific for the standard produced and unnecessarily limits how
    people may think it can be applied.

    Proposed resolution:
    Rename the specification to OMG Diagram Interchange Specification

  • Reported: UMLDI 1.0b1 — Wed, 7 Jul 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UMLDI 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

A schema definition has to be added for the completeness of the specificati

  • Key: UMLDI-19
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7788
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Gentleware AG ( Marko Boger)
  • Summary:

    A schema definition has to be added for the completeness of the specification

  • Reported: UMLDI 1.0b1 — Wed, 29 Sep 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UMLDI 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

UML diagram interchange: limitation of complex properties

  • Key: UMLDI-20
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7262
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Malina Software Corp. ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    The representation of properties as a collection of string key-value pairs means that non-string properties need to be encoded as strings. Can this present a limitation for more complex properties (references, maps, lists…etc)?

  • Reported: UMLDI 1.0b1 — Thu, 22 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UMLDI 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

UML diagram interchange: more features in schema?

  • Key: UMLDI-9
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7263
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Malina Software Corp. ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    Vendors usually add more features to UML diagrams which could require more features in the schema. Is it expected for these features to be omitted when exporting to DI? If no, then there has to be an agreement on those formats as well

  • Reported: UMLDI 1.0b1 — Thu, 22 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UMLDI 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

UML diagram interchange: cut-out diagram feature

  • Key: UMLDI-11
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7265
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Malina Software Corp. ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    Regarding the cut-out diagram feature, I cannot see how the large diagram can layout out its referenced diagrams without explicitly store layout information. Is there any? This should be documented.

  • Reported: UMLDI 1.0b1 — Thu, 22 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UMLDI 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

UML diagram interchange: containment vs reference

  • Key: UMLDI-16
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7273
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Malina Software Corp. ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    With regard to the OMG issue of changing the semantic bridge’s association with the diagram role from ‘namespace’ to ‘owner’, the request is appropriate but the justification that state diagrams are owned by state-machines and therefore the role name has to change is not correct. In fact, the important relationship between a state diagram and its state-machine should not be the containment but rather the reference relationship. A state diagram references a state-machine element through the semantic bridge’s ‘semantic model’ role. The containment relationship is optional; a state diagram could legitimately be referencing a state-machine but contained within another namespace (although not typical).

  • Reported: UMLDI 1.0b1 — Thu, 22 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UMLDI 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

UML diagram interchange: do diagrams have to be nodes?

  • Key: UMLDI-12
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7266
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Malina Software Corp. ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    If you considered zoom and viewport position to be in the workspace, then a diagram just has a name. This means a diagram does not have to be a node. It could just be a GraphElement. Also the diagram link having the same properties will have the same issue (By persisting these properties in the mode, team members would have to share these (not necessarily the expectation). )

  • Reported: UMLDI 1.0b1 — Thu, 22 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UMLDI 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

UML diagram interchange: translucent property unnecessary?

  • Key: UMLDI-13
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7267
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Malina Software Corp. ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    Is the ‘Translucent’ property needed? Cannot be inferred by not having a background color property?

  • Reported: UMLDI 1.0b1 — Thu, 22 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UMLDI 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

UML diagram interchange: dubious value of leaf elements

  • Key: UMLDI-10
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7264
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Malina Software Corp. ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    Rendering UML shapes is the responsibility of the tool. Therefore, there is no value in using Leaf Elements in the aggregation of UML views. If the intention of using them is notational (like whether attribute visibility should be textual or iconic) then a property is the better way to represent it.

  • Reported: UMLDI 1.0b1 — Thu, 22 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UMLDI 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

UML diagram interchange: limitation of complex properties

  • Key: UMLDI-8
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7261
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Malina Software Corp. ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    The representation of properties as a collection of string key-value pairs means that non-string properties need to be encoded as strings. Can this present a limitation for more complex properties (references, maps, lists…etc)?

  • Reported: UMLDI 1.0b1 — Thu, 22 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UMLDI 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

UML diagram interchange: association as a graph node

  • Key: UMLDI-15
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7272
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Malina Software Corp. ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    You gave an example about the adornment of an association and its representation as a graph node. I thought this information can be deduced from the semantic relationship! Why do you need to explicitly represent it as a node?

  • Reported: UMLDI 1.0b1 — Thu, 22 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UMLDI 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

UML diagram interchange: unit of measurement

  • Key: UMLDI-14
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7268
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Malina Software Corp. ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    The coordinate system assumes ‘pixel’ to be the unit of measurement. Often publishing applications use a physical measurement instead (like himetric). Do we need to consider that? Which is more common for the types of applications in consideration?

