In A.2.1.2 Operations on p193, toLowerCase is referred to as toLower "case translations are possible with toUpper and toLower" and again in Table A.1

Also toUpperCase is referred to as toUpper in the same places

No Data Available

In Section 8.2.2, in Classifier well-formedness rules, 'collectionTypes' is used instead
of 'collectionType'. This is not correct since in OCL, by convention, when not provided explicitly
the name of an opposite role takes the name of the target class with first letter lowerized.

No Data Available

12.12 para 3 "OCl" for "OCL".

12.8 para 1 last sentence, 12.9 para 1 last sentence; both are unreadable.

12.12.2 No [B] rule

12.12.1/12.12.2 contextDeclCS/contextDeclarationCS

The OCl typo is fixed in OCL 2.3.
The grammar typos are easily fixed.
While making the multiplicity statements readable, we can make one small step towards aligning OCL with UML 2.x properties.

When Issue 9796 updated terminology to use PropertyCallExpCS, attrOrAssocContextCS should have been updated to propertyContextCS.

In 12.12.2 contextDeclarationCS replace
[A] contextDeclarationCS ::= attrOrAssocContextCS
by
[A] contextDeclarationCS ::= propertyContextDeclCS
Replace
12.12.3 attrOrAssocContextCS
This production rule represents a context declaration for expressions that can be coupled to an attribute or
association end. The path name refers to the “owner” of the attribute or association end, the simple name
refers to its name, the type states its type.
attrOrAssocContextCS ::= ‘context’ pathNameCS ‘::’ simpleName’:’ typeCS initOrDerValueCS
by
12.12.3 propertyContextDeclCS
This production rule represents a context declaration for expressions that can be coupled to a property. The
path name refers to the “owner” of the property, the simple name refers to its name, the type states its type.
propertyContextDeclCS ::= ‘context’ pathNameCS ‘::’ simpleName’:’ typeCS initOrDerValueCS

11.2.3 states clearly that "Any property call applied on null results in OclInvalid, except for the operations oclIsUndefined() and oclIsInvalid()." This is being revised by Issue 14197 in OCL 2.3 to: "Any property call applied on OclVoid results in invalid, except for the operations oclIsUndefined(), oclIsInvalid(), =(OclAny) and <>(OclAny)."

11.2.4 states clearly that "Any property call applied on invalid results in OclInvalid, except for the operations oclIsUndefined() and oclIsInvalid()." This is being revised by Issue 14197 in OCL 2.3 to: "Any property call applied on OclInvalid results in invalid, except for the operations oclIsUndefined() and oclIsInvalid()."

Therefore invalid.oclIsTypeOf(OclInvalid) => invalid and null.oclIsTypeOf(OclVoid) => invalid.

But the above are widely used in the specification as for example:

"oclIsUndefined() : Boolean
Evaluates to true if the self is equal to OclInvalid or equal to null.
post: result = self.isTypeOf( OclVoid ) or self.isTypeOf(OclInvalid)"

clearly expecting isTypeOf (a typo) to return true/false, not invalid sometimes.

Issue 14197 relaxed the OclVoid property list to allow = and <>. Perhaps all oclXXX operations should have an explicitly defined semantics for OclVoid and OclInvalid, supporting rather than denying reflective usage of the values as in self.isTypeOf( OclVoid ).

Merged with Issue 18437.
Disposition: See issue 18437 for disposition

The specification is very vague as to how and when a non-collection is converted to a collection.

11.2.3 states that 'If the source is the null literal, it is implicitly converted to Bag{}'.

7.5.3 states that 'Such a single object can be used as a Set as well. It then behaves as if it is a Set containing the single object. The usage as a set is done through the arrow followed by a property of Set.'

The collection type inconsistency between Bag{} and Set

makes compile-time type resolution difficult, since the null-ness of x cannot be known till run-time. It would be better to have either Set or Bag uniformly as the conversion collection type. Bag{} as the least useful seems more appropriate.

When a conversion is applicable is unclear.

In the example, self.manager->isEmpty() is intended to be interpreted as

if self.manager.isUndefined() then Set{} else Set

endif->isEmpty()

so that null->isEmpty is also valid.

However is

null->excludesAll(null)

equivalent to

Bag{}->excludesAll(Bag{})

and so true?

A simple policy of 'wherever a collection is required and a non-collection is provided perform an implicit conversion to collection-literal' resolves this.

However are

null = Bag{}

or

Bag{} = null

both equivalent to

Bag{} = Bag{}

and so true?

In this case we have a problem of asymmetric overloading.

null = Bag{} satisfies the signature for OclVoid::=(OclAny) and so returns false.

Bag{} = null could satisfy the signature for Bag::=(Bag) and so return true with the help of an implicit conversion.

Presumably an additional OclVoid::=(Collection) overload is needed to restore symmetry.

Resolved by Issue 15009, where the explicit synthesis of oclAsSet() avoids the troublesome conversions above.
Disposition: See issue 15009 for disposition

OCL 2.2 defines equalsIgnoreCase as returning an Integer. Given that the operation determines equivalence of two Strings, I would expect it to return Boolean: either the strings are equivalent (true) or they are not (false).

No Data Available

The Issue 14981 considered use of explicit null as a Collection.

11.2.3 states that 'If the source is the null literal, it is implicitly converted to Bag{}'.

Surely when the null arises as a navigation result, the isOrdered and isUnique characteristics of the navigated property should determine what CollectionKind the null result is converted to?

However meta-modelling tools and meta-modellers pay little attention to the isUnique and isOrdered characteristics of zero and unit multiplicity properties. Using this overlooked information may cause surprises.

7.6.3 Navigation over Associations with Multiplicity Zero or One suggests non-collection are converted to Sets. Similarly 7.6.5, 9.7. So there is a contradiction in the normative conversion to Set or Bag. Set seems more sensible and what the non-normative clauses suggest.
Using the accidental ordered/unique attributes of non-collections would lead to horrible surprises for existing usage, so it must be conversion to a set.
Since the conversion of null yields an empty set, whereas any other object yields a single element set, the Set size is data dependent and so must be determined at run-time and cannot be expressed as a CollectionLiteralExp. Rather, evaluation of PropertyCallExp and OperationCallExp must detect a mismatch between a non-collection source type and a collection-type referredOperation class.
Delayed resolution is inconsistent with OCL's static typing, so let us make it explicit by defining OclAny::oclAsSet() for the static analysis to invoke and perform the conversion. The conversion is represented as a regular OperationCallExp in the AST and only type-dependent run-time decisions need to be made.
Note that the revisions below do not address the deficiencies in the normative Clause 9 text raised by Issue 15790. We continue to rely on the final sentence of 9.7: "The mapping is not formally defined in this document but should be obvious."

OCLAny::=() is defined as 'True if self is the same object as object2.'

This is not overloaded for numeric types, and it is not specified that a numeric value may not have multiple instances.

The definition therefore implies that:

1 = 1

may often evaluate to false, and that

1.0 = 1

must evaluate to false even though (1.0 <= 1) and (1.0 >= 1) will evaluate true

Suggest overload

::

to use values rather than objects.

The use of object should be clarified so that
Class instances are compared by object identity.
DataType instances are compared by value.
This resolution overlaps with null/invalid clarification and so the change below includes changes for Issue 18437.

8.3.8 states that in regard to allInstances

"returns all instances of the classifier and the classifiers specializing it. May only be used for classifiers that have a finite
number of instances. This is the case, for example, for user defined classes because instances need to be created explicitly,
and for enumerations, the standard Boolean type, and other special types such as OclVoid and OclInvalid."

While it is true that OclInvalid has exactly one instance, the corresponding return of Set

is not well-formed.

Therefore the invocation OclInvalid.allInstances() must return invalid.

Suggest:

Replace "and OclInvalid" by ". But not for OclInvalid, for which the return is invalid"

No Data Available

subclause [10])

It reads: let foundElement ... in result = if foundAttribute ... else foundElement ...

(foundAttribute is undefined, I understand it means to "foundElement")

simple typo

Related to Issue 7539)

It reads: isOclKind

It should read: oclIsKindOf

Rationale: per section 7.5.9 the operation name is "oclIsKindOf"

This typo is addressed by Issue 14882
Disposition: Merged

The second half of 7.3.3 uses a named-self syntax that is missing from 12.2.5.

context c : Company inv:
c.numberOfEmployees > 50

In 12.12.2 classifierContextDeclCS replace
This production rule represents a context declaration for expressions that can be coupled to classifiers.
classifierContextDeclCS ::= ‘context’ pathNameCS invOrDefCS
by
This production rule represents a context declaration for expressions that can be coupled to classifiers. The
variable declaration to the classifier context is 'self' for the A form and explicitly specified for the B form.
[A] classifierContextDeclCS ::= ‘context’ pathNameCS invOrDefCS
[B] classifierContextDeclCS ::= ‘context’ simpleNameCS ':' pathNameCS invOrDefCS

(Related to Issue 7539)

It reads: isOclKind

It should read: oclIsKindOf

Rationale: per section 7.5.9 the operation name is "oclIsKindOf"

No Data Available

subclause [4]

It reads: names->tail()

It should read:
names->subSequence(2, names.size())

Rationale: tail() is not an operation of Sequence

No Data Available

The iterators of LoopExp and LoopExpEval are not ordered, but the well-formedness constraints on them use ->at() which is only available for ordered collection. Usage of the AST property is subject to a variety of spelling, ordering and multiplicity inconsistencies.

Section 7.6.3 and 7.6.4 define extended variants of forAll and exists that have two iterators.

Figure 8.2 and Figure 13.3 show an unordered * multiplicity for LoopExp.iterator. The positioning of the VariableExp.referredVariable 0..1 multiplicity makes the diagram easy to mis-read.

Section 8.3.1 LoopExp defines iterator as "The iterator variables. These variables are, each in its turn, " implying an ordered collection.

Section 8.3.7 LoopExp [2] and [3] use iterator->forAll implying a collection.

Section 9.3 IteratorExpCS synthesized attributes use iterators->at(1) and at(2) requiring an ordered collection.

Section 9.3 IterateExpCS concrete syntax supports at most one iterator and one accumulator.

Section 9.3 IterateExpCS synthesized attributes use iterator.initExpression requiring a non-collection.

Figure 10.7 shows LoopExpEval.iterators as unordered 1..n.

Section 10.3.1 LoopExpEval defines iterators as "The names of the iterator variables".

Section 10.3.7 IterateExpEval [1] uses iterators->at(1) and iterators->at(2) implying an ordered collection with upper bound 2.

Section 10.3.7 LoopExpEval [1] has a two way if = 1 else, implying the upper bound is 2.

Section 10.3.7 LoopExpEval [3] uses iterators->at(1) and iterators->at(2) implying an ordered collection with upper bound 2.

Section 11.9.1 defines the mapping of forAll to iterate for multiple iterators, but IterateExpCS only supports a single iterator.

Revised Text:
In Figure 8.2 and Figure 13.3 change LoopExp.iterator from 0..1 to 1..2

.

In Section 8.3.1 LoopExp iterator replace
The iterator variables
by
The ordered set of one or two iterator variables.

In Section 9.3 IteratorExpCS replace
IteratorExpCS.ast.iterators->size() = 1
else
IteratorExpCS.ast.iterators->at(2).name = VariableDeclarationCS[2].ast.name
and
IteratorExpCS.ast.iterators->at(2).type =
...
[A] IteratorExpCS.ast.iterators->forAll(initExpression->isEmpty())
...
[C, D] IteratorExpCS.ast.iterator.type =
...
body.source.oclAsType (VariableExp).referredVariable = IteratorExpCS.ast.iterator
by
IteratorExpCS.ast.iterator->size() = 1
else
IteratorExpCS.ast.iterator->at(2).name = VariableDeclarationCS[2].ast.name
and
IteratorExpCS.ast.iterator->at(2).type =
...
[A] IteratorExpCS.ast.iterator->forAll(initExpression->isEmpty())
...
[C, D] IteratorExpCS.ast.iterator->at(1).type =
...
body.source.oclAsType (VariableExp).referredVariable = IteratorExpCS.ast.iterator->at(1)

In Section 9.3 IterateExpCS replace
IterateExpCS.ast.iterator.name = if VariableDeclarationCS[1]->isEmpty() then ‘’
...
IterateExpCS.ast.iterator.type =
...
IterateExpCS.ast.iterator.initExpression->isEmpty()
by
IterateExpCS.ast.iterator->at(1).name = if VariableDeclarationCS[1]->isEmpty() then ‘’
...
IterateExpCS.ast.iterator->at(1).type =
...
IterateExpCS.ast.iterator->at(1).initExpression->isEmpty()

In Section 10.3.1 LoopExpEval iterators replace
The names of the iterator variables in the loop expression
by
The ordered set of names of the one or two iterator variables in the loop expression.

The attached surprisingly large set of revised text recommendations endeavours to resolve every inconsistent use of invalid and null/void types and the failure to update the specification when undefined was split into null and invalid. The recommendations also correct many conversion errors that crept in when Word Processor formats were changed. Once these changes are incorporated, a very careful proof read against at least Annex A of 03-01-07 should be performed.

The initial discussion identifies that the approved resolutions of Issues: 6611, 10433, 10434, 12349, 12378, 12484 and 12485 are at best deficient

No Data Available

Issue 11098 resolved the missing precedence of let-in as lowest. This requires "2 * let a:Integer=1 in a + 1" to be interpreted as "(2 * (let a:Integer=1 in a)) + 1" making use of a non-trivial let body surprising and needlessly complicated. The problem with the open-ended right hand side can be resolved by assigning let-in the highest atomic expression precedence and defining its resolution as right-associative. The above example then has the obvious meaning "2 * (let a:Integer=1 in (a + 1))".

Issue 6544 introduces ^ and ^^ at higher precedence than . and ->. However since these operators can only return left hand arguments for each other, there is no need to assign these to different levels.

if-then-else-endif has an intermediate precedence in OCL 2.1. Since this term has keywords at start and end, the term is equivalent to an atomic expression. In so far as precedence is meaningful it is a high precedence.

Parentheses should be bulletted at high precedence.

Non commutative operators such as / have no defined order of evaluation leaving the value of "8 / 4 / 2" undefined. Binary operators should be specified as left-associative; i.e "(8 / 4) / 2".

Section 9.3.2 duplicates 7.4.7.

No Data Available

Define the concrete syntax of a simpleNameCS to avoid punctuation collisions, support Unicode characters, and add a double quoted form with escape sequences for awkward names.

Define the concrete syntax of a StringLiteralExpCS to support escape sequences for awkward characters.

Define the concrete syntax of RealLiteralExpCS and IntegerLiteralExpCS.

Define a variety of effectively reserved words such as true, self, Bag, String as reserved.

No Data Available

The specification of the UnlimitedNatural type is largely missing and often trivially inconsistent.

see pages 24 - 35 of OMG document ptc/2010-12-01

Erroneous operation names 'isOclType' and 'asOclType'. The operation 'isOclType' appears four times throughout the document. I presume it refers to 'oclIsTypeOf'. The operation 'asOclType' appears six times throughout the document. I presume it refers to 'oclAsType'.

No Data Available

Specification: Object Constraint Language, formal/06-05-01

Section: 7.6 Collection Operations

Summary:

The concept of transitive closure is very useful for specifying well-formedness constraints on binary relations.

For a binary relation r:A->A and elements x,y,z in A, r(x,y) is true when r relates x to y and r is transitive whenever for any x,y,z in A, r(x,y) and r(y,z) imply r(x,z). The transitive closure of a binary relation r:A->A is the smallest relation, ^r:A->A, that contains r and is transitive.

In the UML specification, the definition of Classifier::allParents() : Classifier[*] as “all the direct and indirect ancestors of a generalized Classifier” could be equivalently paraphrased as the transitive closure of the Classifier::parents() : Classifier[*] relation.

Specifying the notion of transitive closure for the OCL specification can be problematic as this notion refers to a meta-property not expressible in first order logic (i.e., the smallest relation satisfying a given property). However, the notion of transitive closure can be specified in the context of a particular API for evaluating OCL iterator expressions such as that of the Eclipse OCL implementation of the OCL2.0 specification:

http://help.eclipse.org/ganymede/index.jsp?topic=/org.eclipse.ocl.doc/references/overview/OCLOverview.html

http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/org.eclipse.mdt/org.eclipse.ocl/plugins/org.eclipse.ocl/src/org/eclipse/ocl/internal/evaluation/IterationTemplateClosure.java?root=Modeling_Project&view=markup

A synopsis of the algorithm for computing the transitive closure as an OCL iterator expression is available here:

http://dev.eclipse.org/newslists/news.eclipse.modeling.mdt.ocl/msg01390.html

No Data Available

[Splitting a major issue off from a number of minor issues in 14357, so that the resolutions do not get confused.]

Define a variety of effectively reserved words such as true, self, Bag, String as reserved.

Define which Complete OCL reserved words are Essential OCL reserved words.

No Data Available

Description:

9.3 Concrete Syntax
As a convention to the concrete syntax, conflicting properties or conflicting class names can be aliased using the «» (underscore) prefix. Inside an OCL expression that is written with the concrete syntax, when a property name or a class name is found to start with a «›, firstly the symbol is lookup in the metamodel. If not found, the same symbol with the «_» skipped is tried.

Should be

As a convention to the concrete syntax, conflicting properties or conflicting class names can be aliased using the «» (underscore) prefix. Inside an OCL expression that is written with the concrete syntax, when a property name or a class name is found to start with a «», the symbol with the «_» skipped is looked up in the metamodel.

Explanation: Consider that some class in the metamodel has two properties called '_self' and 'self' correspondingly. With the resolution rule defined in 9.3 one can never access 'self' property. On one hand, you cannot refer to it directly because it clashed the keyword self. One the other hand, '_self' would refer to '_self' property according to 9.3. Thus, both variants 'aClass.self' and 'aClass._self' are not helpful here.

Discussion:
Issue 14357 introduces a new underscore-prefix string syntax (_'self') to access awkward
spellings. This solves the problem of accessing either _'self' or _'_self'.

Issue 7341 resolved that a bad oclAsType in 7.4.6 should return invalid.

Issue 10437 resolved that the revised text for bad oclAsType in 11.2.5 should return null.

Issue 6532 resolved that oclAsType in 7.5.9. return a Classifier. The changed specification has OclType.

Issue 7341 is correct.; invalid should be returned by oclAsType when the type
does not conform. Issue 10437 is wrong. The 10437 revised text also incorrectly
uses t rather than T.
Issue 6532 specified an 'instance of Classifier' return for oclAsType. The
convenience document has not been updated.

The expression

'a'.oclAsType(String)

is not well-formed since the invocation of oclAsType is an OperationCallExpCS[E] for which String must be an OclExpressionCS.

String is intended to be a literal expression with a Classifier value, but there is no well-formed OclExpressionCS that can represent such a value.

Syntactically:

String could be a VariableExpCS but is not the name of a visible VariableDeclaration.

String could be a PropertyCallExpCS[B or C] or AssociationClassCallExpCS[B] but is not the name of a property.

A TypeLiteralExpCS is required to allow use of at least typeCS[A] and more flexibly any typeCS.

In 9.3 LiteralExpCS add
[E] LiteralExpCS ::= TypeLiteralExpCS
and
[E] LiteralExpCS.ast = TypeLiteralExpCS.ast
and
[E] TypeLiteralExpCS.env = LiteralExpCS.env
In 9.3 add
TypeLiteralExpCS
This production rule references a type name.
Abstract syntax mapping
TypeLiteralExpCS ::= typeCS
Synthesized attributes
TypeLiteralExpCS.ast = typeCS.ast
Inherited attributes
typeCS.env = TypeLiteralExpCS.env
Disambiguating rules
– none

Disambiguating rule 1 for TupleLiteralExp requires each VariableDeclaration to have a type and initExpression.

However some examples in 7.5.15 omit the type, which is easily inferred from the initializer.

However neither 8.3.7 nor 9.3 specifies this inference.

Presumably the type is optional and to be inferred when omitted.

The synthesized attributes for VariableDeclarationCS should infer when possible.

The definition of the CollectionRangeCS grammar is

CollectionRangeCS ::= OclExpressionCS[1] ‘,’ OclExpressionCS[2]

but everywhere else the operator is '..'

Suggest change to

CollectionRangeCS ::= OclExpressionCS[1] ‘..’ OclExpressionCS[2]

simple typo

Issue 9913 defines the missing InvalidLiteralExpCS and NullLiteralExpCS, but they are never referenced in the grammar.

Suggest:

Add to PrimitiveLiteralExpCS

[E] PrimitiveLiteralExpCS ::= NullLiteralExpCS
[F] PrimitiveLiteralExpCS ::= InvalidLiteralExpCS

and

[E] PrimitiveLiteralExpCS.ast = NullLiteralExpCS.ast
[F] PrimitiveLiteralExpCS.ast = InvalidLiteralExpCS.ast

(not forgetting UnlimitedNaturalLiteralExpCS

Yes; resolution 9913 is incomplete

The OCL 2.0 specification would be much easier to read if:

1) The PDF had a full set of titles visible in the bookmarks:

8.3.*, Annex A.2 , Annex B and Index are missing completely.

A.1 and A.3 apppear as subsections of 13.3.

2) There are a number of large sections such as 8.3.*, 9.3 and 10.4 with unnumbered headings for each AS or CS class.
[11.5 is much better in this respect.]

These are not in alphabetical order, not page aligned and not particularly distinct.

It would be helpful to

a) give them numbers so that they appear in the Bookmarks and are more distinct.
b) put them in alphabetical order.
[c) consider page aligning them.]

[It would be good if the index was much more comprehensive too.

e.g "at", "null", "any", "iterator", "UnlimitedNatural" ...]

PDF bookmarks were fixed in OCL 2.3.
Alphabeticizing must wait until autogenerated in OCL 2.5.
Provision of a manually maintained index in OMG specifications is strongly discouraged.
Disposition: Closed, no change

The well-formedness constraints for IteratorExp are confusing, incomplete and sometimes wrong.

The revised text below resolves these issues

In accordance with Nicolas Rouquette's observations in the discussion on "15233 – OCL 2.2 Correction to Issue 9796 for AssociationEndCall":

The problem with OCL 2.2, Fig 7.1 are:

• give a name to the association end near Bank, e.g. 'bankAccount'
• fix the multiplicity of: Person::bankAccount from 0..1 to * – i.e., a person can have zero or more bank accounts!
• fix the multiplicity of Bank::customer from 0..* to 0..1 – i.e., there is zero or one customer for a given 'accountNumber' value.
• give a name to the association itself, e.g., BankAccount, or, if you want to use the UML notation convention, A_customer_bankAccount

and

The OCL examples for Figure 7.2, currently:

context Person inv: self.employeeRanking[bosses]->sum() > 0
context Person inv: self.employeeRanking[employees]->sum() > 0
context Person inv: self.employeeRanking->sum() > 0 – INVALID!
context Person inv: self.job[employer]

should be fixed to:

context Person inv: self.EmployeeRanking[bosses]->sum() > 0
context Person inv: self.EmployeeRanking[employees]->sum() > 0
context Person inv: self.EmployeeRanking->sum() > 0 – INVALID!
context Person inv: self.Job[employer]

That is, 'EmployeeRanking' is the name of the association shown in Fig 7.2
That figure does not have anything called 'employeeRanking' and it is misleading to suggest that in OCL the name of the association could be written with a lowercase initial letter when the name of the association itself has an initial capital letter. Since lexical names are case-sensitive in both UML and OCL, case-sensitivity should be respected to avoid creating confusion and potential ambiguity with other names that are lexically different only by their upper/lower case letter.

and

In particular, the text in clause 7.5.4 about using the name of an association class with a lowercase initial letter should be removed.
That is, change the following, currently:

To specify navigation to association classes (Job and Marriage in the example), OCL uses a dot and the name of the association class starting with a lowercase character:

context Person inv: self.job

The sub-expression self.job evaluates to a Set of all the jobs a person has with the companies that are his/her employer. In the case of an association class, there is no explicit rolename in the class diagram. The name job used in this navigation is the name of the association class starting with a lowercase character, similar to the way described in the sub clause “Missing AssociationEnd names” above.

to:

To specify navigation to association classes (Job and Marriage in the example), OCL uses a dot and the name of the association class:

context Person inv: self.Job

The sub-expression self.Job evaluates to a Set of all the jobs a person has with the companies that are his/her employer. In the case of an association class, there is no explicit rolename in the class diagram. The name Job used in this navigation is the name of the association class.

No Data Available

The new toUpperCase, toLowerCase and equalsIgnoreCase refer to case conversion if appropriate to the locale without ever defining what a locale is or defining the preconditions for appropriateness.

These methods closely resemble Java Library methods, perhaps they should reference rather than duplicate the Java specification.

The Java toUpperCase method provides locale-dependent and local-independent variants.

Is it right for OCL to make it difficult to achieve predictable results under a Turkish locale?

It seems that the OCL standard library must provide access to the Locale and provide both Java's toUpperCase variants.

No Data Available

Collection::sum() requires that its T::+() is commutative and associative.

Associativity is necessary for predictable results.

Commutativity is not necessary, most trivially for String::+ for which sum() could usefully
concatenate an OrderedSet.

Suggest: remove the requirement for commutativity.

No Data Available

Collection::sum() requires that its T::+() is commutative and associative.

Associativity is necessary for predictable results.

However what if it isn't?

Is there an obligation on the OCL runtime to detect non-associativity and return invalid?

• probably not possible.

Is there a permission on the OCL runtime to detect non-associativity and return invalid?

• difficult to ensure implementation portability

Is there just an informal caution to users that non-associativity may lead to unpredictable results?

Suggest: reword to permit an implementation to return invalid and caution users about unpredictable results.

No Data Available

I am no longer happy with my resolution of 10439/13076 which provides a
very high resolution LALR grammar. This is inefficient to emulate with
LL and cannot provide the flexibility of configurable precedence. It
will also be very difficult to accommodate a template parameter parse
with similarly high precision. I now favour a low precision syntactic
parse augmented by high precision disambiguation/semantic checks.

If the high precision LALR grammar may need retraction, it seems
undesirable to put it into 2.3 only to remove it in 2.4.

Suggest retract the resolutions for OCL 2.3 and rewrite for OCL 2.4 once
UML-alignment of templates has been accommodated

No Data Available

In section "11.4.3 String" on p145 toLowerCase() is declared as returning Integer, correct type is String

No Data Available

I've seen, in the version 2.0, the existence of the keyword 'attr'. But then, in fact, there isn't any reference or explanation about the use of this keyword.
I've seen that this keyword is not in the new versión 2.2. But, you use it in the page 25, ln 12.

The 'attr' is a relic of a former (pre OCL 2.0) syntax.
The 'attr' should be omitted, and 'TupleType' should be 'Tuple'.

"Reject" should be replaced with "collect" in the following line:
"The value of the reject operation is the collection of the results of all the evaluations of expression-with-v."

yes

symmetricDifference: is defined as (S1 u S2) - (S1 u S2), but this always yields the empty set. I believe the intended writing is (S1 u S2) - (S1 n S2).

No Data Available