  • Reported: UMLDI 1.0b1 — Thu, 22 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UMLDI 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

UML 2 Diagram Interchange / Assigning icons to stereotypes

  • Key: UMLDI-17
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7305
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Malina Software Corp. ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    There is a need to uniquely assign one or more stereotype icons to a stereotype, when that stereotype is defined. It should be explained how this stereotype is displayed and how multiple stereotypes are handled.

  • Reported: UMLDI 1.0b1 — Wed, 5 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UMLDI 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

UML diagram interchange: views may need more context

  • Key: UMLDI-6
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7258
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Malina Software Corp. ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    The semantic bridge contains either a single reference property or a simple string. Some views, however, need more semantic context than that. (eg: pattern instance views need two semantic references to represent the semantic context).

  • Reported: UMLDI 1.0b1 — Thu, 22 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UMLDI 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

Introduce a 'Nesting Guide'

  • Key: UMLDI-5
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7257
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Gentleware AG ( Marko Boger)
  • Summary:

    Introduce a 'Nesting Guide' to specify the contained-container hierarchies
    of the diagram elements to represents all model elements of the semantic
    model

    Explanation:

    The semantic model elements are typically represented by a hierarchy of
    nested diagram elements which have a container-contained relationship. To
    specify which hierarchy of diagram elements is needed to model a special
    represenation of a model element we need a nesting guide which describes the
    hierachies for all model elements. This nesting guide should be an appendix
    to the diagram interchange specification and is added as an appendix to this
    document.

    Gentleware will provide a nesting guide that refers to the UML 1.4
    metamodel. As soon as the super- and infrastructure of the UML 2.0 is
    finally adopted a nesting guide for UML 2.0 should be created.

  • Reported: UMLDI 1.0b1 — Fri, 16 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UMLDI 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

UML diagram interchange: inappropriate diagram properties

  • Key: UMLDI-7
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7260
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Malina Software Corp. ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    Some properties like the diagram zoom level or viewport positions might not be suitable for a team environment, where each person could change them without having to share this preference with the rest of the team. By persisting these properties in the mode, team members would have to share these (not necessary the expectation). Alternatively, these properties could be part of the workspace preferences.

  • Reported: UMLDI 1.0b1 — Thu, 22 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UMLDI 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

UML Diagram interchange -- change Rational ref to IBM

  • Key: UMLDI-2
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6973
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Malina Software Corp. ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    The current draft spec still refers to Rational Software in the front matter. Any references to this should be changed to IBM Rational Software

  • Reported: UMLDI 1.0b1 — Mon, 9 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UMLDI 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

Allow a Diagram Element to represent multiple Model Elements

  • Key: UMLDI-3
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7165
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: agnos.ai UK Ltd ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    SemanticModelBridge.element (actually realized on its subclasses
    currently) has a multiplicity of 1.
    There are several cases where one visual diagram element will represent
    multiple elements in the metamodel (abstract syntax).
    For example 'AssemblyConnector' which I think should be a single symbol
    consisting of joined 'cup and ball' (see p148 of Superstructure
    ptc/03-08-02).

    Proposed resolution: change the multiplicity of
    SemanticModelBridge.element from 1 to 1..*.

  • Reported: UMLDI 1.0b1 — Thu, 18 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UMLDI 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

Change role name in DI metamodel

  • Key: UMLDI-4
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7252
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Gentleware AG ( Marko Boger)
  • Summary:

    Change role name in DI metamodel of the SemanticModelBridge associated with the Diagram from 'namespace' to 'owner'

    Explanation:

    The association between the class 'Diagram' and 'SemanticModelBridge' in the DI metamodel has the intension to model which namespace is assigned to a diagram. So the name of the role of the SemanticModelBridge has been 'namespace'. But state diagrams and activity diagrams belong to a state machine. So the name 'owner' fits better in this context.

  • Reported: UMLDI 1.0b1 — Fri, 16 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UMLDI 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

property CoreSemanticModelBridge.element

  • Key: UMLDI-1
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6971
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: agnos.ai UK Ltd ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    The property CoreSemanticModelBridge.element should reference the class
    MOF::Object rather than Elements::Element. MOF::Object is the implicit
    superclass of everything in UML2/MOF2.
    Making this change allows diagram elements to refer to instances of any
    metamodel: not just UML2.

  • Reported: UMLDI 1.0b1 — Tue, 3 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UMLDI 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT