${taskforce.name} Avatar
  1. OMG Task Force

UML 2.2 RTF — Closed Issues

  • Key: UML22
  • Issues Count: 1,381
Open Closed All
Issues resolved by a task force and approved by Board

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
UML22-21 UML 2 Issue: isUnique UML 1.5 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
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
UML22-1381 presentation option for transitions UML 2.0 UML 2.1.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1380 Section: 7.3.10/Associations UML 2.1.2 UML 2.2 Duplicate or Merged closed
UML22-1379 Figure 109, p162 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1378 LinkEndData - Inconsistency with Figure 146 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Closed; No Change closed
UML22-1377 UML-2 deployment diagram notation UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1376 section on connectors in the component chapter UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1375 7.3.41 Parameter (from Kernel, AssociationClasses)" UML 2.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1374 Profiles::ObjectNode has wrong default multiplicity UML 2.1 UML 2.1.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1373 Section: 12.3.52 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 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
UML22-1365 Events UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1364 Additional events for Interactions UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1363 Incorrect constraints on Pin and ObjectFlow On Pin UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1362 resolution to issue 6093 removed too much constraint UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1361 Section: 9.3.12 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1360 Section: 7.11.4 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1359 Notation for property has gone missing UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1358 ReadSelfAction UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1357 Attribute scope is of type StructuredActivityNode instead of StructuredActi UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1356 Section: 12.3.16 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1355 What are the "edges" we're talking about? UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1354 Section: 12.3.3 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1353 Figure 205, p292: UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1350 Figure 51, p106 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1349 ExceptionHandler UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1352 figure 175 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1351 Figure 52, p107: shouldn't the <> relationship be reversed ? UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1348 Section: 12.3.16 -- Typo UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1347 Templates, Classifier UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1346 ProtocolConformance - inconsistency with Figure 356 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1341 Can connectors co-operate? UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1345 ParameterableElement - constraint [2] - error in OCL UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1344 TemplateableElement - inconsistency UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1343 TemplateSignature - Typo UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1342 TemplateSignature - inconsistency UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1338 association "implementingClassifier UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1340 Removed text in 9.3.3 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1339 $issue.summary UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1337 PrimitiveFunction UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1336 MarshallAction and UnmarshallAction UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1335 Constraint 2 of AcceptEventAction - typo UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1334 SAN semantics for starting and stopping UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1333 Variable pins Extend input and output pins to get and set variables UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1332 Activities UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1331 p.352, section 12.3.35. The attribute Parameter.isStream is inappropriate UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1330 empty sections in activities chapter UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1329 p.328, Figure 245, and p.331, Figure 249 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1328 Inappropriate to reference RFP documents UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1327 attribute Activity.isSingleExecution UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1326 Section 9.3.5. (ConnectableElement) UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1325 Section 9.3.1 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1324 typo UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1323 typo UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1322 component deployment UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1321 signal UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1320 association between two Nodes UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1319 Figure 273 - Arrow direction Figure 273 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1318 ParameterSet - Typo UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1317 ObjectNode UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1316 ActivityEdge - Typo UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1315 ActivityEdge - Section Semantics - Typo UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1313 formal parameter or a return result UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1314 typo p. 149 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1312 association "context" UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1311 behaviors UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1309 Page: 589 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1308 Section: 12.3.20 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1307 enumerated type MessageSort UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1310 There is no redefinitionContext established UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1306 heading of table 19 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1305 Notation of ExecutionOccurrence UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1304 Section: 15.3.12 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1303 introductory text for Property states UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1301 notation for statemachine transitions omitted from spec UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1300 behavior packages (Interactions, Statemachines UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1302 "Implementation" is ommitted UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1299 InformationItem - Typo UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1298 ReadLinkObjectEndQualifierAction - errors in OCL UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1296 StartOwnedBehaviorAction - OCL error in constraint UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1297 ReadLinkObjectEndAction - errors in OCL UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1294 ReplyAction - Typo UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1293 ReplyAction - Inconsistency with Figure 150 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1292 AcceptCallEvent - inconsistent multiplicity "• trigger UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1295 ReadIsClassifiedObjectAction - OCL errors in constraints UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1291 AcceptEventAction - inconsistencies in Semantics and typos UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1290 AcceptEventAction - inconsistency UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1289 AcceptEventAction - inconsistent multiplicities UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1288 Message - inconsistency "Messageident equalling ‘*’ UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1287 Message - inconsistency (02) UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1286 Message - inconsistency UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1285 Figure 77 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1284 Interface - Typos in Figure 63 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1282 Connector - inconsistency UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1281 Connector - typo and inconsistency UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1283 ConnectorEnd - multipliciy of role UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1280 Connector - inconsistency UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1279 Typo in ptc/03-08-02 p. 178 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1278 Typo Section: 12.3.8 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1275 Stereotype - Inconsistency in notation Section "Notation", last sentence UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1274 Stereotype - typo in OCL UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1277 ActivityPartition - inconsistencies UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1276 Typo In section "Description" UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1271 AddVariableValueAction - OCL in constraint [1] not correct UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1273 Stereotype UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1272 Typo, section "Description", paragraph 1 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1270 VariableAction - undefined query UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1267 ReadLinkAction - Constraints use deprecated UML elements UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1266 ReadLinkAction - inconsistency with Figure 147 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1269 Variable - Typo in Attributes UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1268 DestroyLinkAction - Semantics based on non existing "settability addOnly" UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1265 MultiplicityElement - section is obsolete UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1264 LinkEndData - Additional operation not correct UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1263 LinkEndData - Typo in OCL UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1262 AddStructuralFeatureValueAction - Settability removeOnly does not exist UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1260 DestroyObjectAction - inconsistency in constraints UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1259 Component - problem with provided interfaces (see also Issue 6875, 6338) UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1261 Typo - section Description, first sentence UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1258 Manifestation - visual representation should be dashed arrow UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1256 Deployment - keyword <> not introduced UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1255 InteractionOccurrence - Syntax rules for name not clear UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1257 DeploymentTarget - Missing OCL expression UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1254 Figure 95 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1253 Connector - Constraint [3] not necessary ? UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1252 Connector - Constraint [2] is inprecise UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1251 ReadSelfAction - Typos in OCL constraints UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1249 Typo UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1248 Typo UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1250 ReadSelfAction - delete constraint [4] UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1247 TestIdentityAction - additional constraint UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1246 TestIdentityAction- delete constraint [2] UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1245 Typo UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1244 DeleteObjectAction - delete constraint [1] UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1241 SendSignalAction UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1240 Delete the following sentence in section "Notation": UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1243 CreateObjectAction - delete constraint [4] UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1242 Typo UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1239 Sentence not finished in section "Changes from previous UML" UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1235 Collaboration - inconsistency with Figure 99 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1237 Typo in Figure 124 on page 182 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1236 StructuredClassifier - Regular expression for namestring too complicated UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1238 Typo UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1233 GeneralizationSet - constraints expressed in OCL UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1232 GeneralizationSet - Incorrect Mulitiplicities of associations UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1234 GeneralizationSet - example in section "Semantics" is not clear UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1231 GeneralizationSet description conf. about meaning of "specific" + "general UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1230 GeneralizationSet - outdated description UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1229 Region - Additional structural constraints necessary UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1228 Constraint [2], p.70 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1227 Figure 355 - mulitplicities of redefinitionContext should be 0..1 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1226 Figure 355 - ownedStateMachine should subset ownedBehavior UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1225 Typo p 497 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1221 State - Constraints - errors in OCL and inconsistencies UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1223 Change Constraint [1] to UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1222 Non-existent property isFinal referenced UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1224 ownedStateMachine not described correctly UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1220 Define containingStateMachine() for Vertex UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1219 State - Inconsistency UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1218 p.461, first sentence: UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1216 AssociationClass - Additional Operation [1] should be deleted UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1215 AssociationClass Constraint [1] should be reformulated UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1214 Association - endType should be of type Classifier UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1217 Constraints of ConnectionPointReference - OCL not correct UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1213 Stereotype «buildComponent» defined twice, description not clear UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1212 Typo p 589 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1210 ExtensionPoint should be a specialization of Feature (from Kernel) UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1211 Typo p 587 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1209 Multiplicity of extensionLocation should be 1..1 instead of 1..* UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1207 Constraint not precise enough UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1206 Unnecessary sentence p 339 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1208 Imprecise sentence p 334 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1205 "Joining of tokens" not clear UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1204 Typo p 339 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1203 Typo - Missing colon p 302 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1201 Constraint not precise enough UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1200 Typo p 320 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1202 No Activity Edges from with equal source and target UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1197 Typo p 161 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1196 Another Inconsistency with Figure 100 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1199 Multiple activity edges between a given pair of activity nodes possible ? UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1198 Inconsistency between constraint of ControlNode and Semantics of JoinNode UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1195 Inconsistency with Figure 100 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1194 Figure 103 at the wrong place UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1193 Connector - default value für "kind" UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1192 Typo p 137 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1191 Missing multiplicities UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1190 Typo p. 595, Table 25, row 6, column 3 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1189 Additional Operations specification of NamedElement::allNamespaces() UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1186 Second row of table 22, column "Notation", labels switched UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1185 UseCase - Inconsistencies with Figure 401 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1188 typo UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1187 Typo in OCL UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1184 UseCase - Extend is not a Namespace UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1183 Inconsistent multiplicity UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1182 Inconsistency betw. Figure 328 and associations listed in s. Associations UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1180 Wrong association name UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1179 Constraint [2] - Missing parenthesis in OCL UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1181 type p 419 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1178 Inconsistency between section "Associations" and Figure 327 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1177 typo p 340 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1176 object edges" should be replaced by "object flows UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1172 graphic nodes UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1171 typo p 421 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1175 object edges" sould be replaced by "object flows UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1174 typo p 356 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1173 typo p 240 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1170 typo p 420 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1169 typo p 403 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1168 Inconsistencies between Figure 43 and the detailled description of Package UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1165 The section "Associations (BasicActivities)" is not complete UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1164 The query 'hostElement' has some errors UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1167 Inconsistencies between Figure 3 and the detailled description of package UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1166 • /context : Classifier [0..1] UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1163 See CommonBehavior for a description of Event specifications UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1162 page 95 diagram UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1161 On templateableElment - additonal features UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1160 Figure 346 needs updating UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1157 Incorrect mentioning of General Order On p 412 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1159 Omission of non-terminal ‘arguments’ (p. 424) UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1158 Remove occurrences of “TBD” UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1153 Message notation. Incorrect notation in Figure 333 p.414 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1155 Message End association to Interaction should be removed UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1154 Strict ordering in Inline Part Decomposition UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1156 EventOccurrence, multiplicities incorrect in metamodel diagram UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1152 On page 140, the title for Parameter is "Parameter (Collaboration, as speci UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1151 The title of the Property description on page 144 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1150 labels for ExecutionOccurrence UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1149 duration observation" vs DurationObservationAction etc UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1148 Missing sections for for enumeration MessageKind or MessageSor UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1147 figure 8-137 and 8-139 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1146 CommonBehaviors describes "Operation (from Communications, as specialized) UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1144 inconsistency between figure 5.1 on page 179 and figure 7-122 on page 337. UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1143 OpaqueExpression in CommonBehaviors UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1145 CommonBehaviors UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1142 Output tokens UML 2.1 UML 2.1.1 Duplicate or Merged closed
UML22-1141 Section: Activities: Modifications to the approved resolution of 10815 SysML 1.0 UML 2.1.2 Resolved 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
UML22-1133 defaultClassifier of ClassifierTemplateParameter SysML 1.0 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1129 Section: 9.3.11 p 182 UML 2.1.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1128 Wrong notation description SysML 1.0 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1127 Section: 9.3.8 UML 2.1.1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1126 page 449 chapter 13.3.24 (Signal (from Communications) SysML 1.0 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1125 UML 2 superstructure -- figure 9.4 is duplicate of figure 9.3 SysML 1.0 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
UML22-1132 composite values SysML 1.0 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1131 Section: 9 composite structures SysML 1.0 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1130 "representation" SysML 1.0 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
UML22-1105 Profile Structure Diagrams are missing from Annex A SysML 1.0b1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1104 Missing inheritance in 9.3.12 SysML 1.0b1 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1103 No default value specified for Generalization::isSubstitutable SysML 1.0b1 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
UML22-1084 UML2: No notation for BehavioredClassifier::ownedTrigger UML 2.0 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1083 UML 2/Templates -- single argument? UML 2.0 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1082 Use the new 'dot' notation in examples UML 2.0 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
UML22-1088 A notation for Trigger SysML 1.0b1 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
UML22-1085 page 467, Section 13.3.24 UML 2.0 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1081 UML 2 Superstructure / CommonBehaviors / Incorrect types in text UML 2.0 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1080 7.3.41 Parameter (from Kernel, AssociationClasses)" UML 2.0 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1063 UML 2.0 issue: ownedMember xsi:type="uml:Stereotype" should be used UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1062 UML 2.0: CMOF/UML mixup for profiles UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1069 Required attributes UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1068 Parameter::effect UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1065 UML 2.1 XMI Issue UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1064 UML 2.0: Inconsistencies in profile example XMI UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1073 parameter of operation isRedefinitionContextValid() is inconistently named UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1072 Compliance package L2 does not merge StructuredActions in the metamodel UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1071 The following properties should not subset DirectedRelationship::target UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1070 The following properties should not subset DirectedRelationship::source UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1067 Artifact::fileName UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1066 uml::Extension::ownedEnd should not subset uml::Association::ownedEnd UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1079 Figure 12.18: Small typo: "subsets ownedMember" not "ownedmember" UML 2.0 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1078 Page: 161 UML 2.0 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1075 Issue regarding "Action::effect : String" UML 1.3 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1074 Transition guards cannot currently be evaluated because they have no contex UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1077 StateMachine::extendedStateMachine should have a multiplicity of 0..*. UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1076 Behavior::context UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1058 UML 2.0 issue: Package Primitive Types not merged UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1057 Section: Appendix A: Diagrams UML 2.0 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1056 Section 7.2.1 of ptc/04-10-14 UML 2.0 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1055 Section: 7.3.36 Operation UML 2.0 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1054 Section 8 Issue - Component Realization-Classifier multiplicity UML 2.0 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1053 Section: Actions, Figure 156 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1052 UML 2.1 Regressions UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1051 Realization classifier UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1050 UML 2 issue: redefining isComposite on association ends UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1049 Classifier::parameter, Operation::parameter, and ConnectableElement::parame UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1048 Component::realization should NOT be derived UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1047 Rename ActivityGroup::activity to containingActivity UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1046 Rename OpaqueAction::output to outputPin. UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1045 Make ActivityGroup::containedNode a derived union UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1044 Make ActivityGroup::containedEdge a derived union UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1039 compliance levels L2 and L3 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1038 Change type of WriteStructuralFeatureAction::value to ValueSpecification UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1037 Change type of WriteStructuralFeatureAction::value UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1061 UML 2.0: separate profile application from profile importing UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1060 UML 2.0: invalid package merge diagrams for compliance points UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1059 UML 2.0 issue: Profile::ownedStereotype should be derived UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1043 Rename LinkAction::input to inputPin UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1042 Rename OpaqueAction::input to inputPin UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1041 Rename InformationFlow::source UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1040 Rename InformationFlow::target UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1036 Rename ActivityPartition::subgroup to subpartition UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1035 Replace {redefines redefinedElement} UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1034 Replace {redefines redefinedElement} UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1033 Replace {redefines redefinedElement} UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1026 body expression for Property::isConsistentWith(RedefinableElement) UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1025 following imports from merged packages to unmerged packages should be remov UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1024 UML2 Superstructure Fig 2.2 Incomplete UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1023 Section: 14.4 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1020 Section: Common Behaviors UML 2.0 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1019 Section: Actions UML 2.0 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1022 7.3.22 InstanceSpecification UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1021 Section: Activities UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1018 Section: Classes UML 2.0 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1017 Section: Activities UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1016 Invalid stereotype in StandardProfile UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1015 UML 2 Super / miscellaneous figure-text discrepancies UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1028 Rename Package::ownedMember UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1027 Rename Constraint::namespace UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1030 Rename ActivityEdge::redefinedElement UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1029 Rename Component::ownedMember UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1032 Replace {redefines redefinedElement} UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1031 Rename ActivityNode::redefinedElement UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1012 Section: 6.5 UML 2.0 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1011 UML2 should specify default property ownership for association ends UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1002 Figure 430 references invalid metaclass UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1001 Section: 9.3.5 UML 2.0 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1006 UML2 Navigability Impact on Tools UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1005 UML 2 XMI DTD requirement UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-998 UML2 issue: {unrestricted} described in text but not BNF UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-997 UML Superstructure / Actions / Missing package heading UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1010 UML 2 Super / Undocumented properties UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1009 Page: 591,592 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1008 Core::Constructs::Operation UML 2.0 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1007 Interaction::lifeline should be ordered UML 2.0 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1004 UML 2 Classes Notation for association end ownership UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1003 connection point reference UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1014 UML 2 Super / Collaboration use issues (02) UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1013 UML 2 Super / Collaboration use issues (01) UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-1000 Section: 12.3.18 and 12.3.35 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-999 Section: 15.3.14 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-987 p. 732: Show examples of new stereotype notation RAS 2.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-986 p. 732: Change example to be consistent with new definition of Clock RAS 2.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-994 Section: 12.3.5 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-993 Page: 163 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-983 Make instance model consistent with new definition of Clock RAS 2.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-982 p. 729: Extend the Clock example to show metaclass property RAS 2.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-985 p. 731: Make example consistent with new definition of Clock. RAS 2.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-984 p. 731: Make this example consistent with the new definition of Clock RAS 2.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-989 Section: 12.3.37 ObjectFlow UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-996 UML Superstructure / Actions / incorrect form for subsetting UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-995 Section: 12.3.9 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-988 pp. 733-734: Add association as valid graphic path RAS 2.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-991 TimeExpression RAS 2.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-990 OpaqueAction UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-992 abstract Action in Activity diagram RAS 2.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-981 p. 728: New presentation options. Replace the following paragraph RAS 2.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-980 p. 721: Allow stereotypes to have properties that are typed by metaclasses RAS 2.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-968 Can't specify mutator semantics for derived properties RAS 2.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-967 Section: 12.3.37 RAS 2.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-976 MessageEnd RAS 2.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-975 ExecutableNode should be abstract in Figure 195. It is in Figure 197. UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-979 Section: 12 and 13 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-978 Incorrect Communication Domain Model RAS 2.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-977 Obsolete term EventOccurrence still used in multiple places RAS 2.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-972 Notation of Attributes and Associations subsections RAS 2.2 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-971 Page: 330 UML 2.0 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-970 Section: 11.3.48 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-969 Section: Actions UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-974 Actions should be able to overlap partitions, to support multiple participa UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-973 Section: 8.3.1 Page: 156 ff UML 2.0 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-966 OpaqueAction RAS 2.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-965 Page: 591 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-961 Clarify caption of Figure 56 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-960 Section: Interactions UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-953 Clarify first constraint on InputPin and OutputPin, move "only" to before " UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-952 LoopNode should move rather than copy values to/from loop variables UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-951 In Figure 210, put merge before Use Part to merge the incoming flows UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-950 Exceptions thrown across synchronous invocations UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-949 Multiple exception handlers UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-955 Actions, CallBehaviorAction, third sentence, UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-954 The Syle Guidelines for Stereotype UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-959 CollaborationUse: Constraint 1, UML 2.0 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-958 ConditionalNode and LoopNode test and bodies should be ExecutableNodes UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-957 ExpansionRegion UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-956 ControlFlow UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-964 Last element in transition BNF UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-962 Notation for connector end multiplicities. UML 2.0 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-963 ParameterSet, first line: "inputs *or* outputs". UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-942 In Activities, Figure 176, Action should be abstract UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-941 Profile Semantics, pag 723 RAS 2.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-935 Section: 12 UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-934 token UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-944 String is primitive but has structure. UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-937 ``conditional node or conditional node'' delete one. UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-936 add the rule of ``natural termination'' UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-948 Solid triange notation for Association UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-947 The create stereotype on Usage dependency UML 2.0 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-939 Section: 12.2 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-938 Delete sentence UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-946 Element to Constraint navigation UML 2.0 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-945 Disjointness should be independent of generalization UML 2.0 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-943 Semantics for instances applies to InstanceSpecification? UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-940 policy to describe the Associations sub section of a meta class description RAS 2.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-933 UML 2 -- Need explanations of XMI structure and usage UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-932 token movement UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-931 output tokens (02) UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-927 Section: 12 UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-926 Section: Appendix F UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-925 Section: E.1 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-930 text p.297 UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-929 Section 12 (03) UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-928 Section 12 (02) UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-920 Section: Appendix C Table 27 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-919 Section: Appendix C Table 26 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-922 Section: D.1 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-921 Section: 15.3.8 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-924 Section: D.3 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-923 Section: D.2 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-915 Section: 18 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-914 Section: 18.4 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-913 Section: 18.3.8 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-918 Section: Appendix C Table 25 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-917 Section: Appendix B (02) UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-916 Section: Appendix B UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-912 Section: 18.3.7 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-911 Section: 18.3.3 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-910 Section: 18.3.2 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-909 Section: 18.2 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-908 Section: 18.3.2 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-893 Section: 17.5.6 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-892 Section: 17.5.5 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-891 Section: 17.5.4 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-895 Section: 17.5.7 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-894 Section: 17.1 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-901 Section: 17.5.15 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-900 Section: 17.5.14 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-897 Section: 17.5.12 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-896 Section: 17.5.8 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-907 Section: 18.1.2 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-906 Section: 17.5.20 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-899 Section: 12 Activities UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-898 Section: 17.5.13 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-903 Section: 17.5.17 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-902 Section: 17.5.16 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-905 Section: 17.5.19 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-904 Section: 17.5.18 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-883 Section: 17.2.2 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-882 Section: 17.2.1 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-872 Expansion region description UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-871 ExpansionRegioin example, Figure 261: concurrent => parallel UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-870 Section: Activities, ExpansionRegion (05) UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-879 mustIsolate: UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-878 No notation UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-875 Semantics of isAssured/isDeterminant in conditional node UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-874 Add constraint in LoopNode UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-873 Section: Activities UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-890 Section: 17.5.3 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-889 Section: 17.5.3 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-888 Section: 17.5.1 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-885 Section: 17.4 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-884 Section: 17.3.1 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-887 Section: 17.5.2 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-886 Section: 17.5.1 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-881 Clarify the semantics of minimum multiplicity > 0 for streaming parameters UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-880 Figure 209 of Activites UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-877 Add constraints on conditional and loop nodes (02) UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-876 Add constraints on conditional and loop nodes UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-853 UML 2 Super / Conformance / inconsistencies UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-852 UML 2 Super / General / missing merges UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-851 UML 2 Super / General / improper subsetting UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-855 UML 2 Super / General / invalid subset rule too strict UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-854 UML 2 Super / Kernel / excessive restriction on redefinition UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-861 Section: 14.3.3 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-860 Section: 16.3.6 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-869 Section: Activities, ExpansionRegion (04) UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-868 Section: Activities, ExpansionRegion (03) UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-867 Section: Activities, ExpansionRegion (02) UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-859 Section: 16.3.5 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-858 Section: 16.3.4 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-857 Section: 16.3.3 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-856 UML 2 Super / Common Behaviors / missing multiplicites UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-866 Section: Activities, ExpansionRegion UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-865 Section: Activities UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-864 ValueSpecificationAction, Attribute section, is missing the return pin UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-863 Section: Actions UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-862 Section: Common Behavior UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-841 Section: 15.3.14 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-840 Section: Appendix A UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-837 Section: 15.3.11 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-836 Section: 15.3.11 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-835 Action Semantics Section: 9.5 UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-839 Appendix C.1 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-838 Section: 15.3.12 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-834 Specification: Action Semantics Section: 9.5 UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-833 Section: 15.3.10 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-832 Section: 15.3.9 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-843 Section: 15.3.16 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-842 Section: 15.3.15 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-850 UML 2 Super / Collaborations / improper subset UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-849 Profiles::ObjectNode has wrong default multiplicity UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-848 Profiles::ExtensionEnd has wrong default multiplicity UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-845 Should Profiles::Image be an Element? UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-844 Section: 15.3.7 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-847 Remove redundant superclass for Element UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-846 OCL for Property::opposite() is incorrect: UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-831 Section: 15.3.8 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-830 Section: 15.3.7 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-817 Section: 14.3.26 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-816 Section: 14.3.25 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-823 Section: 15.3.1 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-822 Section: 8.3.1 UML 2.0 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-829 Section: 15.3.6 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-828 Section: 11.3.42 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-812 Section: 14.3.20 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-811 Section: 14.3.19 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-815 Section: 14.3.24 UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-814 Section: 14.3.21 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-813 Section: 14.3.21 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-827 Section: 15.3.5 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-826 Section: 15.3.5 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-819 Section: 14.4 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-818 Section: 14.3.29 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-821 Section: 12.3.4 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-820 Section: 11.3.5 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-825 Section: 15.3.3 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-824 Section: 15.3.2 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-810 Section: 14.3.17 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-809 Section: 14.3.16 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-808 Section: 14.3.15 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-797 Section: 14.3.2 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-796 Section: 13 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-795 Section: 13.3.30 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-807 Section: 14.3.13 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-806 Section: 14.3.14 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-799 Section: 14.3.4 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-798 Section: 14.3.3 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-803 Section: 14.3.10 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-802 Section: 14.3.8 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-801 Section: 14.3.6 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-800 Section: 14.3.5 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-794 Section: 13.3.29 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-793 Section: 13.3.28 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-792 Section: 13.3.27 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-805 Section: 14.3.12 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-804 Section: 14.3.3 & 14.3.11 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-791 Section: 13.3.26 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-790 Section: 13.3.24 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-776 Section: 13.3.3 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-775 Section: 13.3.2 UML 2.0 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-784 Section: 13.3.14 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-783 Section: 13.3.12 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-778 Section: 13.3.4 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-780 Section: 13.3.8 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-779 Section: 13.3.7 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-789 Section: 13.3.23 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-788 Section: 13.3.22 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-782 Section: 13.3.9 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-781 Section: 13.3.10 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-786 Section: 13.3.19 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-785 Section: 13.3.15 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-787 Section: 13.3.20 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-777 Section: 7.3.36 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-755 Section: 12.3.35 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-754 Section: 12.3 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-753 Section: 12.3.35 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-767 Section: 11.3.48 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-766 Section: 12.3.48 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-771 Section: 12 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-770 Section: 12.4 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-758 Section: 12.3.38 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-757 Section: 12.3.37 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-756 Profiles:Extension End UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-765 Section: 12.2 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-764 Section: 12.3.47 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-763 UML 2 super/templates/ UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-760 Section: 12.3.43 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-759 Section: 12.3.41 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-774 Section: 12.3.49 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-773 Section: 12.3.46 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-772 Section: 13.1 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-762 UML 2 Super/templates/inexplicable constraint on defaults UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-761 Section: 12.3.44 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-769 Section: 12.3.51 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-768 Section: 12.3.50 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-752 Section: 12.3.34 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-751 Section: 12.3.33 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-738 Section: 12.3.17 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-737 Section: 12.3.16 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-736 Section: 12.3.15 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-735 Section: 12.3.14 UML 2.0 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-731 MultiplicityElement BNF too restrictive UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-730 Section: 12.3.13 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-741 Section: 12.3.6 & 12.3.19 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-740 Section: 12.3.19 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-739 Section: 12.3.18 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-746 Section: 12.3.28 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-745 Section: 12.3.27 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-744 Section: 12.3.23 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-734 Used of "Redefines ...from Abstractions" in descriptions is misleading UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-733 BNF Notation for Operation is too restrictive UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-732 Incomplete BNF for Property UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-743 Section: 12.3.24 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-742 Section: 12.3.22 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-748 Section: 12.3.38 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-747 Section: 12.3.30 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-750 Section: 12.3.32 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-749 Section: 12.3.31 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-729 Section: 12.1 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-728 Section: 12.3.12 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-727 Section: 12.3.10 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-726 Section: 12 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-725 Section: 12.3.9 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-716 Section: 12.3.4 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-715 Section: 12.3.2 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-714 Section: 12.2 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-721 Section: 12.3.8 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-720 Section: 12.3.7 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-719 Section: 12.3.6 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-683 Section: 11.3.25 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-682 Section: 11.3.24 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-629 Section: 7.3.35 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-631 Section: 8.3.1 - typo UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-630 Section: 8.3.1 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-628 Section: 7.3.34 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-627 Section: 7.3.33 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-637 Section: 9.3.5 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-636 Section: 9.3.3 UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-635 Section: 9.3.2 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-632 Section: 8.3.1 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-633 Section: 9.20.2 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-634 Section: 9.3.1 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-638 Section: 9.3.9 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-561 InfrastructureLibrary defines, but should not use package merge UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-557 section 2.10.4.1 detailed semantics of collaborations UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-554 Section: 7.3.43 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-559 Interactions UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-558 Section: 7.3.44 - OCL incorrect UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-555 Section: 7.2.8 UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-560 UML 2 Super Basic Interactions UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-562 An observed time value must be written into a structural feature UML 2.0 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-556 Classes UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-691 Section: 11.3.34 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-690 Section: 11.3.33 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-689 Section: 11.3.31 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-684 Section: 11.3.26 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-694 Section: 11.3.27 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-693 Section: 11.3.36 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-686 Section: 11.3.28 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-687 Section: 11.3.29 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-692 Section: 11.3.35 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-688 Section: 11.3.30 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-685 Section: 11.3.27 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-588 Optional inputs UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-587 Preserve order in result of read actions UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-582 Interactions chapter refers to ActivityInvocations UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-583 Destruction semantics in StructuredClassifier UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-585 Figure 119 missing multiplicity UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-584 Link maintenance in StructuredClassifier UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-591 ObjectNode, constraint 1 In ObjectNode UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-590 DestroyObjectAction semantics UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-589 IsReadOnly constriant UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-586 Notation for method UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-659 Section: 11.3.1 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-658 Section: 11.1 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-621 Section: 7.3.15 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-620 Section: 7.3.12 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-626 Section: 7.3.32 Page: 96-99 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-625 Section: 7.3.32 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-624 Section: 7.3.22 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-616 Section: 6.5.1: Error in example UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-619 Section: 7.3.10 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-622 Section: 7.3.20 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-618 Section: 7.3.8 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-623 Stereotypes applying in UML 2.0 UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-617 Section: 7.3.3 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-678 Section: 11.3.20 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-677 Section: 11.3.19 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-680 Section: 11.3.22 -- significant revision? UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-679 Section: 11.3.21 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-696 Section: 11.3.40 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-695 Section: 11.3.38 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-681 Section: 11.3.23 -- significant revision? UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-672 Section: 11.3.14 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-676 Section: 11.3.18 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-674 Section: 11.3.16 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-675 Section: 11.3.17 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-673 Section: 11.3.15 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-709 Section: 11.3.53 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-708 Section: 11.3.42 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-698 Section: 11.3.43 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-697 Section: 11.3.41 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-660 Section: 11.3.2 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-667 Section: 11.3.9 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-666 Section: 11.3.8 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-670 Section: 11.3.12 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-669 Section: 11.3.11 UML 2.0 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-668 Section: 11.3.10 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-664 Section: 11.3.6 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-665 Section: 11.3.7 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-663 Section: 11.3.5 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-671 Section: 11.3.13 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-579 Connector multiplicity notation UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-578 Associations between interfaces UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-580 create dependency Figures 103 and 121 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-573 Transitivity in composition UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-581 underlined association name UML 2.0 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-577 Section: Classes UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-572 Add concept "StateInvariant" UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-574 Pin/parameter matching constraints UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-576 Section: Classes UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-575 Section: CB/ACT UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-723 Section: 12.3.9 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-722 Section: 12.1 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-641 Section: 8.3.4 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-640 Section: 9.3.10 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-647 Section: 10.3.1 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-648 Section: 10.3.1 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-644 Section: 12.3.13 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-645 Section: 12.3.13 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-643 Section: 9.3.13 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-639 Section: 9.3.9 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-646 Section: 9.2 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-642 Section: 9.3.12 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-615 Section: 7.4.1 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-614 Section: 7.3.6 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-610 Section: 11.8.3 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-609 Section: 11.6.1 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-613 Section: 7.3.3 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-612 Section: 13.1.5 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-607 Section: 11.5 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-606 search for referenced item -- Section: 11.3.4 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-603 Figure 68 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-602 methods not defined under attributes UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-611 Section: 13.1.2 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-605 Section: 11.3.3 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-604 Section: 11.3.1 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-608 Actor is a specialized Classifier and not BehavioredClassifier UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-711 Section: 12.1 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-710 Section: 11.3.54 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-713 {redefined } should be named {redefines } UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-712 Property string {bag} is redundant UML 2.0 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-718 Section: 12.3.5 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-717 Section: 12.3.4 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-703 Section: 11.3.48 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-701 Section: 11.3.46 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-700 Section: 11.3.45 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-707 Section: 11.3.52 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-706 Section: 11.3.51 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-705 Section: 11.3.50 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-699 Section: 11.3.44 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-704 Section: 11.3.49 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-702 Section: 11.3.47 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-596 unclear statement UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-595 Text references Figure 8 and the correct figure number is 6 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-599 Section is badly worded and does not make a lot of sense UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-598 clarify what a directed association is UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-593 Terminology Issue UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-600 typing error in the statement :unrestricted ? UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-597 extra word in the last sentence of the paragraph under Attributes UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-594 section 9.20.2 VisibilityKind lists two types of visibility UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-592 StructuredActivityNode specialized multiplicity UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-601 What happened to real numbers UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-724 Section: 12 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-662 Section: 11.3.4 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-661 Section: 11.3.3 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-655 Section: 10.3.10 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-654 Section: 10.3.9 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-657 Section: 10.4 UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-652 Section: 10.3.6 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-656 Section: 10.3.11 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-650 Section: 10.3.4 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-653 Section: 10.3.8 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-649 Section: 10.3.3 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-651 Section: 10.3.5 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-565 ReduceAction UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-564 UML 2 Super / Incorrect statement on port visibility UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-566 Section: 14.3.7 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-563 Minor error in BNF of an message argument UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-568 Section: 14.3.14 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-569 Section: 14.3.16 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-571 StateInvariants/Continuations UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-570 Section: Table 14 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-567 Section: 14.3.13 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-553 DataType attributes UML 2 Super (ptc/04-10-02) UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 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
UML22-534 In normative XMI file for the metamodel, no Associations have a name. XMI 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-533 UML 2 Super/Interactions/Constraints for create messages XMI 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-536 UML2 Infra/11.5.1/Invalid reference to Attribute class XMI 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-535 Figure 78 UML 2.0 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-532 Class InfrastructureLibrary::Core::Basic::Property UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-531 In 2.13.3, the first sub-section about ActivityGraph is not numbered UML 1.5 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-529 missing closing parenthesis UML 1.5 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-528 The Composition section does not follow the usual conventions UML 1.5 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-526 In "2.9.3.5 Instance", numbering of different well-formedness rules wrong UML 1.5 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-525 The numbering of the sub-sections in 2.7.2 is wrong UML 1.5 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-523 Associations section of element JumpHandler UML 1.5 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-522 Remove one of the dots between protectedAction and availableOutput UML 1.5 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-524 UML 2.0 infra and super Constraints Diagram of the Kernel UML 1.5 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-527 The section about Procedure does not contain any well-formedness rules UML 1.5 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-530 At the bottom of the page, the characters "antics." should be removed UML 1.5 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-549 Inconsistent use of 'Element' between MOF and UML UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-548 Missing XMI tags in spec and XMI rendition of metamodel UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-504 ptc-03-09-15/Constructs::Class superClass property UML 1.5 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-503 ptc-03-09-15/Non-navigable ends with no role names nor multiplicities UML 1.5 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-502 UML 2 Issue: Message notation UML 1.5 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-508 Why not using the UML1 activity symbol for UML2 actions? UML 1.5 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-507 Multiplicity seems to be broken - UML2 Infra & Super UML 1.5 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-499 UML 2 Super / Dependency / ownership of dependencies UML 1.5 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-498 Clarification of Information Flow semantics UML 1.5 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-497 Activity diagram problems UML 1.5 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-490 UML 2 Infra/Metamodel::Constructs/invalid OCL constraint for "opposite" UML 1.5 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-489 UML 2 Super/Metamodel::Kernel/missing merges UML 1.5 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-488 UML 2 Super/Package merge/redefinitions issue - lost association ends UML 1.5 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-487 UML 2 Super/Metamodel::Super/missing merge UML 1.5 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-493 raisedException UML 1.5 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-492 UML 2 Super / Templates / TemplateParameter not named UML 1.5 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-491 UML 2 Super/pg.75/kinds of changeability UML 1.5 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-496 Section 9.3.4 page 161, Presentation Option UML 1.5 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-495 UML 2 Super / Kernel features / cannot exclude superclass properties UML 1.5 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-494 Syntax of names UML 1.5 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-501 UML 2 Issue: definition of navigability UML 1.5 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-500 Use 'represent' for the relationship of a model UML 1.5 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-506 Rose Model of UML 2.0 spec UML 1.5 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-505 ptc-03-09-15/Relationships among Core packages UML 1.5 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-547 Move Comment into Basic and add Kind UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-546 Unconsistent Profile extension description (02) UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-545 Unconsistent association extension description UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-538 Section 11.7 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-537 simple time model" in CommonBehavior UML 2.0 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-551 Problem with diagram references in Profiles section UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-550 Design principles UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-544 The specification is fond of using 'typically.' UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-543 TimeObservationAction and DurationObservationAction UML 2.0 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-541 add an interaction fragment UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-540 Interactions model sequences of events UML 2.0 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-539 Clarify example in figure 133 UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-542 XMI schema RAS 2.0b1 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-552 DataType attributes UML 2 Super (ptc/04-10-02) UML 1.4.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-486 UML 2 Super/Metamodel::Constructs/owningComment UML 1.5 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-485 Classes diagram of the Core::Constructs package UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-484 cross-reference missing UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-483 Relationship and DirectedRelationship in Core::Constructs UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-482 document appears to be inconsistent in how it handles concepts UML 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-477 Designates a Generalization UML 1.4 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-476 Namespace issue (UML 1.4 formal/2002-09-67, 2.5.3.26 Namespace ) UML 1.4 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-475 Sending a signal after a delay XMI 1.3 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-474 Does visibility apply to creating an destroying links? XMI 1.2 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-481 relationship should just be a cross-reference UML 1.5 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-480 formal/03-03-01 : Omission of definition of Class "Action" UML 1.5 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-473 Specify XMI parameters for the UML / XMI interchange format UML 1.3 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-479 logic upperbound is the same as the lower bound. UML 1.5 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-478 2.5.2.27 ModelElement UML 1.4 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-511 UML 2 Super / Classes / dependencies should be unidirectional UML 1.5 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-510 two classes "NamedElement UML 1.5 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-515 well-formedness rules are not numbered correctly UML 1.5 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-514 number of the figure is wrong UML 1.5 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-520 UML 1.5 table of contents XMI 2.0 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-519 In the last paragraph, the period after the word "collections" on the secon UML 1.5 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-518 In paragraph 5, the addition of 2, 5, 7 and -3 does not yield 9 but 11 UML 1.5 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-517 The multiplicity of association named subaction of type Action ill formed UML 1.5 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-521 Operations and derived attributes UML 1.5 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-509 class "InfrastructureLibrary.core.constructs.Association", UML 1.5 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-513 remove paragraph UML 1.5 UML 2.1 Resolved closed
UML22-512 UML 2 Infra/Metamodel/missing derivation indicators UML 1.5 UML 2.1.2 Resolved closed
UML22-516 multiplicity of the association named "type" of type DataType UML 1.5 UML 2.1 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
UML22-250 Bad cross reference for InterfaceRealization Notation UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-249 PrimitiveTypes access by UML (M1) models UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-253 Unclear which Property has aggregation UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-252 Move Property::isId from MOF to UML UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-248 Notation for stereotypes on Comments and other elements UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-251 text-diagram out of synch in Infrastructure 11.4.1 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-254 Clarify isRequired UML 2.0 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
UML22-217 General ordering cycles UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-215 What exactly is a state list? UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-214 Section: 9.14.2 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-213 Section: 11.1.3 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-212 Action inputs/outputs UML 2.0 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
UML22-219 Completion event modeling UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-216 Editorial bug in 2.1 Superstructure Convenience document UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-183 7.3.4 Association Class UML 2.0 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
UML22-264 Invalid mandatory compositions and associations UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-263 11.3.47 on StructuralFeatureAction (and related sections on subclasses) UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-262 Section: 9.16.1 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-261 Section: 9.19.1 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-258 Section: 9.12.1 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-257 Merged Metam.:Property::class with redefinition of non-inherited property UML 2.0 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
UML22-256 navigating from link to link ends UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-255 ExtensionEnd description refers to old use of navigability UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-260 Section: 9.10.3 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-259 Section: 9.13 UML 2.0 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
UML22-285 Section: 15 UML 2.0 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
UML22-291 Section: 14.3.10 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-290 Section: 14.3.14 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-297 UML2: notation issue UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-296 Section: e. g. 12.2. page 287 UML 2.0 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
UML22-201 assembly connectors UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-200 New Issue on multiple guillemot pairs for same element UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-210 11.3.26 OpaqueAction UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-209 Definition of stereotype placement requires a name UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-206 the default for a Property should not be inconsistent with its type UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-205 Section: 7.3.10 UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-204 packagedElement UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-203 ptc/06-01-02:14.3.14, Notation UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-207 UML's support for null values and semantics is unclear UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-211 UML 2/ Super / SendSignalEvent erratum UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-199 Question on InfrastrucutreLibrary::BehavioralFeatures::Parameter UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-208 "Property::lowerValue" is not a good name UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-202 Fig 7.14 UML 2.0 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
UML22-275 Section: 17.5 UML 2.0 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
UML22-283 Activity shape UML 2.0 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
UML22-235 text of specs and corresponding XMI specs should be clarified UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-234 UML 2: "isLeaf" UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-227 Section: 15.3.14 Transition UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-226 Section: 7 UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-238 Figure 7.4 invalid redefines UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-237 EnumerationLiteral should constrain InstanceSpecification UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-233 Stereotype attributes inherited from Class UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-232 Section: 12.3.8 UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-231 Section 11.4.1 "Classifier" (in Constructs) UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-228 Notation (p 154, formal/05-07-04 ) UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-230 Section 11.4.1 "Classifier" (in Constructs) UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-229 Section 10.2.1 "Class" (in Basic) UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-236 Section: 15.3.12 UML 2.1.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-192 Section: 7.3.7 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-191 AssociationClass is severely underspecified UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-190 Show an example of correct notation for the metamodel UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-185 Page: 338, 339 UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-184 Optional name attribute in NamedElement is misleading and insufficient UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-197 UML 2 Super / Components / connectors to interfaces UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-187 reference to Figure 12.87 missing UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-186 Section: 14.4 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-194 No ObjectEvent corresponding to SendObjectAction UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-193 Fig 12.10 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-189 Page: 625 UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-188 UML 2.1/Superstructure/ call triggers vs signal triggers UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-196 Section: 12.3.48 UML 2.1 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-198 UML 2.2 RTF issue - line styles for profiles UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-195 UML 2 Super / Composite Structure / ambiguous constraint UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-132 Section: 15.3.12 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-131 Section: 11.5.1 DataType (as specialized) UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-141 event parameters UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-140 Meaning of navigability UML 1.4.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-130 Section: 11.3.13 TypedElement (as specialized) UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-129 Section: 11.3.6 Classifiers diagram UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-139 Page: 62 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-138 page 134, Chapter 11.4.1 UML 1.4.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-137 page 97, Chapter 10.2.2. MultiplicityElement UML 1.4.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-125 Page: 129 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-124 Page: 369/370 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-136 Page: 157,162,163 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-135 ObjectNode UML 1.4.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-127 9.1 BehavioralFeature package UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-126 Page: 532 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-134 UseCase and Actors UML 1.4.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-133 Page: 423 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-128 Section: 10.1 Types Diagram UML 1.4.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-93 Figure 179 (Control nodes) UML 1.4.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-92 Section: D.4 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-91 Section: 15.3.8 (second issue) UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-90 Section: 18.3.6 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-89 Section: 17 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-102 Section: 8.3.1 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-101 Section: Actions UML 1.4.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-100 CombinedFragment Loop notation UML 1.4.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-99 Section: 7.3.36 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-98 editorial in section 12 UML 1.4.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-97 UML 2 Different constraints for Property in Super and Infra UML 1.4.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-107 Activities UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-106 Clarify multiple inputs to expansion regions UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-105 DataStoreNode has uniqueness, reverse constraint inherited from ObjectNode UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-87 Add constraints on conditional, loop, sequence to rule out node contents UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-86 Section: Activities, LoopNode UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-96 rewording isuse? UML 1.4.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-95 reword sentence UML 1.4.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-94 A test cannot be empty UML 1.4.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-104 Misleading statement about multiplicity in AssociationClass UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-103 Client/supplier on dependencies UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-88 Constrain conditional node to have body pins if there is a result pin. UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-2 Starting state machine UML 1.4 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-3 Starting a state machine UML 1.4 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-5 saying {nonunique} on one end of a binary association is meaningless UML 1.5 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-4 behaviour of the shallow history state and deep history state UML 1.5 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-173 On page 26, Figure 7.9 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-172 choice of terminolgy for TransitionKind is non-intuitive UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-171 Section: 15.3.15 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-170 Section 8.3.2 sub-section "Notation" starting on page 149 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-169 inconsistency wrt UML2 classifier behavior UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-168 keyword, "buildcomponent", and a stereotype, "buildComponent" UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-182 Element and Comment in Basic UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-181 Description of Element UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-180 Unclear relationship between the Basic and Abstractions packages UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-179 XMI file: Core::Constructs::Operation::bodyCondition should have upper boun UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-178 /qualifiedName attribute missing on Core::Constructs::NamedElement UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-177 Operation::ownedParameter should be ordered in XMI? UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-176 Section: Classes UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-175 constraints owned by these properties have no context UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-174 Operation should be a specialization of TypedElement and MultiplicityElemen UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-167 section, 12.3.27 ExpansionRegion(from ExtarStructureActivities UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-166 (merged) compliance levels L2 and L3 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-165 (merged) compliance level L1 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-164 Section: 14.3.20 Message (from BasicInteractions) UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-163 Section: Activities UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-22 UML 2 Issue: Qualified pathnames UML 1.5 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-35 show object flow or interactions UML 1.5 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-34 UML 2 Super/Interactions/Need constraints that cover multiple Lifelines UML 1.5 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-24 ptc-03-09-15/Separate classification and generalization in Core::Basic UML 1.5 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-23 Ports in Protocol State Machines UML 1.5 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-33 StateMachine - Constraints UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-32 transtion UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-27 UML2 Super/Kernel Classes UML 1.5 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-26 UML Superstructure FTF : isRoot property disappeared UML 1.5 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-30 Inheritance of 'Enumerations' is not detailed UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-29 Part subtype UML 1.5 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-31 manage simultaneity of events UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-25 Federated models - UML2 issue UML 1.5 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-28 UML 2.0 Kernel Operations Diagram and Features Diagram and mdl UML 1.5 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-112 External exceptions. UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-111 Clarify which classifier or operation this is referring to UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-110 represents and occurrence keywords are switched UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-114 Events in Sequence diagram UML 1.4.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-113 1. Deployment UML 1.4.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-116 Section: Action/Activity UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-115 Nested Nodes UML 1.4.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-119 Input tokens to LoopNodes should be destroyed when the loop is done UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-118 Section: 8.3.1 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-123 Section: Classes UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-122 Section: 12.3.2 Action UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-109 In Figure 12, ownedAttribute is bidirectional, in Figure 95, it is unidirec UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-108 StructuredActivityNode, Semantics, third paragraph, first sentence, UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-117 Section: 9.3.7 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-120 Return message UML 1.4.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-121 multiplicity should not be used/shown in an communicates association UML 1.4.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-76 Section: 14 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-75 Section: 14.3.18 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-74 RemoveStructuralFeatureValueAction specification UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-73 inconsistent description UML 1.4.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-82 Decision node UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-81 Section: Actions UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-80 UML 2 Super / Kernel / invalid restriction in isConsistentWith() UML 1.4.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-67 namespace UML 1.4.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-66 Figure 89 on page 158 is incorrect UML 1.4.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-72 Section: 13.3.17 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-71 Section: 13.3.11 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-70 UML2/Infra section 11.6.2/ Enumerations should not have attributes UML 1.4.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-79 Default values for ValueSpecification are not specified properly UML 1.4.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-78 Section 15 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-77 Section: 14 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-69 Section: 12.3.40 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-68 Section: 12.3.33 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-84 Section: Classes UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-83 Section: Activities UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-65 Section: 10.3.11 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-85 Section: Interactions UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-155 Section: Common Behavior UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-154 Section: Classes (02) UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-153 Section: Common Behavior (02) UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-152 Section: Common Behavior UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-151 Property ownership must be consistent across association redefinitions UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-150 Missing notation for association classes UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-149 Page: 346-347 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-148 Page: 255 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-147 Behavior UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-144 UML 2 - Invalid subsetting of composition ends UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-143 UML 2 Super / Actions / Compliance Levels of Actions UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-162 Page: 53-55 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-161 "ownedType" is not a valid element UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-158 Section: Classes UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-157 Section: Classes UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-156 Section: Activities UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-146 UML SuperStructure - Inconsistency re State Machine terms UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-145 Section: 14.3.20 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-160 Section: 16.3.3 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-159 Section: Activities UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-142 Page: 420 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-36 Connector - "provided Port" and "required Port" not defined Constraint 1 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-46 isComposite inconsistency in UML 2.0 and MOF 2.0 UML 1.4.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-48 Section: 9.14.1 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-47 should retain Comment and its associations to Element UML 1.4.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-42 Notation sections for TimeObservation and DurationObservation UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-41 completion transitions UML 1.5 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-38 Connector - inconsistencies in Constraint[3] UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-37 Connector - inconsistencies in Constraint [2] UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-40 Connector - inconsistencies in Constraint[5] UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-39 Connector - inconsistencies in Constraint[4] UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-50 Presentation Options UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-49 Use case extension inconsistencies UML 1.4.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-45 AssociationClass UML 1.5 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-44 useless example on p.330, Figure 247 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-43 Property defines an association "datatype" which is redundant UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-57 Multiple typos in ptc/04-10-02 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-56 Clarify the differences between redefining element and redefined element. UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-55 All sections UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-54 ClassifierInState not supported in UML2.0 ? UML 1.4.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-64 Section: 9.3.11 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-63 Section: 8.3.2 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-51 constrainedElement direction UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-53 Association specialization semantics UML 1.4.2 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-52 Derived union notation UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-61 Section: 9.3.7 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-60 Section: 9.3.6 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-62 Section: 8.3.2 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-58 Section: 8.3.2 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-59 Section: 9.3.4 UML 2.0 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-7 Reentrancy 1 UML 1.5 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-6 Suspension Region UML 1.5 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-18 UML 2 Super / Missing OCL constraints UML 1.5 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-17 03-04-01 Chap 2 p. 112/Components: Different ways to wire components UML 1.5 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-20 UML 2 Issue: AssociationEnd UML 1.5 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-19 instantiations of Classifiers UML 1.5 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-15 Section 9.3.3 UML 1.5 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-14 UML 2 Super/Interactions/missing OCL constraints UML 1.5 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-10 UML 2 Super/Metamodel/redefinition and substitutability UML 1.5 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-9 Target pin notation UML 1.5 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-12 Notes versus curly braces UML 1.5 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-11 Activity OCL UML 1.5 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-16 UML2 super/ad-03-04-01/Derived attributes and associations UML 1.5 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-13 UML 2 super / Dependencies / improper subsetting? UML 1.5 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-8 State extension UML 1.5 UML 2.2 Resolved closed
UML22-1 Semantics of firing compound transitions still appears to be circular UML 1.3 UML 2.2 Resolved closed

Issues Descriptions

UML 2 Issue: isUnique

  • Key: UML22-21
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6464
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    PROBLEM STATEMENT
    "When one or more ends of the association have isUnique=false, it is
    possible to have several links associating the same set of instances."
    (Superstructure, p. 81)

    As Pierre-Alain Muller demonstrated in an informal conversation with Bran
    Selic during a lunch in San Francisco in the last UML Conference (I also was
    taking part in that conversation), isUnique must have the same value for all
    ends in an association.

    This has implications, for example, for the property strings that can be
    placed near the association ends (

    {ordered}

    ,

    {bag}

    ,

    {seq}

    ). According to the
    table in Superstructure, p. 92, if one end is a Set or an OrderedSet, then
    the opposite end must be a Set or an OrderedSet, too; and if one end is a
    Bag or a Sequence, then the opposite end must be a Bag or a Sequence, too.

    PROPOSED SOLUTION
    Explain this in the Spec.

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Fri, 7 Nov 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This topic is discussed in detail in DraganMilicev’s paper at http://afrodita.rcub.bg.ac.rs/ dmilicev/pubs/mdd/
    trumlassoc.zip. In the paper he proposes that the collection that provides the value of a property that is an
    association end is derived from the links that instantiate the association as modified by the isUnique marking.
    So, even if there are two links targeting an instance in the extent of the association, if the property is
    marked as unique then there will only be one instance in the collection. This interpretation allows there to
    be associations with mixed unique/nonunique ends. After discussion the FTF thinks that this interpretation
    is in fact the intended interpretation of the current spec, and should be clarified as such.
    Milicev also points out that AssociationClasses make the identity of links visible in the semantics, and in
    contrast to what the spec currently suggests, it is possible to have multiple instances of an AssociationClass
    that associate the same set of end instances, regardless of the uniqueness marking of the ends. This is
    clarified in the current resolution. Milicev proposes adding an isUnique property to AssociationClass to
    give the power to rule out such multiple instances. Adding such a property is outside the scope of UML 2.5.
    This resolution also clarifies that property subsetting applies to property values coerced to sets. Currently
    nonunique B could be marked as subsetting unique A. If B contains the same value twice and A contains it
    once, then that should be legal, even though the size of the value of B is larger than that of A.
    The resolution also accounts for the use of qualifiers, makes some improvements to the definition and use
    of the term “cardinality”, and corrects the semantics of CreateLinkAction to correspond to the clarified
    definition.
    This also resolves issue 5977.

  • Updated: Mon, 9 Jan 2023 12:17 GMT

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

presentation option for transitions

  • Key: UML22-1381
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7643
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology ( Thomas Weigert)
  • Summary:

    The presentation option for transitions, p.599 of UML2-Super.book.040814.pdf, has the following two short-comings: * It does not make clear that this presentation option is mapped to an Activity as the effect Behavior, albeit all the mapping described subsequently assumes that this is the case. * The mapping for the action sequence symbol is ambiguous.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 19 Aug 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 01:38 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

Figure 109, p162

  • Key: UML22-1379
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7434
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Silogic ( Yves BERNARD)
  • Summary:

    Figure 109, p162: according to the metamodel presented in figure 100, I think that the dependencies shown in this diagram are inverted.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 7 Jun 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • 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: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 15:16 GMT

LinkEndData - Inconsistency with Figure 146

  • Key: UML22-1378
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7182
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    LinkEndData defines an association "input" which is not depicted in Figure 146.

    Is this a derived association, as described below in Constraint [3] ? Should its name be changed to "/input" ?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 15:16 GMT

UML-2 deployment diagram notation

  • Key: UML22-1377
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6924
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Mr. Anders Ek)
  • Summary:

    An issue concerning UML-2 deployment diagram notation.

    The ExecutionEnvironment notation is a Node symbol with a keyword within guillemots. But what is the keyword? The text says <<ExecutionEnvironment>> but in the examples says <<container>> (figure 136) and <<execution env>> (Table 8, covering the symbols in a deployment diagram).

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 26 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 15:13 GMT

section on connectors in the component chapter

  • Key: UML22-1376
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7364
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology ( Thomas Weigert)
  • Summary:

    The section on connectors in the component chapter does not add any new functionality to the connectors defined in internal structure. It does provide an additional notation for assembly connectors. There is no reason to have this section in components. Everything that is said semantically about connectors here applies equally to the more general connector. Suggestion: Do not subtype connector in component but move the content of this section to the connector section in internal structure and merge with the section there. Adjust the examples to apply to structured classifiers in general (i.e., delete the component symbol). Further, the ConnectorKind should be derived as it is determined by the manner in which the connector is attached to connectable elements. Deriving this connector ensures that constraints are always true and allows to do away with some consistency constraints. (Actually, it is not clear what the value of this attribute is, as it is already determined from the attachments.) Alternatively, if the presentation option is not in general desired (albeit I cannot see why this additional consistency would not be wanted), the text can be moved up but the presentation option can be added in this section.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 19 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Moving all of BasicComponents.Connector into InternalStructures, although perhaps strategically a good idea, seems like a bridge too far for the RTF. Also Thomas is not entirely accurate when he says it adds no new functionality apart from the notation. In particular BasicComponents adds the idea of a connector contract, which is a set of Behaviors.
    Therefore I propose that we leave the text where it is, albeit we should fix the many bugs in it that are the topics of this and other issues.
    However the proposal that kind:ConnectorKind should be derived is entirely sensible, especially since the current constraints on connector kind are the topic of numerous issues (7248-7251).

  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 15:08 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

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

Section: 12.3.52

  • Key: UML22-1373
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8277
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    The association activityScope:Activity[0..1] substes owner as indicated in fit. 195. Add OCL notation to Constraints. Type - lower case the second letter in the second sentence of sub-section Additional Operations.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 14 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    OCL is duplicate with 6346. Subsets addressed in issue 9000.

  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 14:18 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

Events

  • Key: UML22-1365
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7638
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Mr. Anders Ek)
  • Summary:

    'Events' are in the spec defined as standalone entities using the Trigger concept. In the ongoing FTF work the relation between event and trigger has been changed and the has been changed and there is now an Event metaclass in addition to the existing Trigger class. However, the text does not give any syntax for defining standalone event and it does not state how to refer to an event defined as a standalone entity from e.g. a transition in a statemachine. So two issues: - syntax for standalone events - clarification the how to refer to standalone events from e.g. transitions in statemachines

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 18 Aug 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Additional events for Interactions

  • Key: UML22-1364
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7637
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: X-Change Technologies and Klocwork ( Joaquin Miller for Nikolai Mansurov)
  • Summary:

    13.1 Overview of Common Behaviors discusses occurrences for which there is no event in the FAS nor in the proposed revision to triggers and events. Figure 307 - Invocation Domain Model shows occurrences of Start, Termination, Trigger, and CallBehavior events. Figure 308 - Communication Domain Model shows occurrences of Invocation and Receiving events. Figure 309 - Domain Model Showing Request Kinds shows occurrences of SendInvocation, CallInvocation, SendRequest, Call Request, Signal, and Call events. These are all discussed in the text, along with occurrences of change and time events. Figure 310 - Domain Model Showing Event Kinds shows two supertypes, for occurrences of Trigger and Spontaneous events. These are discussed in the text. It appears that AcceptEventAction is intended to be used with any kind of event and AcceptCallAction for call request events. [by Nick:] I've reviewed the effects of the proposed alignment of event/occurences/types on Interactions. I believe, the proposed changes will have a very positive effect indeed on making the new Interactions a better part of the overall spec. I would suggest that we do add more subtypes of event in order to have a better match with Interactions: - CreationEvent - DestructionEvent - ExecutionStartEvent - ExecutionFinishEvent

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 16 Aug 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Incorrect constraints on Pin and ObjectFlow On Pin

  • Key: UML22-1363
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7631
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Incorrect constraints on Pin and ObjectFlow On Pin, the constraint isUnique = false introduced by 6090 should be on ObjectNode, and the text should be "Object nodes are not unique typed elements." On ObjectFlow, Constraints (BasicActivities), rule 1 still reflects the time when pins were connected to actions by flows, during the submission process. It should be "Object flows may not have actions at either end.".

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 15 Aug 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

resolution to issue 6093 removed too much constraint

  • Key: UML22-1362
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7630
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Universitaet Paderborn ( Jan Hendrik Hausmann)
  • Summary:

    The resolution to issue 6093 removed too much constraint. It should be left in place for decision, merge, and fork nodes.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 13 Aug 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 9.3.12

  • Key: UML22-1361
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7613
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology ( Thomas Weigert)
  • Summary:

    The notation for property states that the namestring is as in the Classes chapter, and gives an incorrect chapter number. In fact, the namestring syntax is as for properties in the Classes chapter in Kernel, which should be properly referenced.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 3 Aug 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 7.11.4

  • Key: UML22-1360
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7612
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology ( Thomas Weigert)
  • Summary:

    The notation for properties is missing in this section. There are references to examples in other sections, and the notation for AssociationClasses is defined, but there is no notation described for properties

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 3 Aug 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    This is a duplicate of issue 7575

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

Notation for property has gone missing

  • Key: UML22-1359
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7575
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology ( Thomas Weigert)
  • Summary:

    Notation for property has gone missing. The notation section merely states that "Notation for properties is defined separately for their use as attributes and association ends." Give details for the namestring for attributes and for association ends (the latter is currently described in the association section, but probably should be described in the property section and referenced from the association section). The namestring for attributes is not described at all.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 11 Jul 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

ReadSelfAction

  • Key: UML22-1358
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7562
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    ReadSelfAction has the contraint: "The action must be contained in an activity that has a host classifier." On the other hand the semantic section describes: "For activities that have no other context object, the activity itself is the context object." A ReadSelfAction within an activity without a host classifier object returns the activity object. So the constraint is superfluous.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 5 Jul 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    This was fixed as part of 7319.

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

Attribute scope is of type StructuredActivityNode instead of StructuredActi

  • Key: UML22-1357
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7554
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    Attribute scope is of type StructuredActivityNode instead of StructuredActivityGroup

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 1 Jul 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 12.3.16

  • Key: UML22-1356
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7440
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Silogic ( Yves BERNARD)
  • Summary:

    It's explicitly stated that all tokens within the protected node terminate if an exception isn't caught but nothing is written about how the tokens are managed when the exception is caught, except that the handler will provide the output pins of the protected node. It could implicitly indicate that tokens in the protected nodes are terminated in this case also. Is it right ? Is a semantic variation point?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 7 Jun 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

What are the "edges" we're talking about?

  • Key: UML22-1355
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7439
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Silogic ( Yves BERNARD)
  • Summary:

    Constraints #3, #4 and #5, p304: the descriptions of the constraints aren't clear and seem inconsistent. What are the "edges" we're talking about? From inside the activity, inputs pins have only outgoing edges, but from the outside they 've only incomming edges, haven't they?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 7 Jun 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 12.3.3

  • Key: UML22-1354
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7438
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Silogic ( Yves BERNARD)
  • Summary:

    To review the paragraph just below the figure 207. It seems that the name in the circle symbole is the connector name rather that the edge name (cf. figure 208). A connector name is unique, what isn't the case of an edge name.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 7 Jun 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Figure 205, p292:

  • Key: UML22-1353
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7437
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Silogic ( Yves BERNARD)
  • Summary:

    Figure 205, p292: several guard conditions seem misplaced in this diagram (e.g. one of the [else], [cannot reproduce probem], ...)

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 7 Jun 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Figure 51, p106

  • Key: UML22-1350
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7432
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Silogic ( Yves BERNARD)
  • Summary:

    Figure 51, p106: the multiplicity of the "mapping" role in the association between Abstraction and Expression isn't consistent with the description of this association in §7.14.1, p107: "The mapping expression is optional and may be omitted...". Shouldn't it be "0..1" rather than "1"?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 7 Jun 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    This was resolved by the resolution to issue 6926

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

ExceptionHandler

  • Key: UML22-1349
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7429
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    ExceptionHandler - Presentation Option The connection between an ExecutableNode and an ExceptionHandler is shown by drawing a “lightning bolt” symbol. This is similar to an interrupting edge for which the same symbol is used. According to Figure 259, an option for notating an interrupting edge is a zig zag adornment on a straight line. I suggest to allow the same notation as a presentation option for the connection between an ExecutableNode and an ExceptionHandlers.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 1 Jun 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

figure 175

  • Key: UML22-1352
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7436
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Silogic ( Yves BERNARD)
  • Summary:

    the figure 175 shows a <<merge>> dependency from the IntermediateActivity package to the StructuredActivity package. This isn't consistent with the description of the IntermediateAcitvityPackage, p266.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 7 Jun 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    This was resolved as part of the resolution to issue 6179 and issue 7436.

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

Figure 52, p107: shouldn't the <> relationship be reversed ?

  • Key: UML22-1351
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7433
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Silogic ( Yves BERNARD)
  • Summary:

    Figure 52, p107: shouldn't the <<refine>> relationship be reversed ?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 7 Jun 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    This misleading example was removed by the resolution to issue 6173.

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

Section: 12.3.16 -- Typo

  • Key: UML22-1348
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7428
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Typo "Multiple exception handlers may may attached to the same protected node, each by its own lightning bolt." should be ("may" occuring twice) "Multiple exception handlers may be attached to the same protected node, each by its own lightning bolt."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 1 Jun 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Templates, Classifier

  • Key: UML22-1347
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7427
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Templates, Classifier - OCL errors in constraint "Classifier::isTemplate() : Boolean; isTemplate = TemplatableElement::isTemplate() or general->exists(isTemplate())" should be "context Classifier::isTemplate() : Boolean body: – returns true, if a least one of the parent classifiers (including the current – classfier) is a template result = self.oclAsType(TemplateableElement).isTemplate() or general->exists(isTemplate())"

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 1 Jun 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

ProtocolConformance - inconsistency with Figure 356

  • Key: UML22-1346
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7425
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    ProtocolConformance - inconsistency with Figure 356 On page 473 the spec says: "specificMachine: StateMachine [1] : Specifies the state machine which conforms to the general state machine." If this is correct (which would be consistent with the Description section above), then in Figure 356 +specificMachine should end in StateMachine not in ProtocolStateMachine.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 1 Jun 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Can connectors co-operate?

  • Key: UML22-1341
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7418
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: X-Change Technologies ( Joaquin Miller)
  • Summary:

    "A collaboration occurrence indicates a set of roles and connectors that cooperate within the classifier ..." Is it roles that cooperate, or the instances playing those roles? Can connectors co-operate, or do instances playing roles cooperate using connectors?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 1 Jun 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

ParameterableElement - constraint [2] - error in OCL

  • Key: UML22-1345
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7424
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    ParameterableElement - constraint [2] - error in OCL "ParameterableElement::isTemplateParameter() : Boolean; isTemplateParameter = parameter->notEmpty()" should be ("templateParamter" instead of parameter; general OCL 2.0 syntax) "context ParameterableElement::isTemplateParameter() : Boolean body: result = templateParameter->notEmpty()"

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 1 Jun 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

TemplateableElement - inconsistency

  • Key: UML22-1344
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7423
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    TemplateableElement - inconsistency "• ownedSignature : TemplateSignature[0..1]The optional template signature specifying the formal template parameters. Subsets Element::ownedElement." The name of this association is inconsistent with Figure 427. There it is called "ownedTemplateSignature". See also OCL navigation expression in constraint [2] on the next page.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 1 Jun 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

TemplateSignature - Typo

  • Key: UML22-1343
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7422
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    TemplateSignature - Typo "• template : TemplateableElementr[1]The element that owns this template signature. Subsets Element::owner." should be (removed 'r' before multiplicity) "• template : TemplateableElement[1]The element that owns this template signature. Subsets Element::owner."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 1 Jun 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

TemplateSignature - inconsistency

  • Key: UML22-1342
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7421
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    TemplateSignature - inconsistency Section "Description" says: "A TemplateSignature may reference a set of nested template signatures to reflect the hierarchical nature of a template." There is no such association from TemplateSignature to TemplateSignature in Figure 427. I guess that this sentence is a leftover from a former iteration. Suggestion: remove this sentence.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 1 Jun 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

association "implementingClassifier

  • Key: UML22-1338
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7413
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: X-Change Technologies ( Joaquin Miller)
  • Summary:

    The association "implementingClassifier: Classifier [1] References the operations owned by the Interface." The type declaration says the association connects to Classifier, the drawing says it connects to BehavioredClassifer, but the text seems to say it connects to Operations.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 1 Jun 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Removed text in 9.3.3

  • Key: UML22-1340
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7417
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: X-Change Technologies ( Joaquin Miller)
  • Summary:

    This text was removed from the draft adopted text in preparing the final adopted test: "There is some tension here in that we might want to describe also non-observable or structural aspects of a classifier in a collaboration role, which would not work with an interface. Maybe there is a need for a separate role concept? This would be similar to an abstract classifier but saying that this classifier must be realized like an interface?" What gives?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 1 Jun 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

${issue.summary}

  • Key: UML22-1339
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7414
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: X-Change Technologies ( Joaquin Miller)
  • Summary:

    There will not necessarily be a property implementing the classifier corresponding to the property of the interface." is likely an editorial error

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 1 Jun 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

PrimitiveFunction

  • Key: UML22-1337
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7405
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology ( Thomas Weigert)
  • Summary:

    Reading the specification a PrimitiveFunction seems to be the equivalent of OpaqueExpression and OpaqueBehavior (once introduced, see issue 7335), but to be invoked by ApplyFunctionAction (i.e., some uninterpreted behavior defined by body and language). As issue 6625 correctly points out, it misses parameters. ApplyFunctionAction then imposes the additional constraint that the behavior it invokes does not access object memory or have side effects. So the first question to ask is what is the difference between OpaqueBehavior (once introduced) and PrimitiveFunction? They seem to be identical. Clearly there is duplication that should be eliminated. Of course, one could argue that one is a generic behavior and the other is a non-sideeffecting behavior, but in the current specification that is imposed by the invocation action, not by the behavior. So, assuming that we want this non-sideeffecting business, I see two strategies: Have just one kind of behavior, and two kinds of ways of invoking behavior (ignore a third kind, CallOperationAction as it does not have a bearing on this discussion): CallBehaviorAction and ApplyFunctionAction. Both would apply a behavior, but the latter have the constraint that the behavior will not have any side-effects. (ii) Have just one kind of behavior invocation, but two kinds of behavior: OpaqueBehavior and PrimitiveFunction, where the latter has no side effects. Of course, the difference between these two kinds of behaviors could just as easy be made by a Boolean flag (which would be preferable). I see no reason to rule out the use of PrimitiveFunction or a side-effect free behavior as a method. After all, a method need not have a side effect. There seems to be the additional constraint that the primitive function cannot access any object memory, so it would not be able to use the context object. However, to me that seems to be an unjustified constraint; what value does this constraint have? Note that option would not result in non-sideeffecting methods (not existing today). The minimal recommendation is to eliminate one of the superfluous metaclasss by using either or (ii) above. The preferred solution is to eliminate both PrimitiveFunction and ApplyFunctionAction as they are redundant. There is no clear need for the constraints imposed by this behavior.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sat, 29 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

MarshallAction and UnmarshallAction

  • Key: UML22-1336
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7399
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Dr. Tracy Gardner)
  • Summary:

    MarshallAction and UnmarshallAction What can we use in place of the UML 1.5 MarshallAction and UnmarshallAction actions? SendSignalAction marshalls, but AcceptEventAction doesn't

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 30 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Constraint 2 of AcceptEventAction - typo

  • Key: UML22-1335
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7396
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Dr. Tracy Gardner)
  • Summary:

    Constraint 2 of AcceptEventAction - typo Constraint 2 of AcceptEventAction should refer to AcceptEventAction, not AcceptCallAction.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 30 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

SAN semantics for starting and stopping

  • Key: UML22-1334
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7395
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Dr. Tracy Gardner)
  • Summary:

    SAN semantics for starting and stopping The SAN semantics for starting and stopping gives only necessary conditions. It should give sufficient conditions

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 30 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Variable pins Extend input and output pins to get and set variables

  • Key: UML22-1333
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7394
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Dr. Tracy Gardner)
  • Summary:

    Variable pins Extend input and output pins to get and set variables.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 30 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Activities

  • Key: UML22-1332
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7393
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Dr. Tracy Gardner)
  • Summary:

    Activities should be able to have variables without introducing a structured node containing all the other nodes

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 30 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

p.352, section 12.3.35. The attribute Parameter.isStream is inappropriate

  • Key: UML22-1331
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7378
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology ( Thomas Weigert)
  • Summary:

    p.352, section 12.3.35. The attribute Parameter.isStream is inappropriate as it creates a mechanism for activities to pass data different from the other behaviors. CommonBehavior specifies that parameters obtain data when a behavior is invoked and generate outputs when a behavior terminates. Behaviors may generate data during the execution of the behavior by signal send and receipts. There is no reason for activities not to use the same mechanism; it is no more difficult to use than the isStream mechanism introduced. Whether outputs are generated during the lifetime of a behavior or upon termination only, and whether inputs are accepted only at the beginning of an execution are properties of the action, not the parameters, and should such be treated.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 24 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

empty sections in activities chapter

  • Key: UML22-1330
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7377
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology ( Thomas Weigert)
  • Summary:

    Throughout the activities chapter there are empty sections (i.e., sections consisting merely of a header). These sections should be removed

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 24 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    duplicate

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

p.328, Figure 245, and p.331, Figure 249

  • Key: UML22-1329
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7376
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology ( Thomas Weigert)
  • Summary:

    p.328, Figure 245, and p.331, Figure 249. The text keeps referring to a "UML 1.5 notation" which is confusing. I believe that this section specifies a presentation option, using a "*" in the top right-hand corner of the icon. This presentation option should be explained, rather than saying, that the "UML 1.5 notation for unlimited dynamicMultiplicity" is used, as the reader will not know what that is without going to UML 1.5. Similarly, p.331 should refer to the presentation option, not to UML 1.5.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 24 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Inappropriate to reference RFP documents

  • Key: UML22-1328
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7374
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology ( Thomas Weigert)
  • Summary:

    p.290, below figure 203. It is inappropriate to reference RFP documents or any other non-standards. Just delete the reference. Also, that same paragraph contains a typo "Schedule Pat Mod Workflow" should be "Part". Also, p.299, below figure 215.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 24 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

attribute Activity.isSingleExecution

  • Key: UML22-1327
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7373
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology ( Thomas Weigert)
  • Summary:

    The attribute Activity.isSingleExecution creates, for activities, something akin to what the difference is between behavior as BehavioredClassifier.classifierBehavior vs. behavior as method of a behavioral feature. In the former case, there is exactly one execution during the life of the classifier (and the behavior would accept many tokens), while in the latter there is one execution for every invocation. Activity should not confusingly add another means of doing the same thing. At minimum, it should be explained what the effect of this attribute is when dealing with classifier behavior vs. method. In particular, it is very confusing what it would mean to have a behavior that is its own context and uses a separate execution for each token. Further, the definition of the attribute: "If true, tokens from separate invocations of the activity may interact" is completely meaningless as a definition.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 24 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section 9.3.5. (ConnectableElement)

  • Key: UML22-1326
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7371
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology ( Thomas Weigert)
  • Summary:

    Section 9.3.5. (ConnectableElement) speaks in the description section that a connectable element represents a set of instances that are owned by a containing classifier. However, there are connectable elements that represent instances not owned by the classifier (e.g., the ROOM "slide-in capsules") or the instances might be owned by the classifier only indirectly.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 24 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section 9.3.1

  • Key: UML22-1325
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7370
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology ( Thomas Weigert)
  • Summary:

    Section 9.3.1. gives a presentation option to show the constructor for a class graphically, i.e., show an operation associated with a class which is invoked as the constructor function. However, there seems to be no means of associating that graphical depiction of a constructor to an element in the metamodel.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 24 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

typo

  • Key: UML22-1324
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7361
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Dr. Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    Typo error, stereotype instead of tagged value in the following sentence:” Non-normative examples of standard <tagged values> stereotypes that a profile …”

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 19 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

typo

  • Key: UML22-1323
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7360
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Dr. Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    Typo error => “The deployment target owns <the> a set of deployments that target it.”

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 19 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

component deployment

  • Key: UML22-1322
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7359
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Dr. Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    “A component deployment is the deployment of one or more executable artifacts or artifact instances to a deployment target…” ? Why is it mandatory that an artefact has to be executable to be deployed? Is it not possible to deploy a non-executable file, like a configuration file? Even if a configurable file may be encapsulated in an executable artefact, sometime one configuration file may be used by different executable artefacts.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 19 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

signal

  • Key: UML22-1321
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7358
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Dr. Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    As signal is a kind of message, I propose to replace “A communication path is an association that can only be defined between nodes, to model the exchange of signals and messages between them.” by “A communication path is an association that can only be defined between nodes, to model the exchange of messages between them."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 19 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

association between two Nodes

  • Key: UML22-1320
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7357
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Dr. Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    A communication path is an association between two Nodes, through which Nodes are able to exchange signals and messages.” Signal is a kind of message, so I think this sentence may be simplified by: “A communication path is an association between two Nodes, through which Nodes are able to exchange signals and messages.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 19 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Figure 273 - Arrow direction Figure 273

  • Key: UML22-1319
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7350
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Figure 273 - Arrow direction Figure 273 - Arrow should point from QuoteResponses to AwardQuote, not from AwardQuote to QuoteResponses

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 17 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    This is the same issue as issue 7230.

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

ParameterSet - Typo

  • Key: UML22-1318
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7349
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    ParameterSet - Typo " parameter : ParameterPin [1..*] Parameters in the parameter set." should probably be " parameter : Parameter[1..*] Parameters in the parameter set."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 17 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

ObjectNode

  • Key: UML22-1317
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7348
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    ObjectNode - modelling of upperBound upperBound is currently an association to ValueSpecification. According to section Semantics, it is either a LiteralInteger or a LiteralNull. The later is used to specify an unbound upper limit. There are two problems with this approach: - one could define a upper bound of "5" which is legal LiteralInteger, but probably not a desired value for the maximum number of tokens allowed in the node - if upperBound had multiplicity "0..1", one would not have to encode the absence of a specific upper bound with a LiteralNull I suggest to model "upperBound" in analogy to "upperBound" from MultiplicityElement (see 7.4.1). - replace upperBound with upperBoundValue as follows: upperBoundValue: LiteralUnlimitedNatural[0..1] and update Figure 187 accordingly - add the following Additional Operation context ObjectNode::upperBound():UnlimitedNatural post: result = if upperBoundValue>isEmpty() then '*' – infinity else upperBoundValue.unlimitedValue() end if - on page 344, replace "The upper bound must be a positive LiteralInteger or a LiteralNull. An upper bound that is a LiteralNull means the upper bound is unlimited." with "An upper bound that is empty means the upper bound is unlimited."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 17 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

ActivityEdge - Typo

  • Key: UML22-1316
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7347
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    ActivityEdge - Typo "Other rules for when tokens may be passed along the edge depend on the kind of edge and characteristics of its source and target."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 17 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

ActivityEdge - Section Semantics - Typo

  • Key: UML22-1315
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7346
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    ActivityEdge - Section Semantics - Typo "See examples in Figure 210." should be "See examples in Figure 213."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 17 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

formal parameter or a return result

  • Key: UML22-1313
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7344
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology ( Thomas Weigert)
  • Summary:

    There appears to be an inconsistency in the specification as to what it means to be a formal parameter or a return result. Please choose between the following two interpretations: A. A return result is a parameter that is specially indicated to be the return result. All other parameters are formal parameters. B. A return result is any parameter with direction return, out, or inout. A formal parameter is any parameter with direction in or inout. You could view (A) as focusing on the syntactical role the parameters play, while (B) focuses on when they communicate data. The difficulty arises from that the infrastructure and the superstructure have differing machineries of dealing with parameters. This question affects Kernel (BehavioralFeature.parameter) and CommonBehavior (Behavior.parameter)

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 16 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

typo p. 149

  • Key: UML22-1314
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7345
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Typo "A collaboration occurrence relates a feature in its collaboration type to connectable a element in the classifier or operation that owns the collaboration occurrence."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 17 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

association "context"

  • Key: UML22-1312
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7342
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology ( Thomas Weigert)
  • Summary:

    The association "context" is defined as referencing the classifier owning the behavior. However, when behaviors are embedded within other behaviors, such as when a statemachine state owns a transition, this does not work. Instead, derive the context of the behavior in the following way: If the behavior is owned by a BehavioredClassifier, that classifier is the context. Otherwise, follow the chain of ownerships until you reach a BehavioredClassifier. That classifier is the context.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 16 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

behaviors

  • Key: UML22-1311
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7335
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology ( Thomas Weigert)
  • Summary:

    In all areas of the specification, when behaviors are referenced, it is the abstract metaclass Behavior that is used. This class can then be specialized to any concrete subclass of behavior. The only exception is statemachines, where Activity is referenced. Replace Activity by Behavior as the type of State.doActivity State.entry State.exit Transition.effect

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 12 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See resolution to 7319. It replaces Activity with Behavior in state machines.

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

Page: 589

  • Key: UML22-1309
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7331
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology ( Thomas Weigert)
  • Summary:

    The bottom of the page says "Note – Short forms of these names should also be defined, e.g. pkg for package." If this is a note to the editor, this either should be done or the note removed. The specification should not say that something "should be done."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 9 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 12.3.20

  • Key: UML22-1308
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7330
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology ( Thomas Weigert)
  • Summary:

    The second paragraph in the description section of ExpansionRegion ends upruptly in mid sentence

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 9 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

enumerated type MessageSort

  • Key: UML22-1307
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7328
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology ( Thomas Weigert)
  • Summary:

    The enumerated type MessageSort (used in Message to indicate the kind of communication reflected by the message) has been omitted. The enumeration literals should be synchCall, synchSignal, asynchCall, asynchSignal (see p.428).

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 9 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

There is no redefinitionContext established

  • Key: UML22-1310
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7333
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology ( Thomas Weigert)
  • Summary:

    There is no redefinitionContext established for the redefinable elements of the Activity package. This probably should be the activity itself

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 12 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    This is resolved by 6185.

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

heading of table 19

  • Key: UML22-1306
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7327
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology ( Thomas Weigert)
  • Summary:

    The heading of table 19 is "Graphic nodes and paths included in sequence diagrams" but should be "Graphic nodes and paths included in timing diagrams".

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 9 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue was resolved by the resolution to issue 6977.

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

Notation of ExecutionOccurrence

  • Key: UML22-1305
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7326
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology ( Thomas Weigert)
  • Summary:

    The discussion of the Notation of ExecutionOccurrence speaks of Actions referenced by ExecutionOccurrence, while the meta model shows that ExecutionOccurrenc is related to behavior. Note that if ExecutionOccurrence is related to behavior, it is not possible to show, in an interaction, specific Actions, but only the events that start and end the behavior that contains some actions. However, this is consistent with the spirit of interactions as showing sequences of events, that may derive from actions.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 9 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    This is a duplicate of issue 6153

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

Section: 15.3.12

  • Key: UML22-1304
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7325
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology ( Thomas Weigert)
  • Summary:

    This section contains two subsections entitled "Changes from previous UML".

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 9 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

introductory text for Property states

  • Key: UML22-1303
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7324
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology ( Thomas Weigert)
  • Summary:

    The introductory text for Property states that "When a property is owned by a class..." where it should say "When a property is owned by a classifier...."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sat, 8 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

notation for statemachine transitions omitted from spec

  • Key: UML22-1301
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7320
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology ( Thomas Weigert)
  • Summary:

    The notation for statemachine transitions has been omitted from the specification. Add to the notation section for Statemachines::TRansition a description of the surface syntax denoting a transition: A line from the symbol for the source vertex to the symbol denoting the target vertex, and associated with this line is a textual string with the syntax: <transition-text> ::= <trigger> [<guard>][/<action>]; <guard> ::= '[' <expression> ']'; where <trigger> is defined in CommonBehavior::Trigger, <expression> is an expression in some language, and <action> is a behavior in some language.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 7 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

behavior packages (Interactions, Statemachines

  • Key: UML22-1300
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7319
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology ( Thomas Weigert)
  • Summary:

    Several of the behavior packages (Interactions, Statemachines) are dependent on actions, and consequentially, on the activity package. However, they rely only on a very small part of the action model. Primitive, non-structured, actions need to be independent of the activity model. This can be solved by: (a) Create an Actions::Action metaclass that is independent of Activities::Action. In the activity chapter, Activities::Action should subclass this new action. (b) Move Activities::InputPin and Activities::OutputPin into the Actions package, again adding additional features in the Activities package later. (c) Move Figure 178 "Actions" to the Actions package. This would give the two other behavior types independence of activities in a minimal way. Preferably we would also allow connection of actions: (d) Move figure 177 "Flows", minus the ownership by activity to the Actions chapter (it would be best to rename the abstract node names to something less refering to Activities, but that is no big deal). Add that ActivityEdge is owned by Behavior, and specialize that ownership in the Activity package to activities only.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 6 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above first, then continue below

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

"Implementation" is ommitted

  • Key: UML22-1302
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7322
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology ( Thomas Weigert)
  • Summary:

    "Implementation" is ommitted as one of the legal and typical elements in the diagram section of the Classes chapter and should be added, both in the table and the list below. (Note that legality in diagrams is not inheritable, so just because Realization is legal does not mean Implementation is.)

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sat, 8 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

InformationItem - Typo

  • Key: UML22-1299
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7300
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    InformationItem - Typo "It is a kind of classifier intended for representing information at a very abstract way, which is cannot be instanciated."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 2 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

ReadLinkObjectEndQualifierAction - errors in OCL

  • Key: UML22-1298
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7299
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    ReadLinkObjectEndQualifierAction - errors in OCL "[3] The ends of the association must not be static. self.qualifier.associationEnd.association.end->forall(oclIsKindOf(NavigableEnd) implies isStatic = #false)" There is not metaclass "NavigableEnd". This should be "[3] The ends of the association must not be static. self.qualifier.associationEnd.association.memberEnd->forAll(isStatic = #false)" ------------------------------------------------------ "[5] The multiplicity of the qualifier attribute is 1..1. self.qualifier.multiplicity.is(1,1)" should be "[5] The multiplicity of the qualifier attribute is 1..1. self.qualifier.lowerBound() = 1 and self.qualifier.upperBound() = 1 ------------------------------------------------------ "[6] The multiplicity of the object input pin is “1..1”. self.object.multiplicity.is(1,1)" "object" does not have a multiplicity. ------------------------------------------------------ "[8] The multiplicity of the result output pin is “1..1”. self.result.multiplicity.is(1,1)" "result" does not have an attribute "multiplicity"

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 2 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

StartOwnedBehaviorAction - OCL error in constraint

  • Key: UML22-1296
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7297
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    StartOwnedBehaviorAction - OCL error in constraint [1] "[1] The input pin has no type. self.argument.type->size() = 0" should be "[1] The input pin has no type. self.object.type->size() = 0"

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 2 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

ReadLinkObjectEndAction - errors in OCL

  • Key: UML22-1297
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7298
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    ReadLinkObjectEndAction - errors in OCL " [1] The property must be an association end. self.end.association->size = 1" should be " [1] The property must be an association end. self.end.association->size() = 1" -------------------------------------------------- "[3] The ends of the association must not be static. self.end.association.end->forall(oclIsKindOf(NavigableEnd) implies isStatic = #false)" There is not metaclass "NavigableEnd". This should be "[3] The ends of the association must not be static. self.end.association.memberEnd->forAll(isStatic = #false)" -------------------------------------------------- " [5] The multiplicity of the object input pin is “1..1”. self.object.multiplicity.is(1,1)" "object" does not have a multiplicity. -------------------------------------------------- "[7] The multiplicity of the result output pin is 1..1. self.result.multiplicity.is(1,1)" "result" does not have a multiplicity

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 2 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

ReplyAction - Typo

  • Key: UML22-1294
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7295
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    ReplyAction - Typo "It is not intended that any profile give any other meaning the the return information."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 2 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

ReplyAction - Inconsistency with Figure 150

  • Key: UML22-1293
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7294
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    ReplyAction - Inconsistency with Figure 150 In page 245, replyValues is defined as follows: "replyValue : OutputPin [0..*] A list of pins containing the reply values of the operation. These values are returned to the caller." This is probably OK, but then, Figure 150 should have an association between ReplyAction and OutputPin, not between ReplyAction and InputPin.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 2 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

AcceptCallEvent - inconsistent multiplicity "• trigger

  • Key: UML22-1292
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7293
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    AcceptCallEvent - inconsistent multiplicity "• trigger: CallTrigger The operation call trigger accepted by the action. " should be "• trigger: CallTrigger[1] The operation call trigger accepted by the action.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 2 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    In AcceptCallAction, Associations, insert multiplicity "[1]" for trigger.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

ReadIsClassifiedObjectAction - OCL errors in constraints

  • Key: UML22-1295
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7296
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    ReadIsClassifiedObjectAction - OCL errors in constraints "[1] The multiplicity of the input pin is 1..1. self.argument.multiplicity.is(1,1)" Probably, it should be self.object instead of self.argument, but then again, self.object does not have a multiplicity. " [2] The input pin has no type. self.argument.type->size() = 0" "self.argument" should be "self.object" "[3] The multiplicity of the output pin is 1..1. self.result.multiplicity.is(1,1)" "self.result" is an OutputPin which does not have a multiplicity.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 2 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

AcceptEventAction - inconsistencies in Semantics and typos

  • Key: UML22-1291
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7292
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    AcceptEventAction - inconsistencies in Semantics and typos "If the event is a SignalEvent, the result token contains a signal object whose reception by the owning object caused the event. Signal objects may be copied in transmission and storage by the owning object, so identity might not be preserved. An action whose event is a signal event is informally called an accept signal action. If the event is a TimeEvent, the result token contains the time at which the event occurred. Such an action is informally called a wait time action. If the event is a ChangeEvent ot a CallEvent, the result is a control token, there are no output pins. See CommonBehavior for a description of Event specifications." - There is no metaclass SignalEvent. Probably, this should be SignalTrigger. - There is no metaclass TimeEvent. Probably, this should be TimeTrigger. - There is no metaclass ChangeEvent. Probably, this should be ChangeTrigger. - There is no metaclass CallEvent. Probably, this should be CallTrigger. Suggestion for editorial change: "If the trigger is a SignalTrigger, the result token contains a signal object whose reception by the owning object caused the event. Signal objects may be copied in transmission and storage by the owning object, so identity might not be preserved. An action whose trigger is a SignalTrigger is informally called an accept signal action. If the trigger is a TimeTrigger, there is exactly one output pin which contains the time at which the event occurred. Such an action is informally called a wait time action. If the trigger is a ChangeTrigger, the result is a control token, there are no output pins. See CommonBehavior for a description of Trigger specifications."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 2 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See resolution to 7399. Suggested editorial change has the same text as the FAS.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

AcceptEventAction - inconsistency

  • Key: UML22-1290
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7291
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    AcceptEventAction - inconsistency " ... then the accept signal action completes and outputs a token describing the event." should be " ... then the accept event action completes and outputs a token describing the event."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 2 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See resolution to 6236.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

AcceptEventAction - inconsistent multiplicities

  • Key: UML22-1289
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7290
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    AcceptEventAction - inconsistent multiplicities "• result: OutputPin [1] Pin holding the event object that has been received. Event objects may be copied in transmission, so identity might not be preserved." Multiplicity should be "0..", not "1", because - in case of an accept signal action (see Semantics on the next page), the output pin holds a signal - in case of an time action (see Semantics on the next page), the output pin holds the time at which the event occured - in case of ChangeTrigger, "... there are no output pins." (see Semantics on the next page) - in case of an AcceptCallEventAction (which is a specialization of AcceptEventAction), the output pins hold 0.. argument values of a call. Thus, the multiplicity "0..*" in Figure 150 is probably correct and the respective multiplicity on page 207 should be updated.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 2 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See resolution to 6236.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Message - inconsistency "Messageident equalling ‘*’

  • Key: UML22-1288
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7289
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Message - inconsistency "Messageident equalling ‘’ is a shorthand for more complex alternative CombinedInteraction to represent a message of any type. This is to match asterisk triggers in State Machines." Notes: - There is no metaclass CombinedInteraction. This should probably be CombinedFragment. - "asterisk triggers" should probably be "AnyTrigger" - According to 13.3.2, an AnyTrigger is represented with the keyword "all". Shouldn't we replace "" in the grammar on page 430 by "all"? Suggested replacement: "Messageident equalling ‘all’ is a shorthand for more complex alternative CombinedFragment to represent a message of any type. This is to match AnyTriggers in State Machines."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 2 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Message - inconsistency (02)

  • Key: UML22-1287
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7288
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Message - inconsistency "When a Message represents an Operation the arguments of the Message are the arguments of the CallAction on the sending Lifeline and the arguments of the CallEvent on the receiving Lifeline." Notes: - CallEvent has been replaced by CallTrigger in UML2. - CallAction should probably be CallOperationAction. - A CallEvent (now CallTrigger) has no arguments, but it refers to an operation which has arguments Suggested replacement: "When a Message represents an Operation the arguments of the Message are the arguments of the CallOperationAction on the sending Lifeline and the formal Parameters of the Operation the CallTrigger on the receiving Lifeline refers to."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 2 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    This is an exact (word- for-word) duplicate of issue 7287.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Message - inconsistency

  • Key: UML22-1286
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7287
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Message - inconsistency "When a Message represents an Operation the arguments of the Message are the arguments of the CallAction on the sending Lifeline and the arguments of the CallEvent on the receiving Lifeline." Notes: - CallEvent has been replaced by CallTrigger in UML2. - CallAction should probably be CallOperationAction. - A CallEvent (now CallTrigger) has no arguments, but it refers to an operation which has arguments Suggested replacement: "When a Message represents an Operation the arguments of the Message are the arguments of the CallOperationAction on the sending Lifeline and the formal Parameters of the Operation the CallTrigger on the receiving Lifeline refers to."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 2 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Figure 77

  • Key: UML22-1285
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7245
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Figure 77 - show the generalization from Realization to Realization (from Kernel) In Figure 77, show that Realization is a specialization of Realization (from Kernel).

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Interface - Typos in Figure 63

  • Key: UML22-1284
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7244
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Interface - Typos in Figure 63 In Figure 63, - open guillemets should be added to interface IAlaram (see also Issue 6070) - stereotypes <<Interface>> should be changed to <<interface>> - name of right interface should be changed from "sensor" to "ISensor" - in the caption, "Isensor" should be replaced by "ISensor"

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    These issues were resolved by the resolutions to issues 6069 and 6070.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Connector - inconsistency

  • Key: UML22-1282
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7241
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Connector - inconsistency In order to be consistent with 7.15.3 (Interface) and 13.3.5 (Interface) "At a minimum, the provided interfaces must support a superset of the operations and signals specified in the required interfaces." should be "At a minimum, the provided interfaces must support a superset of the operations and receptions specified in the required interfaces."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 14 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Connector - typo and inconsistency

  • Key: UML22-1281
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7240
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Connector - typo and inconsistency "A connector consists of at two connector ends, each of which represents the participation of instances of the classifiers typing the connectable elements attached to this end. The set of connector ends is ordered. (Subsets Element.ownedElement.)" should be "A connector consists of at least two connector ends, each of which represents the participation of instances of the classifiers typing the connectable elements attached to this end. The set of connector ends is ordered. (Subsets Element::ownedElement.)" Also, "instances of the classifiers typing the connectable elements attached to this end" is not correct, because ConnectableElement is not a specialization of TypedElement. But all known specializations of ConnectableElement, namely Parameter, Variable, Port, and Property, are (indirect) specializations of TypedElement. I suggest to replace NamedElement in Figure 96 by TypedElement. ConnectableElement then automatically becomes a specialization of both TypedElement and NamedElement.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 14 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

ConnectorEnd - multipliciy of role

  • Key: UML22-1283
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7243
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    ConnectorEnd - multipliciy of role - inconsistency with Figure 96 According to Figure 96, the multiplicity of role is 0..1. Therefore, "• role: ConnectableElement [1] The connectable element attached at this connector end." should be "• role: ConnectableElement [0..1] The connectable element attached at this connector end."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Connector - inconsistency

  • Key: UML22-1280
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7239
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Connector - inconsistency According to Figure 96, type has multipliciy 0..1. Therefore, "• type: Association An optional association that specifies the link corresponding to this connector." should be "• type: Association[0..1] An optional association that specifies the link corresponding to this connector

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 14 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Typo in ptc/03-08-02 p. 178

  • Key: UML22-1279
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7238
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Typo "A composite structure diagram depicts the internal structure of a classifier, , as well as the use of a collaboration in a collaboration occurrence." should be "A composite structure diagram depicts the internal structure of a classifier, as well as the use of a collaboration in a collaboration occurrence."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 14 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Typo Section: 12.3.8

  • Key: UML22-1278
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7237
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Typo "For example, an activity may be have one dimension of partitions for location ..."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 12 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Stereotype - Inconsistency in notation Section "Notation", last sentence

  • Key: UML22-1275
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7234
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Stereotype - Inconsistency in notation Section "Notation", last sentence: "If multiple stereotypes are applied, the names of the applied stereotypes is shown as a comma-separated list with a pair of guillemets." ==> Example matching with this rule: <<stereotype1, stereotype2,stereotype3>> Section "Presentation Options", first sentence: "If multiple stereotypes are applied to an element, it is possible to show this by enclosing each stereotype name within a pair of guillemets and list them after each other." ==> Example matching with this rule: <<stereotype1>> <<stereotype2>> <<stereotype3>> I suggest to remove the second presentation option. Examples in the spec are always based on the first one.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 12 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Stereotype - typo in OCL

  • Key: UML22-1274
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7233
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Stereotype - typo in OCL "[2] A concrete Stereotype must directly or indirectly extend a Class. not self.isAbstract implies self.extensionEnd->union(self.parents.extensionEnd)>notEmpty()" should be "[2] A concrete Stereotype must directly or indirectly extend a Class. not self.isAbstract implies self.extensionEnd>union(self.allParents().extensionEnd)->notEmpty()" because parents() only specifies the direct generalization whereas allParents() also includes classes which are indirectly extended

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 12 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

ActivityPartition - inconsistencies

  • Key: UML22-1277
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7236
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    ActivityPartition - inconsistencies "• partition : ActivityPartition [0..1] Partition immediately containing the partition. Specialized from ActivityGroup::group." should be "• superPartition : ActivityPartition [0..1] Partition immediately containing the partition. Specialized from ActivityGroup::superGroup." "• superPartition : ActivityPartition [0..1] Partitions immediately containing the partition. Specialized from ActivityGroup::subgroup." should be "• subPartition : ActivityPartition [0..1] Partitions immediately contained in the partition. Specialized from ActivityGroup::subgroup." Figure 183 should also be updated. There, "+subgroup" should be "+subPartition".

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 12 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Typo In section "Description"

  • Key: UML22-1276
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7235
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Typo In section "Description": "Nodes and edges can belong to more than one group. "
    :

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 12 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    In ActivityGroup class, Description, second sentence, insert "one" before "group".

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

AddVariableValueAction - OCL in constraint [1] not correct

  • Key: UML22-1271
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7191
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Here's an annotated copy of constraint [1]:

    let insertAtPins : Collection = self.insertAt in – NOTE: Variable does not have an attibute ordering if self.variable.ordering = #unordered – NOTE: currently, it is "then insertAtPins->size() = 0", but this – is not compatible with the return type. Now, an – empty set is returned instead. then {} else let insertAtPin : InputPin = insertAt->asSequence()>first() in insertAtPins>size() = 1 and insertAtPin.type = UnlimitedNatural – NOTE: an InputPin is not a multiplicity element and insertAtPin.multiplicity.is(1,1)) endif

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Variables have ordering and multiplicity due to resolution of 6090.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Stereotype

  • Key: UML22-1273
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7232
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    "[1] A Stereotype may only generalize or specialize another Stereotype. self.generalization.general->forAll(e | e.oclIsKindOf(Stereotype)) and self.specialization.specific->forAll(e | e.oclIsKindOf(Stereotype))" should be "[1] A Stereotype may only generalize or specialize another Stereotype. self.generalization.general->forAll(e | e.oclIsKindOf(Stereotype)) and self.generalization.specific->forAll(e | e.oclIsKindOf(Stereotype))"

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 12 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Typo, section "Description", paragraph 1

  • Key: UML22-1272
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7196
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

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

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 22 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

VariableAction - undefined query

  • Key: UML22-1270
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7190
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    isAccessibleBy() in the following constraint is not defined.

    "[1] The action must be in the scope of the variable. self.variable.isAccessibleBy(self)"

    Suggestion:

    "[1] The action must be in the scope of the variable. self.variable.scope = self.inStructuredNode"

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

ReadLinkAction - Constraints use deprecated UML elements

  • Key: UML22-1267
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7187
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    The constraints of ReadLinkAction use deprecated UML elements like AssociationEnd and refer to undefined properties like "isNavigable".

    Here's a proposal for updated OCL fragments:

    [2] The type and ordering of the result output pin are same as the type and ordering of the open association end.

    let openend : Property = self.endData->select(ed | ed.value->size() = 0)>asSequence()>first().end in self.result.type = openend.type and self.result.isOrdered = openend.isOrdered

    [3] The multiplicity of the open association end must be compatible with the multiplicity of the result output pin.

    let openend : Property = self.endData->select(ed | ed.value->size() = 0)>asSequence()>first().end in – NOTE: does not make sense, as long as OutputPin is not a specialization of – MultiplicityElement ! openend.includesMultiplicity(self.result)

    [4] The open end must be navigable. let openend : Property = self.endData->select(ed | ed.value->size() = 0)>asSequence()>first().end in – the property is navigable, if it is not owned by an association, but by – a classifier openend.association->isEmpty() and openend.classifier->notEmpty()

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

    – NOTE: not clear, what the following OCL fragment specifies. For instance, what is – "oed.end.participant" ? – openend.visibility = #public or self.endData->exists(oed | not oed.end = openend and (host = oed.end.participant or (openend.visibility = #protected and host.allParents()->includes(oed.end.participant))))

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

ReadLinkAction - inconsistency with Figure 147

  • Key: UML22-1266
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7186
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    According to Figure 147, the multiplicity of result is "1", whereas in section "Associations" it is described as result : OutputPin [0..*]

    Multiplicity "1" is probably correct, since one OutputPin is meant to hold a possibly multivalued set of objects.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    In ReadLinkAction, Associations, change multiplicity of result to "1".

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Variable - Typo in Attributes

  • Key: UML22-1269
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7189
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    scope : StructuredActivityGroup [1]The structured activity group that owns the variable.

    • replace StructuredActivityGroup by StructuredActivityNode - move it from section "Attributes" to section "Associations"
  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    In Variable class, Attributes, move entry for scope to Associations section.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

DestroyLinkAction - Semantics based on non existing "settability addOnly"

  • Key: UML22-1268
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7188
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Section "Semantics" refers to a "settability addOnly" which does not exist in UML 2. (In UML 1.5, there was a "changeability addOnly")

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

MultiplicityElement - section is obsolete

  • Key: UML22-1265
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7185
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    MultiplicityElement - section is obsolete (see also Issue 6090, Issue 6627, Issue 7111)

    Section 11.3.22 is obsolete because - MultiplicityElement as defined in this chapter is never used in generalization hierarchy

    • There are a lot of constraints and operations in this chapter making use of the operation "is(..)" and "compatibleWith(..)" defined for MultiplicityElement in this section, but usually these operations are applied to Pins (InputPins and OutputPins) which are not a specialization of MultiplicityElement
  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    This is covered by issue 6090.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

LinkEndData - Additional operation not correct

  • Key: UML22-1264
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7184
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    "Additional operations: [1] association operates on LinkAction. It returns the association of the action. association(); association = self.endData->asSequence().first().end.association"

    This operation is already defined for LinkAction on page 237. Here, it should be

    Additional operations

    [1] association operates on LinkEndDate. It returns the association represented by this LinkEndData.

    context LinkEndData::association():Association post: result = end.association

    Then the operation association() on page 237 could be changed to

    [1] association operates on LinkAction. It returns the association of the action.

    context LinkAction::association():Assocation post: result = endData->asSequence().first().association()

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

LinkEndData - Typo in OCL

  • Key: UML22-1263
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7183
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Constraint [1] should be changed from self.end.association->size = 1 to self.end.association->size() = 1

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

AddStructuralFeatureValueAction - Settability removeOnly does not exist

  • Key: UML22-1262
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7181
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    The spec says: "The semantics is undefined for adding a new value for a structural feature with settability readOnly or removeOnly after initialization of the owning object."

    StructuralFeature just has a boolean attribute "isReadOnly". There is no such attribute as "settability" or "isRemoveOnly".

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

DestroyObjectAction - inconsistency in constraints

  • Key: UML22-1260
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7179
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Constraint [1] and [2] use the navigation expression self.input which should be self.target according to Figure 143 and section "Associations".

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Component - problem with provided interfaces (see also Issue 6875, 6338)

  • Key: UML22-1259
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7178
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Section "Associations" states that the derived association /provided consists (1)of the implemented or realized interfaces of the component union (2) the provided interfaces on any of its realizing classifiers union (3) the types of any of its owned ports.

    There is a problem with this definition, because the type of an owned port does not have to be an interface and because this definition does not include the set of interfaces provided by a port.

    I suggest to update the definition to:

    "provided: Interface[*] The interfaces that the component exposes to its environment. These interfaces may be Implemented or Realized by the Component or any of its realizingClassifiers, or they may be implemented by the type of any of its owned public Ports, or they may be provided by any of its owned public Ports. The provided interfaces association is a derived association (see constraint below)."

    Here's a more formal definition (which, according to the note "(OCL version of the derivation above to be added)" on page 136 is still missing )

    Constraints

    [1] provided = providedInterfaces()

    Additional Operations

    [1] providedInterfaces replies the set of interfaces the component provides

    context Component::providedInterfaces():Set(Interface) post: result = – the set of interfaces provided by the component itself – self.clientDependency >select(oclIsTypeOf(Implementation) or oclIsTypeOf(Realization)).supplier ->collect(oclIsTypeOf(Interface)) union – the set of interfaces provided by any of its realizing classifiers – self.realization.realizingClassifier.clientDependency ->select(oclIsTypeOf(Implementation) or oclIsTypeOf(Realization)).supplier ->collect(oclIsTypeOf(Interface)) union – the set of interfaces implemented by the type of any of its – owning ports self.ownedPort>select(isService = true).type >select(oclIsTypeOf(Implementation) or oclIsTypeOf(Realization)).supplier ->collect(oclIsTypeOf(Interface)) union – the set of interfaces provided by any of its owned public ports – self.ownedPort>select(isService = true).provided

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Typo - section Description, first sentence

  • Key: UML22-1261
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7180
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    "... which is in turn is optionally attached in some way ..."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Manifestation - visual representation should be dashed arrow

  • Key: UML22-1258
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7155
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    The sample diagram in Table 9, 1st row, 2nd column, on page 200 should use a dashed arrow instead of a solid one.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sat, 13 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue was resolved by the resolution to issue 6234.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Deployment - keyword <> not introduced

  • Key: UML22-1256
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7152
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    In UML 1.4, the visual representation of a deployment relationship is adorned with the keyword <<deploy>>. I suggest to introduce this is keyword in section "Notation" on page 188. Also, adorn the deployment relationship in Figure 130 on page 188 with <<deploy>>.

    Table 9 on page 199 includes the notation for a deployment dependency including the keyword <<deploy>>, but the depencendy arrow should be drawn with a dashed line.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sat, 13 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

InteractionOccurrence - Syntax rules for name not clear

  • Key: UML22-1255
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7151
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    "name ::=[ attribute-name = ][collaborationoccurrence.] interactionname[‘(‘arguments’)’] [: return-value] argument ::= in-argument [ out out-argument]"

    should be changed to

    "name ::= [ attribute-name '=' ][collaborationoccurrence '.'] interactionname[‘(‘arguments’)’] [':' return-value] arguments ::= argument [ ',' arguments ] argument ::= value | 'out' name [ ':' value] " | ''

    Four paragraphs below, the spec says that the same syntax is used as for Messages. This sentence should be deleted unless the syntax rules are actually updated to reflect the syntax rules of Message names on page 428.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sat, 13 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

DeploymentTarget - Missing OCL expression

  • Key: UML22-1257
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7153
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    The spec says:

    "• / deployedElement : PackageableElement [*] The set of elements that are manifested in an Artifact that is involved in Deployment to a DeploymentTarget.The association is a derived association (OCL for informal derivation above to be provided)."

    Here's a proposal for the missing OCL expression mentioned above:

    self.deployment.deployedArtifact->select(da | da.oclIsKindOf(Artifact) )->collect(da | da.oclAsType(Artifact).manifestation.utilizedElement )

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sat, 13 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Figure 95

  • Key: UML22-1254
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7124
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Figure 95 - Property should also specialize from Property (from Kernel).

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 9 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Connector - Constraint [3] not necessary ?

  • Key: UML22-1253
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7123
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    It is not clear why Constraint [3] is necessary in addition to Constraint [2].

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 9 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Connector - Constraint [2] is inprecise

  • Key: UML22-1252
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7122
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    2] If a connector is attached to a connectable element which has required interfaces, then the connectable elements attached to the other ends must realize interfaces that are compatible with these required interfaces.

    What is the meaning of this constraint ?

    • For each required interface I1 of a port P1 attached to a connector, every other port connected to the same connector must have at least one provided interface which is compatible to I1 ? - For each required interface I1 of a port P1 attached to a connector, there must be at least one other port connected to the to the same connector with at least one provided interface which is compatible to I1 ? - ....
  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 9 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

ReadSelfAction - Typos in OCL constraints

  • Key: UML22-1251
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7121
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Replace "activity()" by "activity" in the OCL expressions of Constraint [1], [2], and [3], i.e.

    [1] The action must be contained in an activity that has a host classifier. self.activity.hostClassifier()->size() = 1

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 9 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Typo

  • Key: UML22-1249
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7119
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    "Every action is ultimately a part of some activity, which is in turn is optionally attached in some way to the specification of a classifier"

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 9 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    duplicate of isue # 7119 ...closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Typo

  • Key: UML22-1248
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7118
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    "Every action is ultimately a part of some activity, which is in turn is optionally attached in some way to the specification of a classifier"

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 9 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

ReadSelfAction - delete constraint [4]

  • Key: UML22-1250
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7120
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Constraint [4] is not necessary, because OutputPin is not a specialization of MultiplicityElement - it does not have a multiplicity.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 9 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

TestIdentityAction - additional constraint

  • Key: UML22-1247
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7117
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Add the following constraint:

    [3] The type of the result is Boolean self.result.type.oclIsTypeOf(Boolean)

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 9 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

TestIdentityAction- delete constraint [2]

  • Key: UML22-1246
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7116
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Constraint [2] is not necessary, because InputPin is not a specialization of MultiplicityElement - it does not have a multiplicity.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 9 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Typo

  • Key: UML22-1245
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7115
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    "TestIdentifyAction is an action that tests if two values are identical objects.t" (last t after period)

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 9 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

DeleteObjectAction - delete constraint [1]

  • Key: UML22-1244
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7114
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Constraint [1] is not necessary, because InputPin is not a specialization of MultiplicityElement - it does not have a multiplicity.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 9 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

SendSignalAction

  • Key: UML22-1241
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7111
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    SendSignalAction - Matching between arguments and Signal attributes not clear

    According to Constraint [1] on page 256 arguments to the SendSignalAction and attributes in the Signal should "match by position", which is not immediately clear because the set Signal::attribute is not ordered.

    Signal::attribute is equal to Classifier::attribute which subsets Classifier::feature which subsets Namespace::member. None of these sets is ordered.

    Furthermore, it is not clear when an "argument" of SendSignalAction and an attribute of Signal match. Probably, the following conditions should hold: - They have the same name - Both are TypedElement, so their types should conform to each other. - Only "attribute" is a MultiplicityElement - an "argument" of type "InputPin" does not have a multiplicity. Is therefore advisable to constraint the multiplicity of "argument" such that it is always "1..1".

    I suggest to change this to a kind of "matching by name", i.e.

    [1] The number of arguments of SendSignalAction must be the same as the number of attributes of Signal. self.argument->size() = self.signal.attribute->size()

    [2] All arguments must have a name self.argument.name->notEmpty()

    [3] The multiplicities of all attributes of signal must be 1 self.signal.attribute->forAll(attr | attr.lowerBound() = 1 and attr.upperBound() = 1 )

    [4] For each argument there is exactly one attribute in Signal with the same name and a conformant type, if any.

    self.argument->forAll(arg | self.signal.attribute->one(attr | attr.name = arg.name and ((attr.type->size() = 1) implies attr.type.conformsTo(arg.type)) ) )

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 9 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Delete the following sentence in section "Notation":

  • Key: UML22-1240
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7110
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Delete the following sentence in section "Notation": "The symbol has a control output only." and replace it with the following constraint in section "Constraints":

    [2] A SendSignalAction has at most one outgoing activity edge of type ControlFlow

    self.outgoing->size() <= 1 and self.outgoing->forAll(ae | ae.oclIsKindOf(ControlFlow))

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 9 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

CreateObjectAction - delete constraint [4]

  • Key: UML22-1243
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7113
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Constraint [4] is not necessary, because OutputPin is not a specialization of MultiplicityElement - it does not have a multiplicity.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 9 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Typo

  • Key: UML22-1242
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7112
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    "Receive signal action" in Figure 165 on p. 256 should be "send signal action".

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 9 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    In figure 165 on page 256 replace the phrase word “Receive” by the word “Send”

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Sentence not finished in section "Changes from previous UML"

  • Key: UML22-1239
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7109
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Sentence not finished in section "Changes from previous UML"

    "In UML 1.x,"

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 9 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    On page 186, remove this incomplete phrase from the end of the paragraph.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Collaboration - inconsistency with Figure 99

  • Key: UML22-1235
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7075
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    According to Figure 99, the multiplicity of association end collaborationRole should be "*".

    • collaborationRole: ConnectableElement[*] References connectable elements (possibly owned by other classifiers) which represent roles that instances may play in this collaboration. (Subsets StructuredClassifier.role.)

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 4 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Typo in Figure 124 on page 182

  • Key: UML22-1237
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7107
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    "Manisfestation" should be "Manifestation"

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 9 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Duplicate of issue 6204

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

StructuredClassifier - Regular expression for namestring too complicated

  • Key: UML22-1236
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7106
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    The regular expression on page 175 {{

    {[ name [‘/’ rolename]] | ‘/’ rolename}

    ‘:’ classifiername [

    {‘,’ classifiername}

    *]} | { name [‘/’ rolename] | ‘/’ rolename}} could be replaced by the following simpler expression name ['/' rolename]} | {'/' rolename [ ':' classifiername

    { ',' classifiername}

    *]

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 9 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Typo

  • Key: UML22-1238
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7108
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    "That is, these model elements are utilized in the construction (or generation) or the artifact."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 9 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

GeneralizationSet - constraints expressed in OCL

  • Key: UML22-1233
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7073
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    GeneralizationSet - constraints expressed in OCL

    The constrainst of GeneralizationSet are not expressed in OCL yet. Here are two proposals.

    [1] Every Generalization associated with a particular GeneralizationSet must have the same general Classifier. self.generalization->collect(g | g.general)>asSet()>size() <= 1

    [2] The Classifier that maps to a GeneralizationSet may neither be a specific nor a general Classifier in any of the Generalization relationships defined for that GeneralizationSet. In other words, a power type may not be an instance of itself nor may its instances be its subclasses.

    let gene = self.generalization in gene->collect(g | g.general->union(g.general->collect(c | c.allParents()>union(c.allChildren())))) ->union(gene>collect(g | g.specific->union(g.specific->collect(c | c.allParents()->union(c.allChildren()))))) ->excludes(powertype)

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 4 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

GeneralizationSet - Incorrect Mulitiplicities of associations

  • Key: UML22-1232
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7072
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    GeneralizationSet - Incorrect Mulitiplicities of associations

    "• generalization [1] Designates the instances of Generalization which are members of a given Generalization-Set. • powertype [2] Designates the Classifier that is defined as the power type for the associated GeneralizationSet."

    This should be

    "• generalization: Generalization[*] Designates the instances of Generalization which are members of a given Generalization-Set. • powertype:Classifier [0..1] Designates the Classifier that is defined as the power type for the associated GeneralizationSet."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 4 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

GeneralizationSet - example in section "Semantics" is not clear

  • Key: UML22-1234
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7074
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    GeneralizationSet - example in section "Semantics" is not clear

    Here is the respecitive paragraph with some editorial notes:

    . i(aaaaa) means insert aaaaa at the position of i . r-------aaaaa means replace everything above ----- with aaaaa

    "For example, the Bank Account Type classifier could associate with a Generalization relationship r--------------------------GeneralizationSet that has specific classifiers of Checking Account r---------refers to Generalizations with specific and Savings Account. Here, then, Checking Account and Savings Account are instances of Bank Account Type. Furthermore, if the Generalization relationship has a general classifier of Bank Account, then Checking Account and Savings Account are r-------------------------GeneralizationSet also subclasses of Bank Account. Therefore, Checking Account and Savings Account are both instances of Bank Account Type and subclasses of Bank Account. (For more explanation and examples, see Examples in the Generalization section, below.)

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 4 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

GeneralizationSet description conf. about meaning of "specific" + "general

  • Key: UML22-1231
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7071
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    GeneralizationSet - description is confused about the meaning of "specific" and "general"

    In the description on page 121, classifieres are called "specific" when they should be called "generic", and vice versa.

    Here is the respecitive paragraph with some editorial notes:

    . i(aaaaa) means insert aaaaa at the position of i . r-------aaaaa means replace everything above ----- with aaaaa

    Each Generalization is a binary relationship that relates a specific Classifier to a more general Classifier (i.e., a subclass). Each i(i.e. a subclass) r------superclass GeneralizationSet defines a particular set of Generalization relationships that describe the way in which a specific Classifier r-----generic (or superclass) may be partitioned. For example, a GeneralizationSet could define a partitioning of the class Person into two subclasses: Male Person and Female Person. Here, the GeneralizationSet would associate two instances of Generalization. Both instances would have Person as the specific classifier, however one Generalization would involve Male Person as the r-----generic general Classifier and the other would involve Female Person as the general classifier. In other words, the class Person can r----specific here be said to be partitioned into two subclasses: Male Person and Female Person. Person could also be partitioned into North American Person, Asian Person, European Person, or something else. This partitioning would define a different GeneralizationSet that would associate with three other Generalization relationships. All three would have Person as the specific Classifier; only the general classifiers would differ: i.e., North AmericanPerson, Asian Person, and European Person. r-----generic r-----specific

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 4 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Was resolved as part of Issue No. 5980 (item 4).

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

GeneralizationSet - outdated description

  • Key: UML22-1230
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7070
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    On page 121, the spec says:

    "A GeneralizationSet is an AutonomousElement (from Foundation :: Kernel :: PackagingNamespaces) whose instances define partitioned sets of Generalization relationships."

    There is no AutonomousElement in UML 2.0. This should probably be:

    "A GeneralizationSet is an PackageableElement (from Kernel) whose instances define partitioned sets of Generalization relationships."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 4 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Was resolved as part of Issue No. 5980 (item 4).

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Region - Additional structural constraints necessary

  • Key: UML22-1229
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7055
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Add the toe following query to the section "AdditionalOperations":

    [1] allParentRegions() replies a set of regions which are direct or indirect ancestors of this region

    Context Region::allParentRegions(): Set(Region) allParentRegions = if self.State->isEmpty() then Set{} else self.State.container->union(self.State.container.allParentRegions()) endif

    Add the following constraints to the section "Constraint"

    [5] A region does not directly belongs to a state machine and to a state self.StateMachine->intersection(self.State)->isEmpty()

    [6] Regions are properly nested not self.allParentRegions()->includes(self)

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 29 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Constraint [2], p.70

  • Key: UML22-1228
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7054
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    RedefinableElement::isRedefinitionContexValid(redefinable: RedefinableElement): Boolean; isRedefinitionContextValid = self.redefinitionContext->exists(c | redefinable.redefinitionContext->exists(c | c.allParents()>includes(r)) – ^- should be r, not c )

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 29 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Figure 355 - mulitplicities of redefinitionContext should be 0..1

  • Key: UML22-1227
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7053
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    In Figure 355 there are three occurences of associaten ends named "redefinitionContext". The multiplicities of each should be 0..1, rather than 1, because State, Transition, and Region can exist without being part of StateMachine and thus without having a redefinition context.

    The multiplicity should also be updated on page 479 for State, on page 498 for Transition, and on page 476 for Region.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 29 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Figure 355 - ownedStateMachine should subset ownedBehavior

  • Key: UML22-1226
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7052
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    The association ownedStateMachine should subset rather than redefine ownedBehavior.

    +ownedStateMachine {subsets ownedBehavior)

    The other end of the association should be +context {redefines context) instead of {subsets redefinitionContext)

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 29 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Typo p 497

  • Key: UML22-1225
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7050
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Typo

    "As part of the specialization of a class it is desirable also the specialize the behavior definition

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 29 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

State - Constraints - errors in OCL and inconsistencies

  • Key: UML22-1221
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7046
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    State - Constraints - errors in OCL and inconsistencies

    "[1] There have to be at least two regions in an orthogonal composite state (self.isOrthogonal) implies (self.region->size >= 2)"

    Delete this constraint. It is equal to Constraint [7] .

    "[2] Only submachine states can have connection point references." Add the following formulation in OCL:

    not(self.connection->isEmpty()) implies isSubmachineState = true

    "[5] A simple state is a state without any regions. isSimple = content.isEmpty()"

    OCL should be isSimple = region->isEmpty()

    "[6] Acomposite state is a state with at least one region. isComposite = content.notEmpty()"

    OCL should be isComposite = region->notEmpty()

    "[7] An orthogonal state is a composite state with at least 2 regions isOrthogonal = (context.size() >= 2)"

    OCL should be: isOrthogonal = (region->size() >= 2)

    "[8] Only submachine states can have a reference statemachine. isSubmachineState = submachine.notEmpty()"

    OCL should be: isSubmachineState = submachine->notEmpty()

    "[9] A Protocol state (state belonging to a protocol state machine) has no entry or exit or do activity actions. entry->isEmpty() and exit->isEmpty() and doActivity->isEmpty()"

    OCL should be:

    let parentStateMachine = self.containingStateMachine() in if parentStateMachine->notEmpty() then if parentStateMachine->at(1).oclIsTypeOf(ProtocolStateMachine) then self.entry->isEmpty() and self.exit->isEmpty() and self.doActivity->isEmpty() endif endif

    "[10] Protocol states cannot be deep or shallow history pseudo states. if oclIsTypeOf(Pseudostate) then (kind <> #deepHistory) and (kind <> #shallowHistory)"

    OCL should be:

    let parentStateMachine = self.containingStateMachine() in if parentStateMachine->notEmpty() then if parentStateMachine->at(1).oclIsTypeOf(ProtocolStateMachine) then (self.kind <> #deepHistory) and (self.kind <> #shallowHistory) end if end if

    Furthermore, this constraint should be moved to 15.3.8, because it is a constraint for PseudoState, not for State.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 29 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Change Constraint [1] to

  • Key: UML22-1223
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7048
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Change Constraint [1] to

    [1] A fork segment must not have guards or triggers.

    (self.source.oclIsKindOf(Pseudostate) and self.source.oclAsType(Pseudostate).kind = #fork) implies (self.guard->isEmpty() and self.trigger->isEmpty())

    Change Constraint [2] to

    [2] A join segment must not have guards or triggers.

    (self.source.oclIsKindOf(Pseudostate) and self.source.oclAsType(Pseudostate).kind = #join) implies (self.guard->isEmpty() and self.trigger->isEmpty())

    Change Constraint [3] to

    [3] A fork segment must always target a state.

    (self.source.oclIsKindOf(Pseudostate) and self.source.oclAsType(Pseudostate).kind = #fork) implies (self.target.oclIsKindOf(State))

    Change Constraint [4] to

    [4] A join segment must always originate from a state. (self.target.oclIsKindOf(Pseudostate) and self.target.oclAsType(Pseudostate).kind = #join) implies (self.source.oclIsKindOf(State))

    Change Constraint [5] to

    [5] Transitions outgoing pseudostates may not have a trigger. self.source.oclIsKindOf(Pseudostate) implies self.trigger->isEmpty()

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 29 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Non-existent property isFinal referenced

  • Key: UML22-1222
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7047
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Section "State redefinition", first sentence: "A state may be redefined, provided that the value of isFinal is False."

    State does not have a property "isFinal".

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 4 Feb 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

ownedStateMachine not described correctly

  • Key: UML22-1224
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7049
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    In section "Changes from previous UML" the spec says:

    "The association ownedStateMachine is introduced in order for StateMachines to have locally defined StateMachines that can be referenced from SubmachineStates."

    This is not correct, because according to Figure 355 ownedStateMachine is an association between StateMachine and BehavioredClassifier and not between StateMachine and StateMachine.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 29 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Define containingStateMachine() for Vertex

  • Key: UML22-1220
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7045
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Define containingStateMachine() for Vertex

    Add a section "Additional Queries" and define the query containingStateMachine as follows:

    [1] containingStateMachine() replies an OrderedSet consisting of the state machine this vertex belongs to, if any.

    context Vertex::containingStateMachine(): OrderedSet(StateMachine) containingStateMachine= if self.container->isEmpty() then OrderedSet{} else if self.container.StateMachine->isEmpty() then OrderedSet{} else OrderedSet

    {self.container.StateMachine}

    endif endif

    Remove Additional Constraint [3] for StateMachine on page 491.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 29 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

State - Inconsistency

  • Key: UML22-1219
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7044
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    State - Inconsistency

    In order to be consistent with Figure 354 (p. 457), the multiplicity of association "connection" should be "*"

    ==> • connection: ConnectionPointReference[*] The entry and exit connection points used in conjunction with this (submachine)

    dito for deferrableTrigger ==> • deferrableTrigger: Trigger[*] A list of triggers that are candidates to be retained by the state machine if they trigger

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 29 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

p.461, first sentence:

  • Key: UML22-1218
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7043
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    p.461, first sentence: "A connection point reference to an entry point can also be visualized using a rectangular symbol as shown in Figure 362."

    Should refer to Figure 360, not 362

    Furthermore, in Figure 360 the example should be "via again", not "via aborted".

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 1 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

AssociationClass - Additional Operation [1] should be deleted

  • Key: UML22-1216
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7041
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    "[1] The operation allConnections results in the set of all AssociationEnds of the Association. allConnections : Set ( AssociationEnd ); allConnections = self.end->union ( self.allParents ().end )"

    AssociationEnd does not exist anymore in UML 2.0. This constraint should be deleted.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 1 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

AssociationClass Constraint [1] should be reformulated

  • Key: UML22-1215
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7040
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Constraint [1] should be reformulated as:

    self.endType->excludes(self) and self.endType->collect(c | c.allParents ())>excludes(self) and self.endType>collect(c | c.allChildren())->excludes(self)

    This uses the a query "allChildren" which is not yet defined on Classifier. The following to additional queries should be added to the section "Additional Operations" on page 62:

    [9] children gives the direct specialisations of this classifier

    context Classifier::children():Set(Classifier) result = generalization.specific

    [9] allChildren gives all the directly and indirectly specialized classifiers context Classifier::allChildren():Set(Classifier) result = children->union(children->collect(c | c.allChildren))

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 1 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Association - endType should be of type Classifier

  • Key: UML22-1214
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7039
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Association - endType should be of type Classifier

    The association endType should be of type classifier, perhaps it should even be renamed to "endClassifier"

    • / endType: Classifier [1..*] References the classifiers that are used as types of the ends of the association.

    Constraint[3] should be changed accordingly to:

    [3] endType is derived from the types of the member ends. self.endType = self.memberEnd->collect(p | p.classifier)

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 1 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Constraints of ConnectionPointReference - OCL not correct

  • Key: UML22-1217
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7042
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    "[1] The entry Pseudostates must be Pseudostates with kind entryPoint. entry->notEmpty() implies entry.kind = #entryPoint"

    should be

    "[1] The entry Pseudostates must be Pseudostates with kind entryPoint. entry->notEmpty() implies entry->forAll(e | e.kind = #entryPoint)"

    "[2] The exit Pseudostates must be Pseudostates with kind exitPoint exit->notEmpty() implies exit.kind = #exitPoint"

    should be

    "[2] The exit Pseudostates must be Pseudostates with kind exitPoint exit->notEmpty() implies exit->forAll(e | e.kind = #exitPoint)"

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 1 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Stereotype «buildComponent» defined twice, description not clear

  • Key: UML22-1213
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7021
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Table 25 on p. 593 includes the stereotype «buildComponent», so does table 27 on page 597. «buildComponent» is not used anywhere else in the spec, it has not been used in UML 1.5, and from the description in table 25 it is not clear what this stereotype should be used for.

    Suggestion => remove it from table 25 and from table 27.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 23 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Typo p 589

  • Key: UML22-1212
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7020
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Typo

    "UML diagrams may have the following kinds of frame names as part of the heading_._:"

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 23 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

ExtensionPoint should be a specialization of Feature (from Kernel)

  • Key: UML22-1210
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7018
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    ExtensionPoint should be a direct specialization of Feature (from Kernel), rather than RefinableElement (from Kernel). Since Feature (from Kernel) also specializes RefinableElement, ExtensionPoint would still be a specialization of RefinableElement.

    This would make the classifier based notation of Figure 408 more obvious. And it would fit better with the constraint

    {subsets feature}

    on +extensionPoint (see Figure 401).

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 23 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Typo p 587

  • Key: UML22-1211
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7019
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Typo

    "UML diagrams contain_s_ graphical elements (nodes connected by ..."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 23 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Multiplicity of extensionLocation should be 1..1 instead of 1..*

  • Key: UML22-1209
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7017
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    The association extensionLocation is defined as follows (page 515):

    "extensionLocation: ExtensionPoint [ 1..* ] An ordered list of extension points belonging to the extended use case, specifying where the respective behavioral fragments of the extending use case are to be inserted. The first fragment in the extending use case is associated with the first extension point in the list, the second fragment with the second point, and so on. (Note that, in most practical cases, the extending use case has just a single behavior fragment, so that the list of extension points is trivial.)"

    It is not clear, what is meant by "behavioral fragments" (or "behavior fragments"). Neither term appears anywhere else in the spec. UseCase is a specialization of BehavioredClassifier and it can therefore have an optional classifier behavior (classifierBehavior) and own 0..* other behaviors (ownedBehavior). If "behavorial fragments" corresponded to "classifierBehavior", then the multiplicity of extensionLocation would have to be 1. If, however, it corresponded with "ownedBehavior", then it would be impossible to identify "the first fragment" because "ownedBehavior" is not ordered. In addition, it would be difficult to identify "the first extension point" because extensionLocation is not ordered either.

    As stated above, "in most practical cases, the extending use case has just a single behevavior fragment". I therefore suggest to change the multiplicity of extensionLocation to 1..1

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 23 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Constraint not precise enough

  • Key: UML22-1207
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7015
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Constraint [1] should be extended s follows (see also second paragraph in the section Notation on page 321)

    [1] A decision node has one incoming edge and at least one outgoing ege. self.incoming->size() = 1 and self.outgoing->size() >= 1

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 22 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Duplicate with issue 7009.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Unnecessary sentence p 339

  • Key: UML22-1206
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7014
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Remove the following sentence from section Semantics:

    "No joining of tokens is necessary if there is only one incoming edge, but it is not a useful case."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 22 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Imprecise sentence p 334

  • Key: UML22-1208
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7016
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    "Flow final nodes are introduced to model termination or merging of a flow in an activity." should be "Flow final nodes are introduced to model termination of a flow in an activity." since merging of a flow is handled by Merge Nodes.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 22 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    In FlowFinalNode, Rationale section, remove "or merging".

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

"Joining of tokens" not clear

  • Key: UML22-1205
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7013
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    It is not clear, how different data tokens arriving at a join node are "joined" before they are passed along the outgoing edge. Are they wrapped in an "envelope token" ? Or are they serialized (in arbitrary order ?) and then passed along the outgoing edge ?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 22 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Typo p 339

  • Key: UML22-1204
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7012
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Typo

    "Other rules for when tokens may be passed along the outgoing edge depend on the characteristics of the edge and its target."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 22 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Typo - Missing colon p 302

  • Key: UML22-1203
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7011
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    • outgoing ActivityEdge [0..*] Edges that have the node as source.

    should be

    • outgoing: ActivityEdge [0..*] Edges that have the node as source.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 22 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Constraint not precise enough

  • Key: UML22-1201
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7009
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Constraint [1] should be extended s follows (see also first sentence in the section Notation on page 339)

    [1] A join node has one outgoing edge and at least one incoming ege. self.incoming->size() >= 1 and self.outgoing->size() = 1

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 22 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Typo p 320

  • Key: UML22-1200
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7008
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Typo

    "A decision input behavior has one input parameter and one output parameter. The input parameter must be the same as or a supertype of the type of object token coming along the incoming edge. The behavior cannot have side effects. "

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 22 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    In Decision Node class, in constraint [2], insert "of" after supertype.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

No Activity Edges from with equal source and target

  • Key: UML22-1202
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7010
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    The Constraints section of Activity Edge should be extended with:

    [3] Source and target of an activity edge must not be equal source <> target

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 22 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    This is duplicate with 7007.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Typo p 161

  • Key: UML22-1197
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7005
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Typo

    ".. of two occurrences of the Sale collaboration, indicated b_e_ the dashed ellipses." => ".. of two occurrences of the Sale collaboration, indicated by the dashed ellipses."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 22 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Another Inconsistency with Figure 100

  • Key: UML22-1196
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7004
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    According to Figure 100, the multiplicity of "roleBinding" is "*". Thus, the second paragraph of section "Associations" should be changed to

    • roleBinding: Dependency[*] A mapping between features of the collaboration type and features of the classifier or operation. This mapping indicates which connectable element of the classifier or operation plays which role(s) in the collaboration. A connectable element may be bound to multiple roles in the same collaboration occurrence (that is, it may play multiple roles).

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 22 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Multiple activity edges between a given pair of activity nodes possible ?

  • Key: UML22-1199
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7007
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Multiple activity edges between a given pair of activity nodes possible ?

    Currently, there is no constraint which would forbid two Activity Edges with the same source/target pair, i.e.

    --------- -------- | A1 | --------> | A1 | | | | | | | --------> | | -------- ---------

    The following constraint should be added to the Constraints section of Activity Edge on page 293:

    Constraints

    [3] There is at most one ActivityEdge given a source and a target Activity Node. source.outgoing->select(ae | ae.source = source and ae.target = target)>size() = 1 and target.incoming>select(ae | ae.source = source and ae.target = target)->size() = 1

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 22 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Inconsistency between constraint of ControlNode and Semantics of JoinNode

  • Key: UML22-1198
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7006
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Constraint on ControlNode (p. 317):

    "[1] The edges coming into and out of a control node must be either all object flows or all control flows."

    Semantics of JoinNode (p. 339):

    "If there is a token offered on all incoming edges, then tokens are offered on the outgoing edge according to the following join rules: 1. If all the tokens offered on the incoming edges are control tokens, then one control token is offered on the outgoing edge. 2. If some of the tokens offered on the incoming edges are control tokens and other are data tokens, then only the data tokens are offered on the outgoing edge."

    Item 2.) should be: "2. If all the tokens offered on the incoming edges are data tokens, then only the data tokens are offered on the outgoing edge."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 22 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Inconsistency with Figure 100

  • Key: UML22-1195
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7003
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    According to Figure 100, the multiplicity of "collaborationRole" is "*". Thus, the first paragraph of section "Associations" should be changed to

    • collaborationRole: ConnectableElement[*] References connectable elements (possibly owned by other classifiers) which represent roles that instances may play in this collaboration. (Subsets StructuredClassifier.role.)

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 22 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Figure 103 at the wrong place

  • Key: UML22-1194
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7002
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    The section "Presentation Option" including Figure 103 does not fit in the context of section 9.3.1. This section deals with the specialized Class meta-class for Structured Classes, whereas the "Presentation Option" and Figure 103 explain something about relating instance specifications to constructors. This section should either be deleted or moved be moved to another place, i.e. section 7.11, Kernel - the Classes Diagram, or section 7.7, Kernel - the Instance Diagrams.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 22 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Connector - default value für "kind"

  • Key: UML22-1193
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7001
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    On page 143, the spec says: • kind : ConnectorKind =

    {assembly, delegation}

    Indicates the kind of connector.

    This doesn't make sense. "kind" is either "assembly" or "delegation" but not a set consisting of both values. "kind" should either have no default value, or it should be "assembly" or "delegation". • kind : ConnectorKind or • kind : ConnectorKind = assembly or • kind : ConnectorKind = delegation

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 22 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Typo p 137

  • Key: UML22-1192
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7000
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Typo

    "A component is a substitutable unit that can be replaced at design time or run-time by a component that offers that offers equivalent functionality based on compatibility of its interfaces."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 22 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Missing multiplicities

  • Key: UML22-1191
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6999
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    The multiplicities for the four following associations are missing in section Associations:

    provided: Interface[*] required: Interface[*] realization: Realization[*] ownedMember: PackageableElement[*]

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 22 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Typo p. 595, Table 25, row 6, column 3

  • Key: UML22-1190
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6998
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Typo

    p. 595, Table 25, row 6, column 3

    Artif_i_act

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 22 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    On page 595 in the entry for “script” of Table 25, replace “Artifiact” with “Artifact”

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Additional Operations specification of NamedElement::allNamespaces()

  • Key: UML22-1189
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6997
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Unisys ( Terry L. Cowart)
  • Summary:

    The Additional Operations specification of NamedElement::allNamespaces() appears incorrect. The else clause states:

    else self.name.allNamespaces()->prepend(self.namespace)

    The problem is that self.name is a String attribute, and does not have a allNamespaces query. It appears that the intent is to state:

    else self.namespace.allNamespaces()->prepend(self.namespace)

    which would provide access to the query, as well as providing the (apparently intended) recursion.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 19 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Second row of table 22, column "Notation", labels switched

  • Key: UML22-1186
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6964
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Second row of table 22, column "Notation", labels switched.

    The use case "Withdraw" should be the including use case. "Card identification" should be the included use case.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sat, 31 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Same issue as 6643

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

UseCase - Inconsistencies with Figure 401

  • Key: UML22-1185
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6963
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    UseCase - Inconsistencies with Figure 401

    According to Figure 401, the mulitiplicy of association end +subject is "*".

    On page 519 it is "subject : Classifier References the subjects to which this use case applies. The subject ..."

    and should be

    "subject : Classifier[*] References the subjects to which this use case applies. The subject ..."

    dito for "include" and "extend"

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 31 Jan 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

typo

  • Key: UML22-1188
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6968
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Last sentence on page:

    "..., it is typically defined in the some classifier or package ..."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sat, 31 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Typo in OCL

  • Key: UML22-1187
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6966
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Typo in OCL

    extensionLocation->forAll (xp | extendedCase.extensionPoint->include(xp))

    should be ("includes" instead of "include")

    extensionLocation->forAll (xp | extendedCase.extensionPoint->includes(xp))

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sat, 31 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

UseCase - Extend is not a Namespace

  • Key: UML22-1184
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6962
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    UseCase - Extend is not a Namespace

    See association end +condition of the association between Extend and Constraint: +condition

    {subsets ownedMember}

    Extend is not a Namespace, however. Therefore +condition cannot subset ownedMember.

    Extend should either specialize Namespace or the property string of +condition should be changed to

    {subsets ownedElement}: +condition {subsets ownedElement}

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sat, 31 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Inconsistent multiplicity

  • Key: UML22-1183
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6961
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Inconsistent multiplicity

    "• ownedUseCase: UseCase References the use cases owned by this classifier. (Specializes Namespace.ownedMember.)"

    According to Figure 401 the multiplicity should be [*]. ==>

    "• ownedUseCase: UseCase[*] References the use cases owned by this classifier. (Specializes Namespace.ownedMember.)"

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sat, 31 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Inconsistency betw. Figure 328 and associations listed in s. Associations

  • Key: UML22-1182
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6960
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Inconsistency between Figure 328 and the associations listed in section "Associations".

    If there is an association between MessageEnd and Interaction according to

    • interaction: Interaction[1] The enclosing Interaction owning the MessageEnd

    then it is missing in Figure 328.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 31 Jan 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Wrong association name

  • Key: UML22-1180
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6943
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    lifeline: Lifeline[1] References the Lifeline on which the StateInvariant appears. Specializes InteractionFragment. covered"

    should be

    "covered: Lifeline[1] References the Lifeline on which the StateInvariant appears. Specializes InteractionFragment. covered"

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Constraint [2] - Missing parenthesis in OCL

  • Key: UML22-1179
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6942
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    "(self.selector->isEmpty implies not self.represents.isMultivalued()) or (not self.selector->isEmpty implies self.represents.isMultivalued())"

    should be

    "(self.selector->isEmpty() implies not self.represents.isMultivalued()) or (not self.selector->isEmpty() implies self.represents.isMultivalued())"

    Furthermore, I don't understand why this constraint is necessary, since the multiplicy of 'represents' is exactly 1.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

type p 419

  • Key: UML22-1181
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6944
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    A GeneralOrdering is shown by a dotted line connected the two Eventoccurrences."

    should be

    "A GeneralOrdering is shown by a dotted line connecting the two Eventoccurrences."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Inconsistency between section "Associations" and Figure 327

  • Key: UML22-1178
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6941
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    In Figure 327, the association end of the association between Lifeline and Expression is called "discriminator", whereas the respective association belonging to Lifeline is called "selector":

    "selector : Expression[0..1] If the referenced ConnectableElement is multivalued, then this specifies the specific individual part within that set."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

typo p 340

  • Key: UML22-1177
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6940
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    This case maps to a model containing a a join node with all the incoming ..."

    should be

    "This case maps to a model containing a join node with all the incoming ..."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

object edges" should be replaced by "object flows

  • Key: UML22-1176
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6938
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Output pins are object nodes and deliver values to other actions through object edges."

    ==> "object edges" should be replaced by "object flows".

    "Output pins are object nodes and deliver values to other actions through object flows."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

graphic nodes

  • Key: UML22-1172
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6934
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    "The graphic nodes that can be included in structural diagrams are shown in Table 14."

    This is refering to Table 14 which lists nodes in secuence diagrams, not in structural diagrams. Probably, the correct sentence would be:

    "The graphic nodes that can be included in sequence diagrams are shown in Table 14."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

typo p 421

  • Key: UML22-1171
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6933
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    "The local attriburte PIN of UserAccepted is declared near the diagram top."

    should be

    "The local attribute PIN of UserAccepted is declared near the diagram top."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

object edges" sould be replaced by "object flows

  • Key: UML22-1175
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6937
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    They are object nodes and receive values from other actions through object edges."

    ==> "object edges" sould be replaced by "object flows".

    "They are object nodes and receive values from other actions through object flows."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    In InputPin class, top section, second sentence, replace the last word with "flows".

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

typo p 356

  • Key: UML22-1174
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6936
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    "The name is not restricted, but it is often just shows the type of object or data that flows through the pin."

    should be

    "The name is not restricted, but it often just shows the type of object or data that flows through the pin."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

typo p 240

  • Key: UML22-1173
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6935
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    "Other rules for when tokens may be passed along the edge depend the kind of edge and characteristics of its source and target."

    should be

    "Other rules for when tokens may be passed along the edge depend on the kind of edge and characteristics of its source and target."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Duplicate with 7012.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

typo p 420

  • Key: UML22-1170
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6932
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    These attribute definitions may appear near the top of the diagram frame or within note symbols other places in the diagram."

    should be

    "These attribute definitions may appear near the top of the diagram frame or within note symbols at other places in the diagram."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

typo p 403

  • Key: UML22-1169
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6931
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    We are aware that other parts of the UML languatge definition the term “trace” is used also for other purposes."

    should be

    "We are aware that in other parts of the UML language definition the term “trace” is used also for other purposes."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Inconsistencies between Figure 43 and the detailled description of Package

  • Key: UML22-1168
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6919
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Figure 43 includes an association between Package and Type, whose endpoints are "package" and "/ownedClassifier" respectively.

    On p. 100, section "Associations", the following association is listed: ownedType: Type[*]

    The name of the endpoint in Figure 43 should be "/ownedType", not "/ownedClassifier".

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 19 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Duplicate of issue 6184.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

The section "Associations (BasicActivities)" is not complete

  • Key: UML22-1165
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6915
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    The section "Associations (BasicActivities)" is not complete because the association between Activity and Action (depicted in Figure 176) is not described.

    The following item should be added to the description:

    • action: Action[0..*] The Actions the Activity is composed of.
  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 19 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See resolution of 7319. This association is replaced with SequenceNode.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

The query 'hostElement' has some errors

  • Key: UML22-1164
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6914
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    See the comment lines starting with – !! in the following listing:

    – !! on the next line, ModelElement should probably be changed – !! to Element. hostElement() : ModelElement; hostElement = if self.Method->size() > 0 then self.Method else if self.State->size() > 0 then self.State else if self.Transition->size() > 0 then self.Transition else if self.Message->size()>0 then self.Message – !! size should be size() on the next line else if self.Stimulus->size>0 then self.Stimulus endif endif endif – !! should be endif on the next line endi – !! missing endif on this line – !! remove the closing bracket on the next line ]

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 19 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Inconsistencies between Figure 3 and the detailled description of package

  • Key: UML22-1167
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6918
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    "• package: Package [0..1] References the owning package of a package. Subsets NamedElement::namespace."

    should be

    "• package: Package [0..1] References the owning package of a type. Subsets NamedElement::namespace."

    Furthermore, the following description for an association depicted in Figure 43 is missing:

    nestingPackage: Package [0..1] References the owning package of a package. Subsets NamedElement::namespace.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 19 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

• /context : Classifier [0..1]

  • Key: UML22-1166
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6917
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    "• /context : Classifier [1] The classifier that owns the behavior of which this action is a part."

    The multiplicity should be [0..1] in order to be consistent with the multiplicity in Figure 176.

    "• /context : Classifier [0..1] The classifier that owns the behavior of which this action is a part."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 19 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    In Action class, Attributes, change multiplicity of /context to [0..1]

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

See CommonBehavior for a description of Event specifications

  • Key: UML22-1163
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6682
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: XTG, LLC ( Joaquin Miller)
  • Summary:

    The text says "See CommonBehavior for a description of Event specifications."

    Under the heading,Basic Behaviors, on page 370, Section 13 mentions call behavior event, trigger event, start event and termination event; the next page mentions send invocation event, send event, invocation event, call invocation event, signal event, receive event, receiving event; there may be others.

    But we aren't told there or anywhere how to specify an event nor how to specify a type of event.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 8 Dec 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above THEN below

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

page 95 diagram

  • Key: UML22-1162
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6596
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: no ( Jens Muehlenhoff)
  • Summary:

    On page 95 the diagram shows an assoziation between the class DataType and Property (with name ownedAttribute). This assoziation is'l listet in the assoziation section of the class DataTypes on page 95. Ther is an assoziation with the same name (ownedAttribute) but with a wrong type (Attribute).

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 10 Nov 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

On templateableElment - additonal features

  • Key: UML22-1161
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6277
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Dr. Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    The query getParameterableElements() returns the set of elements that may be used as the parametered element for a template parameter if this templateable element ???."

    I think the previous sentence is not complete?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 29 Sep 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Figure 346 needs updating

  • Key: UML22-1160
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6087
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Ostfold University College ( Dr. Oystein Haugen)
  • Summary:

    The Figure 346 on page 443 needs some updating: 1. The collaboration W should be shown as an oval 2. The text inside the right lifeline of sd Q should read “y:superB” (the colon is missing)

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 29 Aug 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Incorrect mentioning of General Order On p 412

  • Key: UML22-1157
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6081
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Ostfold University College ( Dr. Oystein Haugen)
  • Summary:

    Incorrect mentioning of General Order On p 412: The only purpose of gates is to define the source and the target of Messages or General Order relations.

    " or General Order relations” should be removed. This is a reminiscence of an earlier version

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 29 Aug 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Omission of non-terminal ‘arguments’ (p. 424)

  • Key: UML22-1159
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6085
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Ostfold University College ( Dr. Oystein Haugen)
  • Summary:

    In top of p. 424 there is a small textual grammar for a name in an interaction occurrence. There should be one more production defining the non-terminal ‘arguments’ as shown below here: arguments ::= argument [ , arguments]

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 29 Aug 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Remove occurrences of “TBD”

  • Key: UML22-1158
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6084
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Ostfold University College ( Dr. Oystein Haugen)
  • Summary:

    There are a couple of places where the flag “TBD” is still in the document. They should be removed.

    pp. 423, 427,

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 29 Aug 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Message notation. Incorrect notation in Figure 333 p.414

  • Key: UML22-1153
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6077
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Ostfold University College ( Dr. Oystein Haugen)
  • Summary:

    Firstly not even the original (which is in Visio) has the appropriate dashed line of creation (I thought the pdf just had not quite got it right which happens often, but now I checked the original). Secondly the reply messages should have filled arrowheads (again judging from the description of the message notation).

    The FTF should reconsider the concrete syntax for create and reply and update the figures accordingly.

    Originally reported by David Fado through Jim Odell.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 28 Aug 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    This is a subset of the issue described in 6463. - duplicate

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Message End association to Interaction should be removed

  • Key: UML22-1155
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6079
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Ostfold University College ( Dr. Oystein Haugen)
  • Summary:

    There is an association in MessageEnd to Interaction (p. 431). This association should have been removed long time ago. It is a reminiscence of an earlier version.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 28 Aug 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Strict ordering in Inline Part Decomposition

  • Key: UML22-1154
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6078
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Ostfold University College ( Dr. Oystein Haugen)
  • Summary:

    Inline Part Decomposition as shown in Figure 341 p. 433 are practical, but often it is necessary to describe the individual ordering between the events on the different inner lifelines. Often the user will want this ordering to be strict rather than weak.

    There should be a way to denote that the ordering within an inline part decomposition should be strict.

    Originally reported by Ericsson engineer Peter Cigehn.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 28 Aug 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

EventOccurrence, multiplicities incorrect in metamodel diagram

  • Key: UML22-1156
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6080
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    The metamodel shown in Figure 328, p. 407 presents the associations from EventOccurrence to ExecutionOccurrence with multiplicity ‘*’. This should be [0..1] as given in the text.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 28 Aug 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

On page 140, the title for Parameter is "Parameter (Collaboration, as speci

  • Key: UML22-1152
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6023
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: self ( Steve Hickman)
  • Summary:

    On page 140, the title for Parameter is "Parameter (Collaboration, as specialized)". This doesn't seem correct. The only prior definition of Parameter is on p 50, which is in the Kernel. The only way to "specialize" something appears to be when you want to add relationships to a concept that has been defined in a different package. I believe the more correct label should be "Parameter (from Kernel, as specialized)". Further, the abstract syntax diagram on page 128 should indicate that Parameter comes from the definition in the the Kernel. This may require deriving a new Parameter metaclass from the Kernel Parameter metaclass just so it can also be derived from ConnectableElement.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

The title of the Property description on page 144

  • Key: UML22-1151
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6022
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: self ( Steve Hickman)
  • Summary:

    The title of the Property description on page 144 says: "Property (from InternalStructures, as specialized)". I believe this should say: "Property (from Kernel, as specialized)".

    Here's why: there is as yet no indication of any kind of relationship between Property as defined as part of the Superstructure Kernel and Property as described in InternalStructures. There are some hints that such a relationship exists, but it isn't clear. Either the relationship should be explicitly stated (ir a relationship exists), or it should be explicitly stated that no such relationship exists.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

labels for ExecutionOccurrence

  • Key: UML22-1150
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6021
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: self ( Steve Hickman)
  • Summary:

    The labels for ExecutionOccurrence in the diagrams on p 367 & 368 are both in italics, implying that this is an abstract class. However, the description of EventOccurrence on p. 378 doesn't mention anything about being abstract nor are there any classes derived from it anywhere in the spec.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 27 Jul 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

duration observation" vs DurationObservationAction etc

  • Key: UML22-1149
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6020
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: self ( Steve Hickman)
  • Summary:

    There is some inconsistency in the use of the terms "duration observation" vs. DurationObservationAction and "time observation" vs. TimeObservationAction in the diagrams on the above listed pages. In particular, figure 8-158 states that the visual elements in a Sequence Diagram are "DurationObservation" and "TimeObservation", when in fact they should be "DurationObservationAction" and "DurationObservationAction". The observations only occur when the action is taken - but the representation on the sequence diagram must be the action to be taken, not the effect of it. Compare this to figures on pp 351 & 360.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 25 Jul 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above, resolved

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

Missing sections for for enumeration MessageKind or MessageSor

  • Key: UML22-1148
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6019
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: self ( Steve Hickman)
  • Summary:

    In Chapter 8, you have a section in 8.3 describing the enumeration InteractionOperator. You do not have similar sections for enumeration MessageKind or MessageSort.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 24 Jul 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    duplicate

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

figure 8-137 and 8-139

  • Key: UML22-1147
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6018
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: self ( Steve Hickman)
  • Summary:

    In figure 8-137, EventOccurrence inherits from InteractionFragment which inherits from NamedElement. In figure 8-139, EventOccurrence inherits directly from NamedElement.

    The two figures should be consistent with each other (yes, I know that inheritance is transitive, but it does raise unnecessary questions)

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 24 Jul 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

CommonBehaviors describes "Operation (from Communications, as specialized)

  • Key: UML22-1146
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6017
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: self ( Steve Hickman)
  • Summary:

    CommonBehaviors describes "Operation (from Communications, as specialized)" on page 354. However, the only other reference to "Operation" in the CommonBehaviors section appears on p 339, where the reference is to "Operation (from Kernel)".

    There's something wrong here.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 24 Jul 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

inconsistency between figure 5.1 on page 179 and figure 7-122 on page 337.

  • Key: UML22-1144
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6015
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: self ( Steve Hickman)
  • Summary:

    There appears to be an inconsistency between figure 5.1 on page 179 and figure 7-122 on page 337.

    In figure 5.1, the IntermediateActions pacakge is dependent on the Communications package.

    In figure 7.122 IntermediateActions depends only on BasicBehaviors. Although Communications is present in the diagram, there is no indication of a dependency.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 24 Jul 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

OpaqueExpression in CommonBehaviors

  • Key: UML22-1143
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6014
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Honeywell ( Steven Hickman)
  • Summary:

    OpaqueExpression in CommonBehaviors is titled "OpaqueExpression (from BasicBehaviors, specialized)". What does "specialized" mean in this context? There is no indication of inheritance from any other definition of OpaqueExpression.

    NOTE: the word "specialized" is used in the title of a number of concepts - in some cases the concepts are derived from other concepts of the same name from other package. This isn't always the case though.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 24 Jul 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 GMT

CommonBehaviors

  • Key: UML22-1145
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6016
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: self ( Steve Hickman)
  • Summary:

    CommonBehaviors has a package named "Time" that is referenced in numerous parts of the document.

    The class diagram on page 342 is labelled "SimpleTime". it appears that this should be labelled "Time" to be consistent with the package name.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 24 Jul 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above,. resolved

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:54 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

Section: Activities: Modifications to the approved resolution of 10815

  • Key: UML22-1141
  • Legacy Issue Number: 12433
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Modifications to the approved resolution of 10815. It should use a different keyword for decision input flows than the existing one for decision input behaviors. It should include an update to the notation figure, and to the keyword index.

  • Reported: SysML 1.0 — Fri, 9 May 2008 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Revise the resolution to 10815 as suggested

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 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

defaultClassifier of ClassifierTemplateParameter

  • Key: UML22-1133
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11240
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    Problem:

    "defaultClassifier" of ClassifierTemplateParameter shall redefine "default" of TemplateParameter and restrict type to Classifier.

    "default" shall be not accessible in ClassifierTemplateParameter.

    Resolution:

    Add

    {redefines default} to end of "defaultClassifier"property description in chapter 17.5.8 ClassifierTemplateParameter

    Add {redefines default}

    in metamodel association. Unfortunately diagram of abstract syntax of ClassifierTemplateParameter is not included into 17.5 Templates chapter.

    It should be added also.

  • Reported: SysML 1.0 — Wed, 1 Aug 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Remove this redundant association

  • 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

Wrong notation description

  • Key: UML22-1128
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11007
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    "A component realization is notated in the same way as the realization dependency (i.e., as a general dashed line with an open arrow-head). ", BUT
    A Realization dependency is shown as a dashed line with a triangular arrowhead at the end that corresponds to the realized element

  • Reported: SysML 1.0 — Wed, 16 May 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    agreed

  • 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

page 449 chapter 13.3.24 (Signal (from Communications)

  • Key: UML22-1126
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11003
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    there is a mistake in document formal/07-02-03 (UML Superstructure,
    v2.1.1) on page 449 chapter 13.3.24 (Signal (from Communications)). A
    Signal does not have an association to a signal of type Signal. It is
    probably a mix-up with SignalEvent

  • Reported: SysML 1.0 — Mon, 14 May 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion: Duplicate of issue 10960 Revised Text: N/A Disposition: Duplicate

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

UML 2 superstructure -- figure 9.4 is duplicate of figure 9.3

  • Key: UML22-1125
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10992
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    Figure 9.4 in formal/07-02-05 is a duplicate of figure 9-3. There should be a different diagram in place of figure 9-4 that shows the ports metamodel.

  • Reported: SysML 1.0 — Tue, 8 May 2007 04:00 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

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

composite values

  • Key: UML22-1132
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11239
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    UML 2.1.1

    Problem:

    Duration value and TimeExpression value can't be owned by Duration or TimeExpression.

    Solution:

    Make Duration "expr" and TimeExpression "expr" properties composite.
    Change Figure 13.13 SimpleTime to reflect these ownerships.

  • Reported: SysML 1.0 — Wed, 1 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 composite structures

  • Key: UML22-1131
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11164
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Student at IFI UIO Norway ( Tormod Vaksvik Håvaldsrud)
  • Summary:

    Figure 9.3 : Is it riht that a connector can hold more than 2 ConnectorEnds? It is stated that it can hold: 2..*

  • Reported: SysML 1.0 — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion: Yes, it is possible that a connector have more than 2 ends, in case it is an n-way connector. Disposition: Closed, no change

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

"representation"

  • Key: UML22-1130
  • Legacy Issue Number: 11089
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    Classifier from Kernel packages has "representation" property of type InformationItem.
    Classifier from Collaborations package has "representation" property of type CollaborationUse.

    After package merge these properties conflict, one of them shall be renamed.

  • Reported: SysML 1.0 — Tue, 5 Jun 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

Profile Structure Diagrams are missing from Annex A

  • Key: UML22-1105
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10044
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    Section 18.4 describes what are called "Structure Diagrams" for depicting profiles, stereotypes and their associated metaclasses.
    However such diagrams are not included in the Normative Appendix A (Figure A.5 does show 'Structure Diagram' but only as an abstract diagram type).

    Proposed resolution:
    For clarity use the term 'Profile Diagram in section 18.4
    Add Profile Diagram to Annex A as a 14th UML2 Diagram Type.

  • Reported: SysML 1.0b1 — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Missing inheritance in 9.3.12

  • Key: UML22-1104
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10000
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    Figure 9.2 shows that Property inherits from ConnectableElement - which is not included in the Generalizations section of 9.3.12 (though it is in the metamodel

  • Reported: SysML 1.0b1 — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The submitter is correct; see revised text.

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

No default value specified for Generalization::isSubstitutable

  • Key: UML22-1103
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9963
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    No default value specified for Generalization::isSubstitutable.
    This is the only Boolean attribute in the whole specification without a default value

  • Reported: SysML 1.0b1 — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    For consistency and correctness, add a default value as the summary mentions.

  • 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

UML2: No notation for BehavioredClassifier::ownedTrigger

  • Key: UML22-1084
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9407
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Mr. Jim Amsden)
  • Summary:

    UML2 provides a number of different ways to initiatiate execution of some behavior, and for specifying what behaviors are offered for invocation. Behaviors provide a realization of these specifications.

    The simplest is a BehavioredClassifier can respond to invocations of its ownedBehaviors through a CallOperationAction. The ownedBehavior is a method of a specification Operation which defines the client interface, external view, signature, contract (whatever one likes to call it) of the behavior.

    If the ownedBehavior is an Activity, then the activity may contain any number of AcceptEventAction or AcceptCallAction/ReplyAction actions to enable the activity to control when and how additional behavior may be invoked by clients in the context of some broader, perhaps long-running activity. Both AcceptEventAction and AcceptCallAction have trigger: Triger properties whose event: Event could be a SignalEvent or CallEvent respectively. A BehavioredClassifier should indicate to clients its ability to receive the corresponding SignalEvent or CallEvent by including an ownedTrigger designating the event it is prepared to receive.

    However, there is no notation specified for BehavioredClassifier::ownedTrigger. In addition, there are other ways to specify the ability to receive signal and/or call events that may make ownedTrigger redundant. The ability to receive a SignalEvent can be denoted by an ownedReception: Reception in a Class. The notation for an ownedReception is a <<signal>> Operation where the operation name is the Signal name, and the in parameters provide the values for the signal's ownedAttributes. There can be no inout, out, or return parameters, and no raisedExceptions. An ownedOperation is all that is needed to indicate the ability to receive a CallEvent.

    The metamodel for ownedTrigger needs to be reconciled with ownedOperation and ownedReception. Perhaps the notation should provide a way to distinguish operations that invoke behaviors and operations that indicate the ability to respond to call events as <<trigger>> operations.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 1 Mar 2006 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion: A classifier declares its “willingness” to handle events by its behavioral features. Currently there are two such features: Operations and Receptions. The former declares that the classifier will handle call events, the latter that the classifier handles signal events. These are the only kinds of events that can be caused by other objects. The issue requests another mechanism to accomplish the same thing without explaining why a second mechanism is required to accomplish what behavioral features already accomplishing. Disposition: Closed, no change

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

UML 2/Templates -- single argument?

  • Key: UML22-1083
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9398
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    A TemplateParameterSubstitution corresponds to exactly one template parameter, but the metamodel allows multiple actual arguments to be supplied for the parameter. There does not seem to be any compelling reason for multiple arguments to be provided for a single template parameter in a substitution (nor are the semantics of this clearl). Therefore, the multiplicity of TemplateParameterSubstitution::actual and Template ParameterSubstitution::ownedActual should be restricted to [1].

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 24 Feb 2006 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Use the new 'dot' notation in examples

  • Key: UML22-1082
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9373
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    Currently there is only one example of its use. However most of the examples have taken an unadorned line to indicate that both ends are owned by the respective classes: now the same diagram indicates both ends are owned by the association. Though tools may be at liberty to hid the adornments the spec itself should be extremely precise in the examples and show the adornments explicitly since otherwise the diagrams are ambiguous.
    Note that the conventions in 6.5.2 explicitly apply only to the diagrams for the metamodel itself (see line 1 of 6.5.2).

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This is a duplicate of issue 9372

  • 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

A notation for Trigger

  • Key: UML22-1088
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9750
  • 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: SysML 1.0b1 — Thu, 18 May 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue is an identical duplicate, submitted by the same author, as issue 10777

  • 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

page 467, Section 13.3.24

  • Key: UML22-1085
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9514
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    On page 467, Section 13.3.24, a Signal is said to have one association:

    signal : Signal[1] The signal that is associated with this event.

    I don't understand this. A signal is associated with another signal?
    Which one? Why? Could that be incorrect?

    Perhaps a cut-and-paste error, because on the same page, Section 13.3.25,
    a SignalEvent is said to have one association:

    signal : Signal[1] The specific signal that is associated with
    this event.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 5 Apr 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Duplicate of issue 9576

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

UML 2 Superstructure / CommonBehaviors / Incorrect types in text

  • Key: UML22-1081
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9352
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    TimeConstraint::specification and DurationConstraint::specification properties are shown as having the wrong type in the text (the diagrams are OK). They should be TimeInterval and DurationInterval respectively.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 2 Feb 2006 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution: This issue has been resolved in an earlier version of the specification. Disposition: Closed, no change

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

7.3.41 Parameter (from Kernel, AssociationClasses)"

  • Key: UML22-1080
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9337
  • 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 2.0 — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

UML 2.0 issue: ownedMember xsi:type="uml:Stereotype" should be used

  • Key: UML22-1063
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9185
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    ownedMember xsi:type="uml:Stereotype" should be used in XMI instance documents instead of ownedStereotype xsi:type="uml:Stereotype" (especially if it becomes a derived subset).

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

UML 2.0: CMOF/UML mixup for profiles

  • Key: UML22-1062
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9184
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    The end of the semantics section for Profiles informally describes a CMOF model equivalent to a Profile. This discussion in the spec about profiles and equivalent MOF metamodels could be confusing and potentially misleading. A profile is an instance of a UML2 model which is not a CMOF model. Therefore the MOF to XMI mapping rules do not apply for instances of a profile. The equivalent CMOF model is a means to explain and formalize how profiles are serialized and exchanged as XMI. The spec should make it clear that the equivalent MOF model is a model-to-model mapping being introduced as a means for describing how a profile is serialized and exchanged using XMI and how an XSD schema for validating instances of a profile is defined.

    The mapping from a profile to a CMOF model is incomplete. For example, there is no statement that an instance of a stereotype maps to an instance of a CMOF::Class. This mapping needs to be completed; e.g., by direct reference

    The Profile to CMOF mapping also needs to specify the XMI tags for persisting and exchanging profiles. According to the UML2 metamodel, instances of a Profile can't have Tags because an instance of a Profile is not a CMOF::Element, UML2 is not reflective. Tools will have to provide tag support for instances of stereotypes some other way. These properties can be left undefined and tools can provide values as needed. Another possible solution would be to specify how the XMI tag values and options for profile exchange would be defined, perhaps derived from other information in the profile. For example:
    nsURI = http://<profilePackagePath>/schemas/<profileName>.xmi
    nsPrefix = <profileName>
    all others use the XMI defaults

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Required attributes

  • Key: UML22-1069
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9191
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    Required attributes (i.e. those with a lower bound greater than 0) without a specified default must either be assigned a default or made non-required (see below). There should also be a statement in the specification to the effect that attributes whose values are set to their default need not be serialized.

    uml::Artifact::fileName is required, default is <unspecified>

    uml::Behavior::isReentrant is required, default is <unspecified>

    uml::BehavioralFeature::concurrency is required, default is <unspecified>
    uml::BehavioralFeature::isAbstract is required, default is <unspecified>

    uml::Class::isActive is required, default is <unspecified>

    uml::CombinedFragment::interactionOperator is required, default is <unspecified>

    uml::Comment::body is required, default is <unspecified>

    uml::ConditionalNode::isAssured is required, default is <unspecified>
    uml::ConditionalNode::isDeterminate is required, default is <unspecified>

    uml::DeploymentSpecification::deploymentLocation is required, default is <unspecified>
    uml::DeploymentSpecification::executionLocation is required, default is <unspecified>

    uml::ElementImport::visibility is required, default is <unspecified>

    uml::ExpansionRegion::mode is required, default is <unspecified>

    uml::Expression::symbol is required, default is <unspecified>

    uml::GeneralizationSet::isCovering is required, default is <unspecified>
    uml::GeneralizationSet::isDisjoint is required, default is <unspecified>

    uml::LiteralBoolean::value is required, default is <unspecified>

    uml::LiteralInteger::value is required, default is <unspecified>

    uml::LiteralString::value is required, default is <unspecified>

    uml::LiteralUnlimitedNatural::value is required, default is <unspecified>

    uml::LoopNode::isTestedFirst is required, default is <unspecified>

    uml::Message::messageKind is required, default is <unspecified>
    uml::Message::messageSort is required, default is <unspecified>

    uml::Model::viewpoint is required, default is <unspecified>

    uml::OpaqueAction::body is required, default is <unspecified>

    uml::OpaqueBehavior::body is required, default is <unspecified>

    uml::OpaqueExpression::body is required, default is <unspecified>

    uml::PackageableElement::visibility is required, default is <unspecified>

    uml::PackageImport::visibility is required, default is <unspecified>

    uml::Pseudostate::kind is required, default is <unspecified>

    uml::State::isComposite is required, default is <unspecified>
    uml::State::isOrthogonal is required, default is <unspecified>
    uml::State::isSimple is required, default is <unspecified>
    uml::State::isSubmachineState is required, default is <unspecified>

    uml::StructuredActivityNode::mustIsolate is required, default is <unspecified>

    uml::TimeEvent::isRelative is required, default is <unspecified>

    uml::Transition::kind is required, default is <unspecified>

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Parameter::effect

  • Key: UML22-1068
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9190
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    Parameter::effect is documented in the specification as having multiplicity 0..* (instead of 0..1 - this should have been addressed as part of Issue 8261).

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

UML 2.1 XMI Issue

  • Key: UML22-1065
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9187
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    uml::EncapsulatedClassifier::ownedPort should be derived (from the owned attributes that are instances of Port) so as to be consistent with Package::ownedType, Package::nestedPackage, and Profile::ownedStereotype (see issue 9181).

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

UML 2.0: Inconsistencies in profile example XMI

  • Key: UML22-1064
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9186
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    In the Home Example for Profiles in chapter 18, the body of the text and the examples use different conventions for naming ExtensionEnds "base$Interface", "base_Interface", and "baseInterface" all appear in various places. The spec says it should be base$Interface (although this is not a valid identifier in many common programming languages including Java).

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

parameter of operation isRedefinitionContextValid() is inconistently named

  • Key: UML22-1073
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9195
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    The parameter of operation isRedefinitionContextValid() is inconistently named in the specification, which in turn cause package merge problems (parameters do not match). The parameter should be consitently named 'redefined', and the OCL for the associated constraints updated accordingly.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Compliance package L2 does not merge StructuredActions in the metamodel

  • Key: UML22-1072
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9194
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    Compliance package L2 does not merge StructuredActions in the metamodel. Also, CompleteActions (merged by L3) does not currently merge StructuredActions.

    In general, higher compliance levels should merge lower compliance levels; the merge relationships in the specification should be reorganized to reflect this.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolved by the solution to issue 9182

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

The following properties should not subset DirectedRelationship::target

  • Key: UML22-1071
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9193
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    The following properties should not subset DirectedRelationship::target since they subset Dependency::supplier, which already subsets DirectedRelationship::target:

    ComponentRealization::realizingClassifier
    Deployment::deployedArtifact
    InterfaceRealization::contract
    Manifestation::utilizedElement
    Substitution::contract

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

The following properties should not subset DirectedRelationship::source

  • Key: UML22-1070
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9192
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    The following properties should not subset DirectedRelationship::source since they subset Dependency::client, which already subsets DirectedRelationship::source:

    ComponentRealization::abstraction
    Deployment::location
    InterfaceRealization::implementingClassifier
    Substitution::substitutingClassifier

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Artifact::fileName

  • Key: UML22-1067
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9189
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    Artifact::fileName appears in the metamodel but is not documented in the specification.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

uml::Extension::ownedEnd should not subset uml::Association::ownedEnd

  • Key: UML22-1066
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9188
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    uml::Extension::ownedEnd should not subset uml::Association::ownedEnd since it already (implicitly) redefines it.

    There should be a constraint that states that it is invalid for a property to subset a property with the same name.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Figure 12.18: Small typo: "subsets ownedMember" not "ownedmember"

  • Key: UML22-1079
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9235
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: LIANTIS GmbH ( Constantin Szallies)
  • Summary:

    Figure 12.18: Small typo: "subsets ownedMember" not "ownedmember"

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion: This was resolved in some previous revision. Disposition: Closed, no change

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

Page: 161

  • Key: UML22-1078
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9232
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: LIANTIS GmbH ( Constantin Szallies)
  • Summary:

    Figure 9.7: property "representation" subsets "collaborationUse" not "occurrence"? "Classifier" has no property named "occurrence"!

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion: This issue has already been fixed in the current version of the specification. Disposition: Closed, no change

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

Issue regarding "Action::effect : String"

  • Key: UML22-1075
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9197
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    What has become of the dropped property : "Action::effect : String" ? ( referenced in Ballot 7319 )

  • Reported: UML 1.3 — Thu, 30 Nov 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Transition guards cannot currently be evaluated because they have no contex

  • Key: UML22-1074
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9196
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    Transition guards cannot currently be evaluated because they have no context. Transition should be made a specialization of Namespace and Transition::guard should subset Namespace::ownedRule

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

StateMachine::extendedStateMachine should have a multiplicity of 0..*.

  • Key: UML22-1077
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9224
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    StateMachine::extendedStateMachine should have a multiplicity of 0..*. It currently does in the text, but it is shown with a multiplicity of 0..1 in Figure 15.3.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 8 Dec 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Behavior::context

  • Key: UML22-1076
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9198
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    Behavior::context is derived (ensure that this is indicated in the diagram and the text); it should also be read-only.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 1 Dec 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

UML 2.0 issue: Package Primitive Types not merged

  • Key: UML22-1058
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9180
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    Package PrimitiveTypes is not merged into UML2 and there is no nsURI for InfrastructureLibrary. So there's no way to reference UML primitive types in any UML2 model including profiles. Resolve by merging PrimitiveType into L0.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: Appendix A: Diagrams

  • Key: UML22-1057
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9179
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    There's no diagram kind for deployment diagrams

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sat, 26 Nov 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section 7.2.1 of ptc/04-10-14

  • Key: UML22-1056
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9146
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Red Hat ( John Verhaeg)
  • Summary:

    Page 13 of section 7.2.1 of the "Unified Modeling Language (UML) Specification: Infrastructure" (ptc/04-10-14) states:

    "There are minor differences in the design rationale for the other two packages."

    There are actually 4 packages being discussed, with the first being PrimitiveTypes. So, either "two" should be changed to "three" when referring to the "other" packages, or the two packages (amongst the "other" three being discussed) containing the "minor differences in design rationale" should be identified.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 10 Nov 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 7.3.36 Operation

  • Key: UML22-1055
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9143
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Paranor AG ( Earl Waldin)
  • Summary:

    The BNF for the textual specification of an operation does not allow one to specify the multiplicity of an operation's return type. The current BNF is [<visibility>] <name> ‘(‘ [<parameter-list>] ‘)’ [‘:’ [<return-type>]

    {‘ <oper-property> [‘,’ <oper-property>]* ‘}’] It should allow the multiplicity to be specified in a manner similar to that for a property. For example: [<visibility>] <name> ‘(‘ [<parameter-list>] ‘)’ [‘:’ [<return-type>] [‘[‘ <multiplicity> ‘]’] ‘{‘ <oper-property> [‘,’ <oper-property>]* ‘}

    ’]

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 8 Nov 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section 8 Issue - Component Realization-Classifier multiplicity

  • Key: UML22-1054
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9142
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Cutter Information ( Oliver Sims)
  • Summary:

    Issue: The multiplicity on the relationship from Realization to Classifier is 1. This seems wrong - it should be 1 or more.

    Rationale:
    A component realization consisting of only a single classifier would be very odd - although not impossible for a Hello World component perhaps.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sat, 10 Sep 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: Actions, Figure 156

  • Key: UML22-1053
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9123
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Figure 156, I think LinkEndCreationData and QualifierValue aren't supposed to be on this diagram: - The associations to/from these aren't in the entries for CreateLinkObjectAction of LinkEndCreationData, - endData is inherited from CreateLinkAction and isn't changed. - The qualifier association would clash with the one inherited fromn LinkEndData in CompleteActivities. There is nothing in the spec on why qualifier is specialized this way. - The multiplicity on qualifier would require qualifiers, even when there aren't any.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

UML 2.1 Regressions

  • Key: UML22-1052
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9122
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    The following regressions were introduced in ballot 10:

    Issue 8134

    DeployedArtifact should NOT specialize Kernel::NamedElement since it already specializes Dependencies::NamedElement, and adding a redundant generalization violates the uniqueness constraint on Classifier::general (in the merged result).

    Issue 8136

    DeploymentSpecification should NOT specialize Artifacts::Artifact since it already specializes Nodes::Artifact, and adding a redundant generalization violates the uniqueness constraint on Classifier::general (in the merged result).

    Issue 8457

    The proposed new Figure 124 introduces an undesired (generalization) dependency between Kernel and Dependencies. The preferred resolution would be for Artifact (not Kernel::Namespace) to specialize Dependencies::NamedElement. Figure 124 should be:

    The proposed new Figure 77 introduces an undesired (generalization) dependency between Kernel and Dependencies. The preferred resolution would be for Component (not Kernel::Namespace) to specialize Dependencies::NamedElement. Figure 77 should be:

    Issue 8468

    UseCase::extend must NOT subset Classifier::feature because Extend is not a specialization of Feature. Likewise, UseCase::include must NOT subset Classifier::feature because Include is not a specialization of Feature.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    agreed

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

Realization classifier

  • Key: UML22-1051
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9119
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    The Realization classifier should not be redefined in UML::Components::BasicComponents. In a component realization, the direction of the dependency is reversed, i.e. the client (source) of the dependency is the component abstraction and the supplier (target) of the dependency is the realizing classifier; this conflicts with other specializations of Realization (e.g. InterfaceRealization).

    -> A new specialization ('ComponentRealization') should be introduced instead, upon which the 'abstraction' and 'realizingClassifier' properties would be defined. This could be achieved by simply renaming Realization to 'ComponentRealization' in UML::Components::BasicComponents and adding a generalization from it to UML::Classes::Dependencies::Realization.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

UML 2 issue: redefining isComposite on association ends

  • Key: UML22-1050
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9117
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    The association ends IntervalConstraint::specification, TimeConstraint::specification, and DurationConstraint::specification should be composite, since, redefining an isComposite = true property with one where isComposite = false causes problems in the XMI generation. More on isComposite redefinition : 1) LinkEndCreationData::qualifier should be composite.

    2) It should be considered inconsistent for a non-composite property to redefine a composite property. The body expression for Property::isConsistentWith(RedefinableElement) should be updated as follows:
    This should probably be disallowed in general.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Classifier::parameter, Operation::parameter, and ConnectableElement::parame

  • Key: UML22-1049
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9110
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    Classifier::parameter, Operation::parameter, and ConnectableElement::parameter should be renamed to templateParameter (they redefine ParameterableElement::templateParameter) to make it clear that these are template parameters (in fact not related to the Parameter metaclass). ParameterableElement::owningParameter should also be renamed to owningTemplateParameter, for consistency.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    agreed

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

Component::realization should NOT be derived

  • Key: UML22-1048
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9109
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    Component::realization should NOT be derived

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Rename ActivityGroup::activity to containingActivity

  • Key: UML22-1047
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9108
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    StructuredActivityNode inherits two properties with the same name, ActivityNode::activity and ActivityGroup::activity.

    -> Rename ActivityGroup::activity to containingActivity.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Rename OpaqueAction::output to outputPin.

  • Key: UML22-1046
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9107
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    OpaqueAction::output (non-derived) invalidly redefines Action::output (derived union).

    -> Rename OpaqueAction::output to outputPin.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Make ActivityGroup::containedNode a derived union

  • Key: UML22-1045
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9106
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    ActivityNode::inGroup is a derived union but its opposite, ActivityGroup::containedNode, is not.

    -> Make ActivityGroup::containedNode a derived union. As a result, ActivityPartition::containedNode, StructuredActivityNode::containedNode, and InterruptibleActivityRegion::containedNode will invalidly redefine ActivityGroup::containedNode, so rename ActivityPartition::containedNode to node, rename StructuredActivityNode::containedNode to ownedNode, rename InterruptibleActivityRegion::containedNode to node, and replace

    {redefines containedNode}

    with

    {subsets containedNode}

    on all three.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Make ActivityGroup::containedEdge a derived union

  • Key: UML22-1044
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9105
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    ActivityEdge::inGroup is a derived union but its opposite, ActivityGroup::containedEdge, is not.

    -> Make ActivityGroup::containedEdge a derived union. As a result, ActivityPartition::containedEdge and StructuredActivityNode::containedEdge will invalidly redefine ActivityGroup::containedEdge, so rename ActivityPartition::containedEdge to edge, rename StructuredActivityNode::containedEdge to ownedEdge, and replace

    {redefines containedEdge}

    with

    {subsets containedEdge}

    on both.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

compliance levels L2 and L3

  • Key: UML22-1039
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9098
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    In (merged) compliance levels L2 and L3, ExtensionEnd::lower (non-derived) invalidly redefines feature MultiplicityElement::lower (derived).

    -> Either remove this redefinition (of the default value) or add a Profiles package to UML and redefine ExtensionEnd::lower to be derived.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Change type of WriteStructuralFeatureAction::value to ValueSpecification

  • Key: UML22-1038
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9097
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    TimeObservationAction::now (type TimeExpression) invalidly redefines WriteStructuralFeatureAction::value (type InputPin) because TimeExpression is not a specialization of InputPin.

    -> Change type of WriteStructuralFeatureAction::value to ValueSpecification?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Change type of WriteStructuralFeatureAction::value

  • Key: UML22-1037
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9096
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    DurationObservationAction::duration (type Duration) invalidly redefines WriteStructuralFeatureAction::value (type InputPin) because Duration is not a specialization of InputPin.

    -> Change type of WriteStructuralFeatureAction::value to ValueSpecification?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

UML 2.0: separate profile application from profile importing

  • Key: UML22-1061
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9183
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    Package::appliedProfile should not subset packageImport. Why not? A profile can be imported without being applied, but any applied profile is also implicitly imported in order to make the namespace visible. (The current assumption that a package import implies a profile application does not allow importing of profiles without application – which might be required just for namespace purposes.)

    The simplest solution is to define ProfileApplication to be a subclass of DirectedRelationship with a meta-association (Profile::appliedProfile : Profile) indicating the applied profile

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

UML 2.0: invalid package merge diagrams for compliance points

  • Key: UML22-1060
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9182
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    The diagrams in section 2 describing the compliance levels of UML 2, should show:

    (1) have a separate package for each level (instead of the "UML" package); e.g., L2 for level 2.

    (2) each package except L0 should also merge the package belonging to the immediately preceding level (e.g., L2 should merge package L1).

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

UML 2.0 issue: Profile::ownedStereotype should be derived

  • Key: UML22-1059
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9181
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    Profile::ownedStereotype should be derived (just like Package::/ownedType) from those ownedMembers which are Stereotypes.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Rename LinkAction::input to inputPin

  • Key: UML22-1043
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9104
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    LinkAction::input (non-derived) invalidly redefines Action::input (derived union).

    -> Rename LinkAction::input to inputPin.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Rename OpaqueAction::input to inputPin

  • Key: UML22-1042
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9103
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    OpaqueAction::input (non-derived) invalidly redefines Action::input (derived union).

    -> Rename OpaqueAction::input to inputPin.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Rename InformationFlow::source

  • Key: UML22-1041
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9100
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    InformationFlow::source (non-derived) invalidly redefines DirectedRelationship::source (derived union).

    -> Rename InformationFlow::source to informationSource and remove

    {redefines source}

    .

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Rename InformationFlow::target

  • Key: UML22-1040
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9099
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    InformationFlow::target (non-derived) invalidly redefines DirectedRelationship::target (derived union).

    -> Rename InformationFlow::target to informationTarget and remove

    {redefines target}

    .

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Rename ActivityPartition::subgroup to subpartition

  • Key: UML22-1036
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9095
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    ActivityPartition::subgroup (non-derived) invalidly redefines ActivityGroup::subgroup (derived union).

    -> Rename ActivityPartition::subgroup to subpartition, replace

    {redefines subgroup}

    with

    {subsets subgroup}

    .

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Replace {redefines redefinedElement}

  • Key: UML22-1035
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9094
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    State::redefinedState (non-derived) invalidly redefines RedefinableElement::redefinedElement (derived union).

    -> Replace

    {redefines redefinedElement}

    with

    {subsets redefinedElement}

    .

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Replace {redefines redefinedElement}

  • Key: UML22-1034
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9093
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    Transition::redefinedTransition (non-derived) invalidly redefines RedefinableElement::redefinedElement (derived union).

    -> Replace

    {redefines redefinedElement}

    with

    {subsets redefinedElement}

    .

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Replace {redefines redefinedElement}

  • Key: UML22-1033
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9092
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    Region::extendedRegion (non-derived) invalidly redefines RedefinableElement::redefinedElement (derived union).

    -> Replace

    {redefines redefinedElement}

    with

    {subsets redefinedElement}

    .

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

body expression for Property::isConsistentWith(RedefinableElement)

  • Key: UML22-1026
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9085
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    The body expression for Property::isConsistentWith(RedefinableElement) is incorrect; it should be:

    result = redefinee.oclIsKindOf(Property) and
    let prop : Property = redefinee.oclAsType(Property) in
    (prop.type.conformsTo(self.type) and
    ((prop.lowerBound()>notEmpty() and self.lowerBound()>notEmpty()) implies prop.lowerBound() >= self.lowerBound()) and
    ((prop.upperBound()>notEmpty() and self.upperBound()>notEmpty()) implies prop.lowerBound() <= self.lowerBound()) and
    (self.isDerived implies prop.isDerived))

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

following imports from merged packages to unmerged packages should be remov

  • Key: UML22-1025
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9084
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    UML::Deployments::ComponentDeployments -> UML::CommonBehaviors
    UML::StateMachines::ProtocolStateMachines -> UML::CommonBehaviors
    UML::UseCases -> UML::CommonBehaviors

    UML::AuxiliaryConstructs::InformationFlows -> UML::CompositeStructures
    UML::AuxiliaryConstructs::Models -> UML::CompositeStructures
    UML::Classes::AssociationClasses -> UML::CompositeStructures
    UML::CommonBehaviors::Communications -> UML::CompositeStructures
    UML::Interactions::Fragments -> UML::CompositeStructures
    UML::StateMachines::BehaviorStateMachines -> UML::CompositeStructures
    UML::StateMachines::ProtocolStateMachines -> UML::CompositeStructures

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

UML2 Superstructure Fig 2.2 Incomplete

  • Key: UML22-1024
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9080
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Dr. Doug Tolbert)
  • Summary:

    The current version of the UML 2 Superstructure specification
    (formal/05-07-04) has a diagram for the (top-level) package merges
    comprising L1 (Figure 2.2). The packages that are shown as merged in
    the diagram are: BasicActivities, BasicInteractions, Interfaces and
    UseCases. The definitional XML file for L1, however, actually merges
    BasicActivities, BasicInteractions, UseCases, Communicatiions and
    InternalStructures

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    This is resolved by the resolutions to issues 9180 and 8459 (ballot 12).

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

Section: 14.4

  • Key: UML22-1023
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9077
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    The statement "Interaction Overview Diagrams are specialization of Activity Diagrams that represent Interactions." is misleading. An Interaction Overview Diagram is not a special activity diagram. It just re-uses the activity notation.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 12 Oct 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: Common Behaviors

  • Key: UML22-1020
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9007
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    In Description section of Common Behaviors, CallConcurrencyKind, how can "Multiple invocations of a behavioral feature" occuring simultaneously have a "first behavioral feature". Full text: "Multiple invocations of a behavioral feature may occur simultaneously to one instance, but only one is allowed to commence. The others are blocked until the performance of the first behavioral feature is complete. It is the responsibility of the system designer to ensure that deadlocks do not occur due to simultaneous blocks."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 25 Sep 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    While nit-picking, the issue submitter is correct

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

Section: Actions

  • Key: UML22-1019
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9006
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Figure 143 should show MultiplicityElement as being from Kernel (the MDL file accidentally used a copy).

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 25 Sep 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion: This issue was fixed in a previous revision. Disposition: Closed, no change

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

7.3.22 InstanceSpecification

  • Key: UML22-1022
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9023
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    on reading UML Superstructure I found a little mistake regarding chapter
    >7.3.22 InstanceSpecification. This inconsistency seems although to be
    >corrected within UML Infrasturcture.
    >UML Superstructure, page 79, InstanceSepcification - Associations
    >classifier : Classifier [0..*] ...
    >
    >UML Infrastructure, page 66, InstanceSpecification - Associations
    >classifier : Classifier [1..*]
    >
    >I guess the specification within UML Infrasturcture is true. However I
    >hope to get some kind of confirmation from you (as I want to be sure).

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see page 504 of ptc/2006-04-01

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

Section: Activities

  • Key: UML22-1021
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9010
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Clarify that multiple arrows coming out of an object-node-in-the-middle notation has the semantics of multiple edges coming out of an output pin.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 25 Sep 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: Classes

  • Key: UML22-1018
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9003
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Association.memberEnd should specialize Relationship:relatedElement. Programs accessing the repository with RelatedElement should get the elements being associated

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 25 Sep 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: Activities

  • Key: UML22-1017
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9000
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    In Figure 195, subsetting opposite Variable should be of namespace, rather than owner

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 25 Sep 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Invalid stereotype in StandardProfile

  • Key: UML22-1016
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8996
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Mr. Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    Page 671 (ormal/05-07-04),<< script>> is in StandardProfileL1, but its base element, Deployments::Artifact isn’t in L1.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 22 Sep 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 8459 for disposition

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

UML 2 Super / miscellaneous figure-text discrepancies

  • Key: UML22-1015
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8993
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    There are a few discrepancies between the figures and the latest Superstructure text (formal/05-07-04) that need to be fixed:

    (1) figure 15.2 contains State::doAcvity – it should be State::doActivity (the textual description of this item uses correct spelling)

    (2) resolutions to issues 6185 and 7342 indicate that Behavior::context should be derived and that it should subset "redefinitionContext". This needs to be fixed in figure 13.6. Also, the description in the text for this item on page 417 should be updated to show that "context" is derived ("/context").

    (3) the association end Pseudostate::state shown in figure 15.2 is not documented. It should be.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 22 Sep 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see pages 500 -501 of ptc/2006-04-01

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

Rename Package::ownedMember

  • Key: UML22-1028
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9087
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    Package::ownedMember (non-derived) invalidly redefines Namespace::ownedMember (derived union).

    -> Rename Package::ownedMember to packagedElement and replace

    {redefines ownedMember}

    with

    {subsets ownedMember}

    . Update all references to ownedMember (e.g. in sample profiles XMI) as appropriate.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Rename Constraint::namespace

  • Key: UML22-1027
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9086
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    Constraint::namespace (non-derived) invalidly redefines NamedElement::namespace (derived union).

    -> Rename Constraint::namespace to context, replace

    {redefines namespace, subsets context}

    with

    {subsets namespace}

    on it, and remove Constraint::context.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see pages 510 - 512 of ptc/2006-04-01

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

Rename ActivityEdge::redefinedElement

  • Key: UML22-1030
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9089
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    ActivityEdge::redefinedElement (non-derived) invalidly redefines RedefinableElement::redefinedElement (derived union).

    -> Rename ActivityEdge::redefinedElement to redefinedEdge, replace

    {redefines redefinedElement}

    with

    {subsets redefinedElement}

    .

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Rename Component::ownedMember

  • Key: UML22-1029
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9088
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    Component::ownedMember (non-derived) invalidly redefines Namespace::ownedMember (derived union).

    -> Rename Component::ownedMember to packagedElement and replace

    {redefines ownedMember}

    with

    {subsets ownedMember}

    . Update any references to ownedMember as appropriate.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Replace {redefines redefinedElement}

  • Key: UML22-1032
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9091
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    StateMachine::extendedStateMachine (non-derived) invalidly redefines RedefinableElement::redefinedElement (derived union).

    -> Replace

    {redefines redefinedElement}

    with

    {subsets redefinedElement}

    .

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Rename ActivityNode::redefinedElement

  • Key: UML22-1031
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9090
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    ActivityNode::redefinedElement (non-derived) invalidly redefines RedefinableElement::redefinedElement (derived union).

    -> Rename ActivityNode::redefinedElement to redefinedNode, replace

    {redefines redefinedElement}

    with

    {subsets redefinedElement}

    .

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 6.5

  • Key: UML22-1012
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8987
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Vtron ( Minghua Liu)
  • Summary:

    "“Part I. Structure” defines the static, structural constructs (e.g., classes, components, nodes artifacts) used in various structural diagrams, such as class diagrams, component diagrams, and deployment diagrams. Part II - “Behavior” specifies the dynamic, behavioral constructs (e.g., activities, interactions, state machines) used in various behavioral diagrams, such as activity diagrams, sequence diagrams, and state machine diagrams. “Part ~~~~ I. Structure” defines auxiliary constructs ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (e.g., information flows, models, templates, primitive types) and the profiles used to customize UML for various domains, platforms, and methods" The words underlined shoude be "Part III - Supplement.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 7 Sep 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

UML2 should specify default property ownership for association ends

  • Key: UML22-1011
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8978
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Mr. Jim Amsden)
  • Summary:

    UML2 should define the defaults for property ownership and the explicit meaning of navigation notation. It should also provide notation for overriding these defaults in order to specify explicity the classifier that owns a property without relying on navigability. This recognizes a common notation practice and will result in predictable metamodel interchange. I general, the UML2 spec should attempt to avoid situations like the pair EF and IJ in figure 21, and instead use sensible defaults. If the default isn't what the model wants, then there should be notation to explicitly say what is needed. This will limit semantic variation points or unspecified notation meaning that may result in interchange and interoperability issues.

    The diagram conventions used in Superstructure section 6.5.2 tie navigability and property ownership together in a manner that is consistent with the notaiton used in Basic and EMOF. However section 7.3.1 Notation for Association says:

    Various options may be chosen for showing navigation arrows on a diagram. In practice, it is often convenient to suppress
    some of the arrows and crosses and just show exceptional situations:
    • Show all arrows and x’s. Navigation and its absence are made completely explicit.
    • Suppress all arrows and x’s. No inference can be drawn about navigation. This is similar to any situation in which
    information is suppressed from a view.
    • Suppress arrows for associations with navigability in both directions, and show arrows only for associations with oneway
    navigability. In this case, the two-way navigability cannot be distinguished from situations where there is no navigation
    at all; however, the latter case occurs rarely in practice.

    This is fine, but given a UML2 diagram what are we to assume if all navigations are not explicit as in the first bullet? Wouldn't such such a model be ambiguous? Should UML2 specify which one of these conventions are implied by the notation? The last bullet represents common practice as well as the conventsions used in the UML2 specification. Perhaps the UML2 spec should to be specific about what the notation means and not leave this up to the reader.

    Later in the spec (page 42) under Issue 6243, Figure 22 shows a class containing a property with non-primitive type and indicates this is an ownedAttribute of the class, and can be shown as an association too as described in Basic and EMOF. What it doesn't say is what the notation

    by itself means. We know ClassA can navigate to b, but we don't know anything about who owns the properties and therefore where the ends go in an instance of the metamodel. Are they both ownedEnds of the Association? Is b an ownedAttribute of ClassA and a is an ownedEnd? Since there is currently no notation for specifying which classifier owns the properties, the notation should specify the default owners. Otherwise different tools may produce different XMI as it is not clear when a property on an association end is an ownedEnd of the association or an ownedAttribute of one of the associated classes.

    The conventions in 6.5.2 should be the definitive notation for navigation arrows (with x on the ends options to make non-navigable explicit), and also specifies the default for property ownership. That is, the bullet lists in 7.3.1 should be replaced with those in 6.5.2 for association navigability and property ownership.

    Then a notation should be specified for explicitly stating property ownership when the default is not appropriate.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 26 Aug 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Figure 430 references invalid metaclass

  • Key: UML22-1002
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8947
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    Figure 430 references an 'IntegerExpression' metaclass that doesn't exist. Either such a metaclass (and others for other kinds of expressions?) should be added, or the example should be changed to use a different type of expression.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 2 Aug 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 9.3.5

  • Key: UML22-1001
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8946
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Bergson TA ( Marc Hamilton)
  • Summary:

    A Property is a ConnectableElement, which currently is (should be?) a TypedElement. The Description in 9.3.5 however states: "A ConnectableElement is an abstract metaclass representing a set of instances that play roles of a classifier. Connectable elements may be joined by attached connectors and specify configurations of linked instances to be created within an instance of the containing classifier. Note on p.84 states: "When used to specify the existence of an entity in a modelled system, an instance specification represents part of that system." In 9.3.12. it says:"When an instance of the containing classifier is created, a set of instances corresponding to its properties may be created either immediately or at some later time. These instances are instances of the classifier typing the property. A property specifies that a set of instances may exist; this set of instances is a subset of the total set of instances specified by the classifier typing the property. A part declares that an instance of this classifier may contain a set of instances by composition." So, the concepts must be related. I propose that a ConnectableElement is a specialization of InstanceSpecification, not just a TypedElement. Current problems in practise: A TypedElement is not a PackageableElement and it thus cannot be imported in some other namespace. This makes is hard to create orthogonal views of architectures (e.g. logical vs. execution) in which 'roles' (parts!) are shared. On the other hand, using InstanceSpecifications instead of "Parts" makes it impossible to refer them in interactions. Besides, the meaning of an InstanceSpecification in the context of a classifier is unclear in contrast to the Property.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 2 Aug 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion: The concept of connectable element is not an instance specification, so it would be a mistake to make it a specialization of InstanceSpecification. As the issue also points out, doing so would cause problems with interactions (where connectable elements are heavily used) as well as with their meaning. The issue really at hand appears to be that ConnectableElements are not packageable elements. The reason is that they have really no meaning outside of the context of the classifier they are owned by and thus would not be packaged separately. Disposition: Closed, no change

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

UML2 Navigability Impact on Tools

  • Key: UML22-1006
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8963
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Dr. Doug Tolbert)
  • Summary:

    The notion of navigability for association ends may be interpreted as
    limiting the ability of UML tools to traverse associations with
    non-navigable ends. However, discussion among RTF members indicates
    that UML tools need not be specifically limited in their ability to
    traverse non-navigable ends. To prevent confusion about the impact of
    non-navigable ends among tool developers studying the specification, the
    ability of UML repositories and other tooling to ignore navigability
    limitations should be explicitly stated.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 11 Aug 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

UML 2 XMI DTD requirement

  • Key: UML22-1005
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8957
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    In section 6.5.1 of both the RFP for the UML 2 Superstructure and the RFP for the UML 2 Infrastructure it is required that

    Proposals shall specify an XMI DTD for the UML metamodel.

    This was based on the assumption that such schemas carry sufficient information for tool vendors to construct facilities for meaningful interchange of models. Unfortunately, due to the introduction of certain more complex features such as package merge in UML 2.0, these schemas are not sufficient. On the other hand, the XMI for the individual compliance levels (Lm, L0, L1, L2, and L3) is sufficient for the interchange objective. Therefore, instead of the XMI schemas, it is proposed to make the latter normative for the UML 2 Superstructure and Infrastructure specs.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 10 Aug 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    This is resolved by the resolution to 3898 and the explanatory text for 8678.

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

UML2 issue: {unrestricted} described in text but not BNF

  • Key: UML22-998
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8935
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    In section 7.3.49 of Super, and 9.2.2 of Infra,

    {unrestricted} is given as a notation option: "A modifiable structural feature is shown using {unrestricted}

    as part of the notation for the structural feature."
    However unrestricted is is not included in the BNF for Property (in 7.3.44).
    It does not seem useful as a keyword since it is the default; nor is 'unrestricted' a very suggestive term for the meaning.

    Proposed Resolution:
    Delete the above sentence from 7.3.49 of Super, and 9.2.2 of Infra.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 19 Jul 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

UML Superstructure / Actions / Missing package heading

  • Key: UML22-997
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8933
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    In section 11.3.21, (Actions, LinkAction), the second constraitns section should include the phrase (CompleteActions) at the end

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 18 Jul 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

UML 2 Super / Undocumented properties

  • Key: UML22-1010
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8976
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    The following properties appear in the metamodel diagrams but are not documented in the spec:

    UML::Classes::Kernel::Property::class
    UML::Components::BasicComponents::Connector::contract
    UML::Components::BasicComponents::Realization::abstraction
    UML::Components::BasicComponents::Realization::realizingClassifier
    UML::Interactions::BasicInteractions::Lifeline::coveredBy

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see pages 494 - 495 of ptc/2006-04-01

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

Page: 591,592

  • Key: UML22-1009
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8968
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    Constraint 9 and 10 state that entry and exit points are only allowed in the topmost region of a statemachine. On page 592 the entry/exit point semantic describes that these points are also allowed on composite states (see also issue 6075). I think the constraints don't take into account that composite states are also allowed.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 17 Aug 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Core::Constructs::Operation

  • Key: UML22-1008
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8966
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Vienna University of Technology ( Lorenz Froihofer)
  • Summary:

    This is a question or an issue for the UML 2.0 Superstructure and Infrastructure Revision Task Force (http://www.omg.org/issues/uml2-rtf.html An operation, e.g. Core::Constructs::Operation does no longer contain the isAbstract attribute (compared to UML version 1.5). I could not find a note in any of the classes within the inheritance hierarchy stating that this is a change to the 1.x versions. Was this attribute intentionally dropped for version 2.0? If yes, what is the suggested replacement?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 9 Aug 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion: This ability is still there, since the attribute isAbstract is inherited from BehavioralFeature (which is a superclass of Operation) as defined in CommonBehaviors. Disposition: Closed, no change

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

Interaction::lifeline should be ordered

  • Key: UML22-1007
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8964
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    Interaction::lifeline should be ordered so as to dictate the ordering of lifelines (in a diagram for example).

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 12 Aug 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

UML 2 Classes Notation for association end ownership

  • Key: UML22-1004
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8956
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    UML 2.0 has separated the concepts of navigability from association end ownership. However there is as yet no explicit notation for specifying who owns an association end. An explicit notation is required and, possibly, a set of default notational conventions for the most frequent cases.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 10 Aug 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see pages 489 - 490 of ptc/2006-04-01

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

connection point reference

  • Key: UML22-1003
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8955
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    Is this known issue, that just one ConnectionPointReference can point into same connection point?
    It's not possible to create two SubMachineStates with ConnectionPointReferences assigned with same StateMachine, because meta Association between PseudoState (connection point) and ConnectionPointReference has multiplicity [0..1].

    This destructs all concept of reusable StateMachines

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 10 Aug 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

UML 2 Super / Collaboration use issues (02)

  • Key: UML22-1014
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8990
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    2) The caption of Figure 106 still refers to "collaboration occurrence" (should be "collaboration use")

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 22 Sep 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

UML 2 Super / Collaboration use issues (01)

  • Key: UML22-1013
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8989
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    (1) All the dependencies in Figure 109 of ptc/04-10-02 are pointing in the wrong direction. Note that constraint [1] of CollaborationUse says:
    "All the client elements of a roleBinding are in one classifier and all supplier elements of a roleBinding are in one collaboration..."

    which implies that the supplier elements (the ends with the arrow, according to the notation subsection of Dependency) are the roles in the collaboration and the client elements are the parts that are playing specific roles of that collaboration. The figure actually shows the inverse of that.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 22 Sep 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see page 498 of ptc/2006-04-01

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

Section: 12.3.18 and 12.3.35

  • Key: UML22-1000
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8939
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    Add constraint to conditional and loop node that the result output pins have no outgoing edges

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 25 Jul 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 15.3.14

  • Key: UML22-999
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8938
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    BNF for transition specifies that a trigger is mandatory. That's not the case, e.g. for the initial state transition.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 22 Jul 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

p. 732: Show examples of new stereotype notation

  • Key: UML22-987
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8852
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Pivot Point ( Cris Kobryn)
  • Summary:

    Recommended Changes to UML 2.0 Profiles to Support SysML

    Source: SysML Partners (Partners@SysML.org)
    Nature: Revision
    Severity: Significant
    Summary:
    SysML extends the use of Profile notation and requires that stereotypes can reference UML metaclasses. In order to satisfy the needs of SysML, the following changes need to be made to the the UML 2.0 Superstructure Profiles chapter. "Convenience documents" in .fm and .pdf formats, which redline the proposed changes to the Profiles chapter, are provided as attachments to this issue submission. (See
    UML2-Super-Profiles-ConvenienceDoc-050525.fm and UML2-Super-Profiles-ConvenienceDoc-050525.pdf.)

    Recommended changes:
    8) p. 732: Show examples of new stereotype notation. Add the following including new Figure 463:
    "Finally, the two alternate notational forms are shown.

    • Other notational forms for showing values
      AlarmClock is valid for OS version 1.1, is POSIX-compliant and it has a starting operation called Start. The compartment form of notation is shown on the left and the in-symbol form on the right (note that not all properties of Clock are shown on the right."
  • Reported: RAS 2.2 — Thu, 2 Jun 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see pages 468 - 469 of ptc/2006-04-01

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

p. 732: Change example to be consistent with new definition of Clock

  • Key: UML22-986
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8851
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Pivot Point ( Cris Kobryn)
  • Summary:

    Recommended Changes to UML 2.0 Profiles to Support SysML

    Source: SysML Partners (Partners@SysML.org)
    Nature: Revision
    Severity: Significant
    Summary:
    SysML extends the use of Profile notation and requires that stereotypes can reference UML metaclasses. In order to satisfy the needs of SysML, the following changes need to be made to the the UML 2.0 Superstructure Profiles chapter. "Convenience documents" in .fm and .pdf formats, which redline the proposed changes to the Profiles chapter, are provided as attachments to this issue submission. (See
    UML2-Super-Profiles-ConvenienceDoc-050525.fm and UML2-Super-Profiles-ConvenienceDoc-050525.pdf.)

    Recommended changes:
    7) p. 732: Change example to be consistent with new definition of Clock. Replace figure 462 with:

  • Reported: RAS 2.2 — Thu, 2 Jun 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see pages 466 -467 of ptc/2006-04-01

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

Section: 12.3.5

  • Key: UML22-994
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8919
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    Description
    Section Associations (CompleteActivities): weight specifies the number of tokens instead of objects consumed from the source node on each traversal. It's a common property for object flow as well as for control flows.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 6 Jul 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Page: 163

  • Key: UML22-993
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8901
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    Fig. 93: The only message of the notation abstraction is that some components offer and some components require an interface. That the same as in a component diagram. Fig. 93 shows an internal view of a component. A composite structure diagram must show how the components are wired together. For examples that :BackOrder uses :Customer and NOT :Organization or vice versa. I propose to not use the notation abstraction.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 30 Jun 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Introducing a minimalist resolution, to just fix the incorrectly used terminology.

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

Make instance model consistent with new definition of Clock

  • Key: UML22-983
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8848
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Pivot Point ( Cris Kobryn)
  • Summary:

    Recommended Changes to UML 2.0 Profiles to Support SysML

    Source: SysML Partners (Partners@SysML.org)
    Nature: Revision
    Severity: Significant
    Summary:
    SysML extends the use of Profile notation and requires that stereotypes can reference UML metaclasses. In order to satisfy the needs of SysML, the following changes need to be made to the the UML 2.0 Superstructure Profiles chapter. "Convenience documents" in .fm and .pdf formats, which redline the proposed changes to the Profiles chapter, are provided as attachments to this issue submission. (See
    UML2-Super-Profiles-ConvenienceDoc-050525.fm and UML2-Super-Profiles-ConvenienceDoc-050525.pdf.)

    Recommended changes:
    4) p. 730: Make instance model consistent with new definition of Clock. Replace Figure 458 with:

  • Reported: RAS 2.2 — Thu, 2 Jun 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see page 463 of ptc/2006-04-01

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

p. 729: Extend the Clock example to show metaclass property

  • Key: UML22-982
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8847
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Pivot Point ( Cris Kobryn)
  • Summary:

    Recommended Changes to UML 2.0 Profiles to Support SysML

    Source: SysML Partners (Partners@SysML.org)
    Nature: Revision
    Severity: Significant
    Summary:
    SysML extends the use of Profile notation and requires that stereotypes can reference UML metaclasses. In order to satisfy the needs of SysML, the following changes need to be made to the the UML 2.0 Superstructure Profiles chapter. "Convenience documents" in .fm and .pdf formats, which redline the proposed changes to the Profiles chapter, are provided as attachments to this issue submission. (See
    UML2-Super-Profiles-ConvenienceDoc-050525.fm and UML2-Super-Profiles-ConvenienceDoc-050525.pdf.)3) p. 729: Extend the Clock example to show metaclass property and the use of Boolean. Replace Figure 456 with:

  • Reported: RAS 2.2 — Thu, 2 Jun 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see pages 462 of ptc/2006-04-01

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

p. 731: Make example consistent with new definition of Clock.

  • Key: UML22-985
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8850
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Pivot Point ( Cris Kobryn)
  • Summary:

    Recommended Changes to UML 2.0 Profiles to Support SysML

    Source: SysML Partners (Partners@SysML.org)
    Nature: Revision
    Severity: Significant
    Summary:
    SysML extends the use of Profile notation and requires that stereotypes can reference UML metaclasses. In order to satisfy the needs of SysML, the following changes need to be made to the the UML 2.0 Superstructure Profiles chapter. "Convenience documents" in .fm and .pdf formats, which redline the proposed changes to the Profiles chapter, are provided as attachments to this issue submission. (See
    UML2-Super-Profiles-ConvenienceDoc-050525.fm and UML2-Super-Profiles-ConvenienceDoc-050525.pdf.)

    Recommended changes:
    6) p. 731: Make example consistent with new definition of Clock. Replace Figure 461 with:

  • Reported: RAS 2.2 — Thu, 2 Jun 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 8849 for disposition

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

p. 731: Make this example consistent with the new definition of Clock

  • Key: UML22-984
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8849
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Pivot Point ( Cris Kobryn)
  • Summary:

    Recommended Changes to UML 2.0 Profiles to Support SysML

    Source: SysML Partners (Partners@SysML.org)
    Nature: Revision
    Severity: Significant
    Summary:
    SysML extends the use of Profile notation and requires that stereotypes can reference UML metaclasses. In order to satisfy the needs of SysML, the following changes need to be made to the the UML 2.0 Superstructure Profiles chapter. "Convenience documents" in .fm and .pdf formats, which redline the proposed changes to the Profiles chapter, are provided as attachments to this issue submission. (See
    UML2-Super-Profiles-ConvenienceDoc-050525.fm and UML2-Super-Profiles-ConvenienceDoc-050525.pdf.)

    Recommended changes:
    5) p. 731: Make this example consistent with the new definition of Clock. Replace Figure 459 with:

  • Reported: RAS 2.2 — Thu, 2 Jun 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see pages 464 - 465 of ptc/2006-04-01

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

Section: 12.3.37 ObjectFlow

  • Key: UML22-989
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8859
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Sapiens Deutschland GmbH ( Helmut Barthel)
  • Summary:

    On page 418, Constraints (BasicActivities), you write: "[1] Object flows may not have actions at either end." In contrast, on page 420, Notation, the description of the upper right part of figure 281 is: "Two object flow edges linking object nodes and actions(!!)." After many cycles of re-reading the Activities chapter I got convinced that the constraint is really meant as-is. So, the notation mentioned above likely means the "standalone pin notation" from page 433. If so, you should make it very clear, that this notation maps to two Pin instances (one at either action) and ONE ObjectFlow instance in-between, in the model (just like the alternative notation in the same figure shows). In addition, you should add this clarification throughout the Activities chapter. In addition, on page 433, regarding the explanation of the standalone pin notation, you should add, that it maps to ONE object flow edge in-between the two pins, in the model.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 7 Jun 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

UML Superstructure / Actions / incorrect form for subsetting

  • Key: UML22-996
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8932
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    The Actions chapter uses the convention "Specialized from" in describing properties that are specialized in a metaclass, instead of the "Subsets " convention used throughout the rest of the document. The former should all be changed to follow the conventional form.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 18 Jul 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 12.3.9

  • Key: UML22-995
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8930
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    Semantics section, last sentence: Recursive reference to semantics section of ActivityParameterNode.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 18 Jul 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

pp. 733-734: Add association as valid graphic path

  • Key: UML22-988
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8853
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Pivot Point ( Cris Kobryn)
  • Summary:

    Recommended Changes to UML 2.0 Profiles to Support SysML

    Source: SysML Partners (Partners@SysML.org)
    Nature: Revision
    Severity: Significant
    Summary:
    SysML extends the use of Profile notation and requires that stereotypes can reference UML metaclasses. In order to satisfy the needs of SysML, the following changes need to be made to the the UML 2.0 Superstructure Profiles chapter. "Convenience documents" in .fm and .pdf formats, which redline the proposed changes to the Profiles chapter, are provided as attachments to this issue submission. (See
    UML2-Super-Profiles-ConvenienceDoc-050525.fm and UML2-Super-Profiles-ConvenienceDoc-050525.pdf.)

    Recommended changes:
    9) pp. 733-734: Add association as valid graphic path. Add the following row to Table 24:

    Unidirectional Association See "Profile (from Profiles)" on page 720

  • Reported: RAS 2.2 — Thu, 2 Jun 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

TimeExpression

  • Key: UML22-991
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8894
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    TimeExpression should hold time value, but there is no attribute for that. Maybe TimeExpression should be inherited from OpaqueExpression and hold value in "body"?

  • Reported: RAS 2.2 — Mon, 20 Jun 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see pages 472 - 478 of ptc/2006-04-01

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

OpaqueAction

  • Key: UML22-990
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8867
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    should specialize input and output, so opaque actions can have pins.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see page 471 of ptc/2006-04-01

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

abstract Action in Activity diagram

  • Key: UML22-992
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8896
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    4. The same situation is with abstract Action in Activity diagram. OpaqueAction also can't be used, because can't have Pins.
    How to draw "human friendly" action (activity)? The only way is to use CallBehaviorAction?

  • Reported: RAS 2.2 — Mon, 20 Jun 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 8867 for disposition

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

p. 728: New presentation options. Replace the following paragraph

  • Key: UML22-981
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8846
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Pivot Point ( Cris Kobryn)
  • Summary:

    Recommended Changes to UML 2.0 Profiles to Support SysML

    Source: SysML Partners (Partners@SysML.org)
    Nature: Revision
    Severity: Significant
    Summary:
    SysML extends the use of Profile notation and requires that stereotypes can reference UML metaclasses. In order to satisfy the needs of SysML, the following changes need to be made to the the UML 2.0 Superstructure Profiles chapter. "Convenience documents" in .fm and .pdf formats, which redline the proposed changes to the Profiles chapter, are provided as attachments to this issue submission. (See
    UML2-Super-Profiles-ConvenienceDoc-050525.fm and UML2-Super-Profiles-ConvenienceDoc-050525.pdf.)

    2) p. 728: New presentation options. Replace the following paragraph:
    "The values of a stereotype that has been applied to a model element can be shown as part of a comment symbol tied to the model element. The values from a specific stereotype are optionally preceded with the name of the applied stereotype within a pair of guillemets, which is useful if values of more than one applied stereotype should be shown."
    with the following text:
    "The values of a stereotype that has been applied to a model element can be shown in one of three ways:
    ·As part of a comment symbol tied to the symbol representing the model element
    ·In compartments of a graphic node representing the model element.
    ·Above the name string within a graphic node or before the name string otherwise
    In the case where a compartment or comment symbol is used, the user may elect to show the stereotype name in guillemets before the name string in addition to in the compartment or comment.
    They are displayed as name/value pairs, thus:
    <namestring>'='<valuestring>
    If a stereotype property is multi-valued then the valuestring is displayed as a comma-separated list:
    <valuestring>::=<value>

    {','<value>}

    Certain values have special display rules:
    ·As an alternative to a name/value pair, when displaying the values of boolean properties diagrams may use the convention that if the namestring is displayed then the value is True, otherwise the value is False;
    ·If the value is the name of a NamedElement then optionally its qualifiedName can be used.
    If compartments are used to display stereotype values then an additional compartment is required for each applied stereotype whose values are to be displayed. Each such compartment is headed by the name of the applied stereotype in guillemets. Any graphic node may have these compartments.
    Within a comment symbol, or if displayed before/above the symbols's namestring, the values from a specific stereotype are optionally preceded with the name of the applied stereotype within a pair of guillemets, which is useful if values of more than one applied stereotype should be shown.
    When displayed in compartments or comment symbol at most one name/value pair can appear on a single line. When displayed above/before a namestring the name/value pairs are separated by semicolons and all pairs for a given stereotype are enclosed in braces."

  • Reported: RAS 2.2 — Thu, 2 Jun 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see pages 460 - 461 of ptc/2006-04-01

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

p. 721: Allow stereotypes to have properties that are typed by metaclasses

  • Key: UML22-980
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8845
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Pivot Point ( Cris Kobryn)
  • Summary:

    SysML extends the use of Profile notation and requires that stereotypes can reference UML metaclasses. In order to satisfy the needs of SysML, the following changes need to be made to the the UML 2.0 Superstructure Profiles chapter. "Convenience documents" in .fm and .pdf formats, which redline the proposed changes to the Profiles chapter, are provided as attachments to this issue submission. (See
    UML2-Super-Profiles-ConvenienceDoc-050525.fm and UML2-Super-Profiles-ConvenienceDoc-050525.pdf.)
    . Change paragraph 4 to:
    "As part of a profile, it is not possible to have an association between two stereotypes or from a metaclass in the reference metamodel to a stereotype, although a unidirectional association from a stereotype to a metaclass, or equivalently typing a stereotype property by a metaclass, is allowed. The effect of new (meta) associations between stereotypes can be achieved in limited ways either by:"

  • Reported: RAS 2.2 — Thu, 2 Jun 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 7756 for disposition

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

Can't specify mutator semantics for derived properties

  • Key: UML22-968
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8769
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Mr. Jim Amsden)
  • Summary:

    It is currently not possible to specify the effect of setting derived properties that are not read-only. As a result, derived properties are under-specified in the model because the semantics of updating them cannot be modeled or stated formally.

  • Reported: RAS 2.2 — Fri, 6 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 12.3.37

  • Key: UML22-967
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8766
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    It's a common modeling scenario that an object flow with an outpin pin at the source must target an action directly (without a pin). For example a decision node with an incoming object flow - the object is necessary for the guard condition -, but one or more of the target actions don't need that object. Due to the constraint that object flows don't have actions at either end I must model an input pin. For example in case of a CallOperationAction an operation with an additional parameter must be defined even if I don't use it. It's just for modeling purposes. I've assumed before reading the constraint in the specification that an object flow can target an action directly. In that case it's semantic is the same as for the control flow. That works perfect for me. I would propose to weaken the constraint for object flows that actions as targets are allowed. The object token enables the action and gets lost. Any other solution with the same semantic is also acceptable.

  • Reported: RAS 2.2 — Thu, 5 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed no change

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

MessageEnd

  • Key: UML22-976
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8784
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    MessageEnd is MessageOccurrenceSpecification that redefines "event" as MessageEvent.
    DestructionEvent and CreationEvent are not subclasses of MessageEvent, so can't be on message end, so how to map "create message" and "destroy message"?

  • Reported: RAS 2.2 — Wed, 18 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

ExecutableNode should be abstract in Figure 195. It is in Figure 197.

  • Key: UML22-975
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8782
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    ExecutableNode should be abstract in Figure 195. It is in Figure 197.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 15 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 8239 for disposition

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

Section: 12 and 13

  • Key: UML22-979
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8826
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Ostfold University College ( Dr. Oystein Haugen)
  • Summary:

    Figure numbers 306,307,308,309 appear in both the Activities chapter (12) and the Common Behavior chapter (13)

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 26 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Incorrect Communication Domain Model

  • Key: UML22-978
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8825
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. James J. Odell)
  • Summary:

    Fig. 308 does not contain the correct domain model. The current model that
    appears in Fig. 308 is a duplicate of Fig. 307.

  • Reported: RAS 2.2 — Thu, 26 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 8292 for disposition

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

Obsolete term EventOccurrence still used in multiple places

  • Key: UML22-977
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8824
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. James J. Odell)
  • Summary:

    1) 14.3.25 OccurrenceSpecification, the change in class name was from EventOccurrence to OccurrenceSpecification. This change needs to be noted in this document. Also, the reason why the change was made.
    2) EventOccurrence is still being use in the toBefore and toAfter association descriptions of OccurrenceSpecification.
    3) EventOccurrence is still be referenced in other areas:
    a) in the last word of the Example text on page 476,
    b) In the Notation text on Page 489,
    c) In the fifth paragraph of the overview on Page 497
    d) Multiple times on Page 509 and 510
    e) First paragraph on Page 528
    f) Multiple times on Page 531
    g) Multiple times on Fig. 347

  • Reported: RAS 2.2 — Thu, 26 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see pages 453 - 457 of ptc/2006-04-01

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

Notation of Attributes and Associations subsections

  • Key: UML22-972
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8774
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    Notation of Attributes and Associations subsections in the whole specification should be consistently follow the rules: Every entry must include * attribute/association end name * its type * its multiplicity: you should NOT omit this even if it maps to the default value of *. Also, both upper and lower multiplicities should be provided; i.e., NOT "[*]" but "[0..*]") * ALL modifiers such as subsets and redefines. When referencing other association ends, use the following convention: "<metaclass-name>::<association-end-name> (do NOT use the "." notation for this) * if something is derived, the explanation should be given how it is derived and an OCL formula might have to be provided.

  • Reported: RAS 2.2 — Tue, 10 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion: Most of these issues have been resolved through numerous editorial changes that were intended to ensure consistency. The exceptions are:
    „h the use of * instead of 0..* – simply not worth the effort given that the two are equivalent. It will take a lot of effort to do this with no real value; chances are that this will NEVER get done. There is no point in keeping the issue open.
    „h The derivation specification already has another open issue.
    Revised Text: N/A Disposition: Closed, no change

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

Page: 330

  • Key: UML22-971
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8773
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    Typo in fig. 192: Association from BehavioralFeature to Parameterset: should be ownedMember instead of ownedmember (uppercase).

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 10 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion: This issue refers to an older version of the specification. It is fixed in the meantime. Disposition: Closed, no change

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

Section: 11.3.48

  • Key: UML22-970
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8772
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    Semantic sections mentions the order of structural features of the specified classifier. The list of structural features is ordered for a class, but unordered for a classifier.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 9 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: Actions

  • Key: UML22-969
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8770
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Stephen Mellor)
  • Summary:

    The third sentence of the Actions chapter implies that most of the actions are specialization of the one that supports implementation-dependent semantics. Should be reworded.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 6 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Actions should be able to overlap partitions, to support multiple participa

  • Key: UML22-974
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8781
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Actions should be able to overlap partitions, to support multiple participants

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 15 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 8.3.1 Page: 156 ff

  • Key: UML22-973
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8778
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    Fig. 86, 87, and 89 have no dividing line between name compartment and internal view compartment

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 12 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion: This dividing line is optional. Revised Text: N/A Disposition: Closed, no change

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

OpaqueAction

  • Key: UML22-966
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8759
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    In chapter 11.3.26 OpaqueAction is described as subclass of Pin. It
    > should be subclass of Action.

    That's a bug. Please raise an issue.

    > Can OpaqueAction be used as default Action type in Activity diagrams
    > and be as replacement of old-style user defined ActionStates in UML 1.4?

    It sounds like you are asking for a new feature. I don't see that the RTF will accept this default. You can always do this woth a profile.

  • Reported: RAS 2.2 — Tue, 3 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Page: 591

  • Key: UML22-965
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8753
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    The semantics section describes that the transition from an initial pseudostate may have an action. There should be a constraint in the constraints section that actions are allowed, but no triggers and guards. Instead of action it should be named behavior.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 1 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see page 442 of ptc/2006-04-01

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

Clarify caption of Figure 56

  • Key: UML22-961
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8746
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Clarify caption of Figure 56. The wording of caption of Figure 56 gives the impression that it is a general notation to provided/required interfaces, especially because it is in the Presentation Option section. Discussion during FTF was that this is only an example, rather than a general notation.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 1 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: Interactions

  • Key: UML22-960
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8745
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Messages to self. Are curved arrows in interactions (sending to self) still supported in UML 2? See Figure 3-56 in UML 1.5 (doc.omg/org/formal/03-03-01). If not, how are messages to self shown?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 1 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Clarify first constraint on InputPin and OutputPin, move "only" to before "

  • Key: UML22-953
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8734
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Clarify first constraint on InputPin and OutputPin, move "only" to before "when".

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 1 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

LoopNode should move rather than copy values to/from loop variables

  • Key: UML22-952
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8733
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    LoopNode should move rather than copy values to/from loop variables. Otherwise, tokens will be dangling tokens. Same for ConditionalNode bodyOutput, etc.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 1 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

In Figure 210, put merge before Use Part to merge the incoming flows

  • Key: UML22-951
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8732
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    In Figure 210, put merge before Use Part to merge the incoming flows

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 1 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see page 431 of ptc/2006-04-01

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

Exceptions thrown across synchronous invocations

  • Key: UML22-950
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8730
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Exceptions thrown across synchronous invocations. Clarify that exceptions are thrown across synchronous invocations, not asynchronous ones. Or introduce an attribute to tell whether it is thrown across call boundaries.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 1 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Multiple exception handlers

  • Key: UML22-949
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8729
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Multiple exception handlers. Clarify that one exception handler is executed if multiple match, and it is undefined which

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 1 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Actions, CallBehaviorAction, third sentence,

  • Key: UML22-955
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8736
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Actions, CallBehaviorAction, third sentence, should be limited to synchronous calls

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 1 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

The Syle Guidelines for Stereotype

  • Key: UML22-954
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8735
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    The Syle Guidelines for Stereotype says "The values of an applied stereotype are normally not shown." This is application-dependent. Sentence should be removed

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 1 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

CollaborationUse: Constraint 1,

  • Key: UML22-959
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8744
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    CollaborationUse: Constraint 1, allows parameters from different operations to be coordinated. Is that intended?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 1 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion: This issue appears to refer to an earlier version of the specification. It is impossible to identify in the current version what this issue concerns. Disposition: Closed, no change

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

ConditionalNode and LoopNode test and bodies should be ExecutableNodes

  • Key: UML22-958
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8740
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    ConditionalNode and LoopNode test and bodies should be ExecutableNodes

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 1 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

ExpansionRegion

  • Key: UML22-957
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8739
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    ExpansionRegion, clarify that tokens in input pins and expansion nodes are destroyed when the expansion node completes

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 1 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

ControlFlow

  • Key: UML22-956
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8737
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    ControlFlow should say that if it targets an action, or control pin of action, then the action requires a control token to start executing

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 1 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Last element in transition BNF

  • Key: UML22-964
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8752
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    Last element in transition BNF should be <behavior-expression> instead of <activity-expression>. The term is used on the next side.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 1 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Update as suggested.

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

Notation for connector end multiplicities.

  • Key: UML22-962
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8747
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Notation for connector end multiplicities. Notation of ConnectorEnd, first paragraph says the multiplicities shown are the association multiplicities. What about the connector end multiplicities?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 1 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion: This issue has been fixed in the current version of the specification. Disposition: Closed, no change

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

ParameterSet, first line: "inputs *or* outputs".

  • Key: UML22-963
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8749
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Dr. Tracy Gardner)
  • Summary:

    ParameterSet, first line: "inputs or outputs".

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 1 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

In Activities, Figure 176, Action should be abstract

  • Key: UML22-942
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8718
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    In Activities, Figure 176, Action should be abstract

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 1 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Profile Semantics, pag 723

  • Key: UML22-941
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8706
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Mr. Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    "A reference metamodel typically consists of metaclasses that are either
    imported or locally owned. All metaclasses that
    are extended by a profile have to be members of the same reference
    metamodel. A tool can make use of the information
    about which metaclasses are extended in different ways, for example to
    filter or hide elements when a profile is applied, ..."

    The specification must be explicit about the mechanism used to hide/filter
    reference metamodel elements. The SysML Partners are trying to do exactly
    this with SysML but it's not clear from the above paragraph or any other
    part of the Profiles section how to do it.

  • Reported: RAS 2.2 — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 12

  • Key: UML22-935
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8680
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: FUNDP ( Pierre Yves Schobbens)
  • Summary:

    "Any object nodes declared as outputs are passed out of the containing activity." Only tokens can be passed, not nodes. I suggest: "The last token from each output Activity Parameter Node is offered on the corresponding output of the calling action."

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Tue, 5 Apr 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

token

  • Key: UML22-934
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8679
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: FUNDP ( Pierre Yves Schobbens)
  • Summary:

    "All tokens offered on the incoming edges are accepted." 1- The edges of of the terminated Activity or of the Activity Final Node? 2- In general, it is not possible to accept all tokens offered. For instance, a same token in an ObjectNode could cause two token offers throughtwo forks. Yet, only one of these offered tokens can be accepted, causing the other to be no longer offered. I suggest to delete this sentence.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Tue, 5 Apr 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

String is primitive but has structure.

  • Key: UML22-944
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8720
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    String is primitive but has structure. Section 17.4 (PrimitiveTypes) has String, even though the definition of primitive type in Section 7.3.43 excludes any structure: "A primitive type defines a predefined data type, without any relevant substructure (i.e. it has no parts). A primitive datatype may have an algebra and operations defined outside of UML, for example, mathematically."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 1 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

``conditional node or conditional node'' delete one.

  • Key: UML22-937
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8683
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: FUNDP ( Pierre Yves Schobbens)
  • Summary:

    ``conditional node or conditional node'' delete one.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Tue, 5 Apr 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

add the rule of ``natural termination''

  • Key: UML22-936
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8681
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: FUNDP ( Pierre Yves Schobbens)
  • Summary:

    I suggest to add the rule of ``natural termination'': An activity terminates when it has a token in each of its output Activity Parameter Nodes. This removes the need for Activity Final Nodes in most cases, and makes UML less error-prone, since it is an error to terminate without a token in each output Activity Parameter Node. It also makes the languages more consistent, since this rule is used for loops.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Tue, 5 Apr 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Solid triange notation for Association

  • Key: UML22-948
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8728
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Solid triange notation for Association. Association, Examples, shows a solid triangle notation that is not mentioned in the notation section. It says it indicates the order of reading, but association generally don't have an order or reading, the end names express the order of reading. I thought it showed the order of the association ends (Association.memberEnd is ordered), because there's no other notation for that.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 1 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

The create stereotype on Usage dependency

  • Key: UML22-947
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8727
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    The create stereotype on Usage dependency. The create stereotype on Usage dependency is defined in standard stereotypes (Table 25) and in retired stereotypes (Table 28). It is used in Figures 103 and 121.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 1 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion: This issue was resolved in an earlier revision. The “create” stereotype is now defined in the table in appendix C section C.1. Disposition: Closed, no change

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

Section: 12.2

  • Key: UML22-939
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8690
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Dr. Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    In figure 195, p332, StructuredActivityNode and Action inherit from ExecutableNode. In figure 196, p333, StructuredActivityNode inherits from Action. => StructuredActivityNode inherits two times of Action. A priori, you could delte the inheritance link between StructuredActivityNode and ExeutableNode in figure 195

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 7 Apr 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Delete sentence

  • Key: UML22-938
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8685
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: FUNDP ( Pierre Yves Schobbens)
  • Summary:

    " One frequent case is a total ordering of clauses, in which case the result is determinate." The clauses themselves can be nondeterministic, making this sentence false (although the idea is clear). Delete.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Tue, 5 Apr 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Element to Constraint navigation

  • Key: UML22-946
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8726
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Element to Constraint navigation. The "constrainedElement" association between Constraint and Element is unidirectional from Constraint to Element. That means implementations are not required to provide efficient navigation from an element to the constraints on it. Can't see how an API could do without this.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 1 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This is a duplicate of issue 8020 Revised Text: N/A Disposition: Duplicate

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

Disjointness should be independent of generalization

  • Key: UML22-945
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8723
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Disjointness is applicable to classes that are not specializations of the same class. It should be independent of generalization

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 1 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Same as issue 8014 Revised Text: N/A Disposition: Duplicate

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

Semantics for instances applies to InstanceSpecification?

  • Key: UML22-943
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8719
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Semantics for instances applies to InstanceSpecification? Clarify whether the semantics for instances specified in other chapters applies to InstanceSpecification. For example, will deleting an InstanceSpecification delete other instances it owns by association composition?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 1 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

policy to describe the Associations sub section of a meta class description

  • Key: UML22-940
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8696
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Dr. Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    what is the official policy to describe the Associations sub section of a meta class description (using EBNF style):

    /?<end-name> : <associated-class-name> : <cardinality> (= <DefaultValue>)? <FeaturesList>? <tab> <Description>

    where:

    <end-name> ::= String

    <associated-class-name> ::= String

    <cardinality> ::= [<n>, <m>]

    <DefaultValue> ::= String

    <FeaturesList> ::=

    {<Features>}

    <Features> ::= <FeatureKind>} | {<FeatureKind>, <Features>

    <FeatureKind> ::= subsets <property-name> | redefined <end-name> | union | ordered | bag | sequence | readOnly | unrestricted

    <property-name> ::= String

    <n> ::= Integer

    <m> ::= Integer | * and m >= n

    <tab> is a tabulation

    ps: ? means it is optional part.

  • Reported: RAS 2.2 — Tue, 12 Apr 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

UML 2 -- Need explanations of XMI structure and usage

  • Key: UML22-933
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8678
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    Appendix G is intended to contain the XMI for UML. However, there is no explanation of the meaning of its various parts, or its structure, or how it is to be used. This information should be included in the introduction to the XMI appendix in both the Infrastructure (Appendix A) and the Superstructure (Appendix G).

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Tue, 5 Apr 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

token movement

  • Key: UML22-932
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8677
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: FUNDP ( Pierre Yves Schobbens)
  • Summary:

    The verbs ``flow'', ``pass'', ``traverse'' seem used interchangeably to describe token movement. I suggest to reserve ``flow'' for a complex path (So e.g. p.309 should be: ``Activity edges are directed connections, that is, they have a source and a target, along which tokens may

    {\bf pass}

    ). , ``pass'' for an elementary move, and to replace ``traverse'' by ``pass''. (p.303, 304, 309, 310, etc.)

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Tue, 5 Apr 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

output tokens (02)

  • Key: UML22-931
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8676
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: FUNDP ( Pierre Yves Schobbens)
  • Summary:

    In, e.g.: [4] The output tokens are now available Replace ``available'' by ``offered''. Also p.310, p.330, p.342, etc.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Tue, 5 Apr 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 12

  • Key: UML22-927
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8670
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: FUNDP ( Pierre Yves Schobbens)
  • Summary:

    there should be a consistent convention as whether unused Paragraphs must be omitted or filled with ``None''. We suggest the first, and thus to delete the Paragraphs pp.110, 163, 216, 217, 220-262, 280, 285, 298, 301, 304, 311-320, 323, 331, etc.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Tue, 5 Apr 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 8155 for disposition

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

Section: Appendix F

  • Key: UML22-926
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8619
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    The following classifiers show no inheritance hierarchy because the link (inheritance arrow) is missing: Classifier (from Templates), Classifier (from PowerTypes), Interface (from Communications), BehavioredClassifier (from Interfaces), Behavior (from CompleteActivities), Activity (from BasicActivities), Activity (from StructuredActivities), and Activity (from CompleteActivity). In addition, Classifier (from UseCases) and Classifier (from Dependencies) are just kind of sitting there without showing any inheritance. It is strange to see classifiers on a diagram with no relationships expressed.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 21 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: E.1

  • Key: UML22-925
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8617
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Typos - Remove the extra space beginning the paragraphs of #4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 14. There is also an extra space in #10 in "sequence /communication."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 21 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see page 412 of ptc/2006-04-01

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

text p.297

  • Key: UML22-930
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8674
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: FUNDP ( Pierre Yves Schobbens)
  • Summary:

    The text p.297: [1] An action execution is created when all its object flow and control flow prerequisites have been satisfied (implicit join). Exceptions to this are listed below. The flow prerequisite is satisfied when all of the input pins are offered tokens and accept them all at once, precluding them from being consumed by any other actions. contains, I believe, the problems: 1. Flows need not be connected by input pins, so ``inputs'' must replace ``input pins''. 2. The current text implies that all offered tokens are consumed when an action starts, which is not intended, we believe (specially if two offers are incompatible). 3. ``precluding them from being consumed by any other actions'' does not belong here. We suggest: To start, the action must have at least one token per input. When starting, it accepts simultaneously exactly one token per input, then creates an action execution.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Tue, 5 Apr 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section 12 (03)

  • Key: UML22-929
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8672
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: FUNDP ( Pierre Yves Schobbens)
  • Summary:

    ``Result pin'', ``Output pin'' or even ``Result output pin'' seem used interchangeably throughout the text. Replace by ``Output pin''.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Tue, 5 Apr 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section 12 (02)

  • Key: UML22-928
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8671
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: FUNDP ( Pierre Yves Schobbens)
  • Summary:

    A section ``Use'' containing methodological indications about the use of the construct should be added. Currently, such remarks are randomly spread into ``Description'', ``Semantics'', etc.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Tue, 5 Apr 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion: UML is methodology independent; there should not be any methodological advice in the spec at all. Revised Text: N/A Disposition: Closed, no change

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

Section: Appendix C Table 27

  • Key: UML22-920
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8610
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Typo - Description column for <<systemModel>> Capitalize SystemModel when using the stereotype name. Is the description for <<metamodel>> worded correctly?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    agreed - fix

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

Section: Appendix C Table 26

  • Key: UML22-919
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8609
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Typos - Column Description for <<realization>> Change spelling to <<implementationClass>> to agree with the spelling in <<type>>. It's unfortunate that the column Name breaks the stereotype label so that one can't tell if the stereotype lable is one or two words. - Description for <<specification>> change to "...such as attributes and methods which are useful..." Place column headings on all pages.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: D.1

  • Key: UML22-922
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8613
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    EJBService has incorrect stereotype name shown inside guillemets. In description for EJBBusiness, change "level methods" to "level method."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 21 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    agreed - fix

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

Section: 15.3.8

  • Key: UML22-921
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8611
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    Constraints 9 and 10 exclude composite states from using entry or exit points. Entry/exit points are allowed on composite states as mentioned on page 592 (see Issue 6075).

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sat, 19 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Remove constraints [9] and [10] as entry/exit point are essentially allowed on any region.

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

Section: D.3

  • Key: UML22-924
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8615
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Correct spelling of "oferred" to "offered" in Description of NETProperty. The Description of NETAssembly is an incomplete sentence that doesn't make a lot of sense. Rewrite

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 21 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    agreed- fix

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

Section: D.2

  • Key: UML22-923
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8614
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Correct spelling of "oferred" in Description of COMInterface. Complete cells (Parent, Tage, and Constraints) for COMTLB

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 21 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    agreed - fix

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

Section: 18

  • Key: UML22-915
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8605
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    General comments - The format of the Generalizations statement is not the same as previous chapters. For sub-sections that are empty either delete them or change the wording to "None."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue N/A for disposition

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

Section: 18.4

  • Key: UML22-914
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8604
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Typos - Place a "." in the Reference cell for row Metaclass of table 23 and ProfileApplication of table 24

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 18.3.8

  • Key: UML22-913
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8603
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add OCL notation or a note that OCL notation is not available to Constraint [2]. Typo - Change "stereotypes is shown" to "stereotypes are shown" in 3rd line of 2nd para of Notation. - Change 3rd sent of 1st para below bullets under Icon presentation to "Some tools may use different images for the icon replacing the box." In fig. 447 lower case stereotypes "clock" and "creator, clock" to agree with naming convention and figs. 461 & 462. In para immediately following fig. 457, I believe the statement should be: "Note that the extensionEnd must be composite, and that the derived "isRequired" attribute in this case is false. Fig. 458 needs the derived slash infront of the isRequired attribute for :Extension. Typos - Lower case the stereostype name "clock" in sentence immediately fololowing fig. 458, immediately preceding fig. 460 and sentences preceding and following fig. 462. Lower case the stereotype name "creator" in the sentence following fig. 461.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: Appendix C Table 25

  • Key: UML22-918
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8608
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Suggest that the column headings are found on each page of the table. Typos - In the description of <<focus>> capitalize the first "Auxiliary." - In the description of <<implementationClass>> capitalize the word "Class" when used following "Implementation" as indicated by the statement "The actual name of the stereotype is the same as the stereotype label except that the first letter of each is capitalized." (Assuming you meant the first letter of each word of each stereotype label.) - Ditto with "Model Library." - Ditto with "Type." - In the description of <<modelLibrary>> correct spelling of "inteded" to "intended."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see page 405 of ptc/2006-04-01

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

Section: Appendix B (02)

  • Key: UML22-917
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8607
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Table number does not fit with other tables in this Supersturcture and Appendixes. (Appendix C starts with Table 25.)

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: Appendix B

  • Key: UML22-916
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8606
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Typos - 2nd sent. of last para pg 745, rewrite as "...to indacate that it is a constructor..." - 3) under Notation Placement, delete the word "to." Check capitalization of keyword "buildcomponent" because pgs 771 and 777 spell it "buildComponent."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 18.3.7

  • Key: UML22-912
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8602
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Typo - under Associations change "is" to "are."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 18.3.3

  • Key: UML22-911
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8600
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Typo - 3rd sent, 2nd para under Description, change "changed" to "change." Association type:Stereotype[1] does not show the redefines statement in fig. 446. Additional Operations [1] "which was 1" statement does not agree with the last statement under Description. Fig. 446 shows a directional arrow from ExtensionEnd to Stereotype. This disagrees with first sentence of paragraph 2 of Description.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    There is no disagreement with first sentence of paragraph 2 of Description.

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

Section: 18.3.2

  • Key: UML22-910
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8599
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    The derived attribute isRequired default multiplicity is not supported by fig. 446. Please verify all mutliplicities between fig 446 and text for this concept agree. The association ownedEnd:ExtensionEnd[1] does not show that it redefines ownedEnd in the fig.446. Statement under attributes implies that the lower and upper bound must = 1 but Additional Operations [3] does not suppport this. Fig. 448 notation does not agree with text. If MOF notation is different, then clarify.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 8453 for disposition

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

Section: 18.2

  • Key: UML22-909
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8598
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Typo - remove the extra slash below line between Class and Extension in fig. 446

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 18.3.2

  • Key: UML22-908
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8596
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    The definition of the attribute indicated that multiplicity may be [0..1], yet this is not supported by fig. 446 no by the association ownedEnd:ExtensionEnd[1]. Further, fig 446 does not indicate that the association ownedEnd:ExtensionEnd[1] redefines Association::ownedEnd. Additional Operations [3] says that a lower bound of 1 makes isRequired true, but the statement discussing attributes implies that the lower bound = upper bound. Shouldn't the Additional Operation [3] also indicate this? Notation in fig. 448 does not agree with the text description of the proper notation unless the notation for a MOF model is different than for UML in which case the text should explain that fig. 448 is not a UML notated diagram.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 17.5.6

  • Key: UML22-893
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8517
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Delete sub-section Attributes or change wording to "None." Change definition of association parameter:TemplateParameter to "The complete set of ordered formal template parameters for this template signature." This is indicated by fig. 427. I believe Constraint [2] should say "parameters are the owned parameter." Change wording of 2nd sent. of 2nd para of Semantics to "Either the parameter that owns the parametered element, or the element that is owned, directly or indirectly, but the template subclasses of TemplateSignature can add additional rules constraining what a parameter can reference in the context of a particular kind of template." I see no subclasses for TemplateSignature in the diagrams--just composite parts. The paragraph under ClassifierTemplates needs enhancement. What figure is being referenced? If it is fig. 429, that diagram does not support the text paragraph.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 8 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see pages 379 - 380 of ptc/2006-04-01

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

Section: 17.5.5

  • Key: UML22-892
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8516
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Delelte sub-section Attributes or change wording to "None." Change association name from "binding":Tto "templateBinding" to agree with fig. 428 or change fig. 428 association name from "templateBinding" to "binding."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 8 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 17.5.4

  • Key: UML22-891
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8515
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Under sub-section Notation, the last sentence says to see "ParameterableElement (from Templates)" on page 679 (and its subclasses)." What subclasses? I find none listed or diagrammmed in any figure. Delete sub-section Attributes or change wording to "None." Typo - Delete the second word ("the") of the second para of Semantics.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 8 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 17.5.7

  • Key: UML22-895
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8527
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    The classifier for the association parameter:ParameterableElement[0..1] does not agree with fig. 429. The classifier is titled ClassifierTemplateParameter in the figure. In addition, the figure does not support that this association redefines ParameterableElement::parameter Fig. 413 shows an additional association: representation:InformationItem[*]. Please add this to the sub-section Typos - 2nd line, 1st para under Section, rewrite as "parameterable element so that a classifier can be exposed as a formal template paramenter, and provided as ...." - 1st line, under sub-section Description, put a comma after Kernal::Classifier. - 3rd line, 3rd para under sub-section Semantics insert the word "of" between "specialization" and "this anonymous." - Last sent., para 2 of Collaboration under sub-section Semantics, change the word "used" to something "identified" or "defined" or "decided." "We have used that..." is not very understandable. - Last para. of Collaboration under sub-section Semantics: change "produce" to "producer" and "NrokeredSale" to "BrokeredSale." Delete "And anyway," and change "Parameters, by the very nature..." to "Parameters, by their very nature..."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 9 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see pages 382 - 383 of ptc/2006-04-01

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

Section: 17.1

  • Key: UML22-894
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8518
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    In fig. 412 the PrimitiveTypes package is sitting alone with no dependencies or navigation lines yet it is on the same level as Kernal, BasicActivities, BasicInteractions, and InternalStructures. If all of the other packages don't import elements from PrimitiveTypes, I would suggest offsetting the PrimitiveTypes package or putting it in a separate figure. Question - Why not develop PrimitiveTypes as an enumeration with Boolean, Integer, String, UnlimitedNatural, and UserDefinedKind or UserDefinedList as the elements of the enumeration?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 8 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 17.5.15

  • Key: UML22-901
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8588
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    It is very confusing to have two very similar concepts with the same name (17.5.14 and 17.5.15). Could the two concepts be combined into one, combining figure 440 with 441 and the text? If not, consider changing the name of one of the concepts. Association parameter:ParameterableElement is not what is diagrammed in fig. 441. Instead fig. 441 shows parameter:OperationTemplateParameter[0..1] with no redefinition mentioned.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 17.5.14

  • Key: UML22-900
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8587
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Typo - Be consistent with the capitalization of "Operation" in sub-section Semantics

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Indeed. Change the first case to lower case initial letter.

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

Section: 17.5.12

  • Key: UML22-897
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8529
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    The classifier name for the association nameExpression: in fig. 438 is StringExpression not Expression as indicated by text. In addition, the figure indicates that nameExpression:StringExpression[0..1] subsets ownedElement. Typo - under sub-section Notation in para "With alias:" change "is" in the first sent. to "are."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 9 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Indeed. These errors must be fixed.

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

Section: 17.5.8

  • Key: UML22-896
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8528
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    The redefines statement of association parameteredElement:Classifier[1] is not supported in fig. 429. Delete sub-section Constraints or change wording to "None." Change spelling of alloswSubstitutable to allowSubstitutable in 2nd sent. of last para of sub-section Notation.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 9 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see page 384 of ptc/2006-04-01

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

Section: 18.1.2

  • Key: UML22-907
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8595
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Typos - Requirement 4 - delete the "of" immediately preceding the word "specializations." - Requirement 9 - Change the word "constraint" to "constrain."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 17.5.20

  • Key: UML22-906
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8593
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:
  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    This seems to be a leftover from a previous edit. Remove the association item.

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

Section: 12 Activities

  • Key: UML22-899
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8544
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC) ( ILVER ANACHE PUPO)
  • Summary:

    In Figure 178 and 183 there is two different inheritance relationships. In 178 the class ControlNode is a direct parent for classes ActivityFinalNode and InitialNode. These two classes are a direct descendant from FinalNode in figure 183. These introduce two different inheritance taxonomy with different meaning.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 11 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 8237 for disposition

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

Section: 17.5.13

  • Key: UML22-898
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8530
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Fig. 438 shows an additional associaton: owningExpression:StringExpression[0..1] that subsets owner

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 9 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Indeed. This item needs to be added.

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

Section: 17.5.17

  • Key: UML22-903
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8590
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Fig. 442 does not show that the association parameter:ConnectableElementTemplateParameter redefines anything.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See the discussion to issue 8528. We will add a clarification to the diagram.

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

Section: 17.5.16

  • Key: UML22-902
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8589
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Fig 441 for the association parameteredElement:Operation[1] does not mention that the association redefines TemplateParameter::parameteredElement.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see page 389 of ptc/2006-04-01

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

Section: 17.5.19

  • Key: UML22-905
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8592
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add OCL notation to the constraint or a note that OCL notation is not available

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 3 May 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see page 392 of ptc/2006-04-01

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

Section: 17.5.18

  • Key: UML22-904
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8591
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Fig. 442 does not show that association parameteredElement:ConnectableElement redefines anything

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 9 May 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See the discussion on issue 8590.

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

Section: 17.2.2

  • Key: UML22-883
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8507
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Not all of the sub-package names given in the sub-section Generalizations are shown in fig. 413. Add them or ellipses. Change capitalization of "information Item" and "Information Items" in sub-section Description to agree. If Information Item is an abstraction shouldn't the name appear in italics in fig. 413? Change last sent. of para 1, sub-section Description to "...for representing information in a very abstract way, one which cannot be instantiated." Change "taken" to "made" in first sent. of para 2 of Descriptions. Delete sub-section Attributes or change wording to "None." Add OCL notation to constraints [1] and [2] or a note that OCL notation is not available. Constraint [1] contains an enumeration list but this is not diagrammed as part of fig. 413. The constraint reads like a guard whose condition is that the InformationItem can only be of the enumerationKind listed in the constraint. Why not diagram it that way? Typos - 1st sent., Para 2 of sub-section Semantics, change "item" to "items." - 2nd sent., Para 3 of sub-section Semantics, reword to "specifying this detailed information belongs to the represented classifier." Question - Why is the multiplicity in fig. 418 0..1? Suggest removing all multiplicities from diag. 418 as they add nothing to it.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 8 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 17.2.1

  • Key: UML22-882
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8506
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Typo - Change first sent. under sub-section Description to "...one or more information items circulates from its sources to its targets." Subject of phrase is singular (one or more) and needs the singular verb. Add OCL notation to the constraints or state that OCL notation is not available. Constraint [1] reads like an enumeration. Why is it not diagrammed showing an enumeration. Reword the except clause to "...and InstanceSpecification except when the classifier of the InstanceSpecification is a relationship (i.e., it represents a link)." Constraint [2] change "target" to "targets" and delete the prepositional phrase "if any." (Or explain how information can flow if there isn't at least one source and one target.)

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 8 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Expansion region description

  • Key: UML22-872
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8488
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Expansion region description: "The number of output collections at runtime can differ from the number of input collections." Drop "at runtime".

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 6 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    The sentence is supposed to be about modeling time, rather than runtime.

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

ExpansionRegioin example, Figure 261: concurrent => parallel

  • Key: UML22-871
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8487
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    ExpansionRegioin example, Figure 261: concurrent => parallel

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 6 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: Activities, ExpansionRegion (05)

  • Key: UML22-870
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8486
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    <pre> In ExpansionRegion, clarify the interaction of elements from multiple input collections (ie, there is none). Clarify that the region operates on each collection in the specified mode. From Jim R: If there are N input collections (note there may also be plain scalar inputs, whose value remains constant in each of the executions), then one value from the same position in each of them represents a "slice". The slice is not actually formed into an object or a single value. The body of the region is executed once for each slice. Each of its pins gets the value from the given position in the corresponding input collection. Each execution is independent and concurrent, therefore the values from different positions do not interact. If the body interacts with an outside object, then there is a high possibility of conflict among the concurrent executions, so that is not usually recommened, although it is not forbidden by the UML2 rules. If it does happen, you can't assume any particular order of execution or even that two executions won't hit the same slot at the same time (in this, it is the same as all other uses of concurrency in UML). If each execution keeps to its own subset of values (for example, by indexing into a collection using the input position for that execution), then things might be OK; otherwise it's probably a real bad idea to use this construct. It works best when the computations are purely internal, in that case the concurrency poses no problems at all and permits total freedom in implementation; those kinds of computations are pretty common in practice. </pre>

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 6 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

mustIsolate:

  • Key: UML22-879
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8500
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    mustIsolate: The wording of UML 2 for StructuredActivityNode.mustIsolate refers to individual nodes instead of all the nodes in the group: If the mustIsolate flag is true for an activity node, then any access to an object by an action within the node must not conflict with access to the object by an action outside the node. A conflict is defined as an attempt to write to the object by one or both of the actions. If such a conflict potentially exists, then no such access by an action outside the node may be interleaved with the execution of any action inside the node. The UML 1.5 wording was better: Because of the concurrent nature of the execution of actions within and across procedures, it can be difficult to guarantee the consistent access and modification of object memory. [Examples snipped] In order to avoid these problems, it is necessary to isolate the effects of a group of actions from the effects of actions outside the group. This is indicated by setting the mustIsolate attribute to "true" on a group action. If a group action is isolated, then any object used by an action within the group cannot be accessed by any action outside the group until the group action as a whole completes. Any concurrent actions that would result in accessing such objects are required to have their execution deferred until the completion of the group action. In the first example above, if the read actions on the temperature and pressure attributes are wrapped in a group action with mustIsolate set to "true", then the temperature and pressure values read are assured to be consistent, since no changes can intervene between the two reads. Similarly, if an isolated group is used for the second action, then the update is assured to be consistent, since no action outside the group can change the list until the update is complete. Note" The term "isolation" is used here in the sense used in traditional transaction terminology. An execution engine may achieve any required isolation using locking mechanisms, or it may simply sequentialize execution to avoid concurrency conflicts. Isolation is different than the property of "atomicity", which is the guarantee that a group of actions either all complete successfully or have no effect at all. Atomicity generally requires a rollback mechanism to prevent committing partial results. This is beyond the scope of what can be guaranteed by the basic action semantics.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 6 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

No notation

  • Key: UML22-878
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8499
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    In ConditionalNode: "A notational gloss is provided for this frequent situation." There is no notation

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 6 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Semantics of isAssured/isDeterminant in conditional node

  • Key: UML22-875
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8493
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Semantics of isAssured/isDeterminant in conditional node, the phrase "concurrently yield a value" sounds it is referring to tests that complete at the same instant in time. Would be clearer to drop "concurrently", since it isn't the concurrency that isAssured/isDeterminant is concerned with, it's the results.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 6 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Add constraint in LoopNode

  • Key: UML22-874
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8491
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Add constraint in LoopNode that loop variable inputs should not have edges coming out of them. Otherwise, the value could leave the pin in the middle of the loop.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 6 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: Activities

  • Key: UML22-873
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8490
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Loop node owns output pins as loop input variables, but pins must be owned by actions under the input/output associations in UML 2 (not in UML 1.5).

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 6 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    The filer is referring to the loop variable pins.

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

Section: 17.5.3

  • Key: UML22-890
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8514
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Under sub-section Notation, the last sentence says to see "ParameterableElement (from Templates)" on page 679 (and its subclasses)." What subclasses? I find none listed or diagrammmed in any figure.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 8 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 17.5.3

  • Key: UML22-889
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8513
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Delete sub-section Attributes or change wording to "None." Add that the association boundElement also subsets Element::owner as shown in fig. 428. Change the association name from "template":TemplateSignature to "signature" in the text or change fig. 428 association name from "signature" to "template." The Examples sub-section makes no sense. ClassifierTemplate and PackageTemplate are not to be found in this document. Do you mean Classifier (pg 689) and Package (pg 696)? This section is TemplateBinding but no specializations are listed or referenced. Clarify this sub-section, in particular provide page numbers for the sections to which the reader is referred. Or change the name of Classifier to ClassifierTemplate and Package to PackageTemplate. If name change is made then change the names in all figures that contain these template names

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 8 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see page 376 of ptc/2006-04-01

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

Section: 17.5.1

  • Key: UML22-888
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8512
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add associaton owningSubstitution:TemplateParameterSubstitution[0..1] that subsets Element:owner as shown in fig. 428.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 8 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 17.4

  • Key: UML22-885
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8509
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    PprimitiveTypes strike me more as an enumeration or list than a package. Consider changing them to an enumeration or list. Boolean is derived from George Boole and is generally capitalized whenever used. Please be consistent in capitalization of "Boolean" when using the word as an adjective. Sometimes on page 673 it is capitalized ("The Boolean condition") but other times it is not ("boolean type," "boolean attribute," and "boolean expression"). Delete sub-sections Attributes, Associations, and Constraints or change the wording to "None.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 8 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 17.3.1

  • Key: UML22-884
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8508
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    If model is an abstraction of the physical system shouldn't the name in fig. 419 be in italics? Attribute viewpoint:String[*] does not have the same multiplicity as shown in fig. 419 which is the default multiplicity of [0..*] as indicated on page 14 of this document. Delete sub-sections Associations and Constraints or change the wording to "None." Add the word "open" between small and triangle in 1st sent. of Notation. Typo - 2nd sent of sub-section Notation, change "is" to "are."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 8 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see page 371 of ptc/2006-04-01

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

Section: 17.5.2

  • Key: UML22-887
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8511
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Delete the sub-sections Attributes and Constraints or change the wording to "None." Association templateBinding:TemplateBinding[*] subsets Element::ownedElement according to fig. 428. Change wording in para 3, sent. 2 of sub-section Semantics to "...by expanding the templates to which it binds, since..." The Examples sub-section makes no sense. ClassifierTemplate and PackageTemplate are not to be found in this document. Do you mean Classifier (pg 689) and Package (pg 696)? This section is TemplateableElement but no specializations are listed or referenced. Clarify this sub-section, in particular provide page numbers for the sections to which the reader is referred.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 8 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see page 374 0f ptc/2006-04-01

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

Section: 17.5.1

  • Key: UML22-886
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8510
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Delete sub-sections Attributes and Constraints or change wording to "None." Add the association owningDefault:TemplateParamenter[0..1] that subsets owner. Fig. 427 shows this.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 8 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Clarify the semantics of minimum multiplicity > 0 for streaming parameters

  • Key: UML22-881
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8503
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Clarify that the semantics of minimum multiplicity > 0 for streaming parameters that it is required sometime during execution

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 7 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Figure 209 of Activites

  • Key: UML22-880
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8502
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Figure 209 of Activites, and entry in index: <<singleCopy>> should be replaced with <<singleExecution>>.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 6 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    In Activities, Activity, Figure 209, replace "singleCopy" with "singleExecution".

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

Add constraints on conditional and loop nodes (02)

  • Key: UML22-877
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8497
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Add constraints on conditional and loop nodes that body outputs are pins on action contained in the body part of the clauses

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 6 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see page 361 of ptc/2006-04-01

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

Add constraints on conditional and loop nodes

  • Key: UML22-876
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8496
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Add constraints on conditional and loop nodes that decider is an output pin of an action in the test body, and that its type is boolean

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 6 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

UML 2 Super / Conformance / inconsistencies

  • Key: UML22-853
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8459
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Mr. Jim Amsden)
  • Summary:

    Summary:

    There are two fundamental inconsistencies in the way that conformance is defined:
    · BasicActions and BasicInteractions, which are defined at L1, both reference Signal and Event, defined in CommonBehaviors::Communications, which is defined at L2.
    · Profiles are defined as L2 but Appendix C defines a profile for level L1. Clearly, if L1 is to support profiles, the definition of profiles needs to be defined at that level as well or a lower level.

    Recommendation:

    For the first item, move CommonBehaviors::Communications from L2 to L1

    For the second item, a minimal impact resolution is to retain the L1 system as such, but to include it as part of compliance level L2. In general, the standard profiles should be specified explicitly as belonging to the appropriate compliance levels in section 2.4

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Fri, 4 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see pages 335 - 336 of ptc/2006-04-01

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

UML 2 Super / General / missing merges

  • Key: UML22-852
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8458
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Mr. Jim Amsden)
  • Summary:

    Compliance level L3 references, but does not merge:

    Superstructure::Logical View::UML::CommonBehaviors

    Superstructure::Logical View::UML::CompositeStructures

    There are a number of diagrams in the UML2 Rose model that contain unlabeled dependencies between packages. In particular, Activities, Interactions, StateMachines, and UseCases have dependencies to CommonBehaviors that are unlabeled. See diagram UML/Behavior Packages and UML/UML Top-Level Packages.

    Since CommonBehaviors does not contain any classes, it does not necessarily need to be merged into any compliance level. Instead, the packages it contains are merged as needed.

    Recommendation:

    Remove all unlabeled dependencies between packages, or mark them as either package imports or package merges as needed.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Fri, 4 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

UML 2 Super / General / improper subsetting

  • Key: UML22-851
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8457
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Mr. Jim Amsden)
  • Summary:

    The following properties (in the subsets constraints) are unresolved in their unmerged, containing package. The problem is that the properties in these subsets constraints are not defined in the unmerged package. They will be defined in the various compliance levels once the packages have been merged. However, the package merge rules (and the desire to be able to check OCL constraints on unmerged packages) require all references to be resolved before the merge.

    Superstructure::LogicalView::UML::CompositeStructures::InternalStructures::Property::_structuredClassifier

    {subsets classifier}

    Superstructure::LogicalView::UML::Components::BasicComponents::Component::realization

    {subsets clientDependency}

    Superstructure::Logical View::UML::Deployments::Artifacts::Artifact::manifestation {subsets clientDependency}

    Recommendation:

    These are either resolved by including the proper superclass in the unmerged package so that the properties are visible, or copying the associations from another merged package in order to make the properties visible.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Fri, 4 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see pages 330 - 333 of ptc/2006-04-01

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

UML 2 Super / General / invalid subset rule too strict

  • Key: UML22-855
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8462
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Mr. Jim Amsden)
  • Summary:

    The redefinition rule [4] of Property on page 127 of ptc/04-10-02 restricts a navigable property from being redefined by a non-navigable property. Unfortunately, this rule is violated in many parts of the model.

    Recommendation:

    As a practical resolution for this problem, it is suggested that this constraint be removed since it does not seem to provide any benefits and yet prevents the realization of the agreed design intent

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Fri, 4 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

UML 2 Super / Kernel / excessive restriction on redefinition

  • Key: UML22-854
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8461
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Mr. Jim Amsden)
  • Summary:

    In section 7.3.44 on pg. 130 of ptc/04-10-02 there is a constraint that states: “All redefinitions shall be made explicit with the use of a

    {redefines <x>}

    property string.” Unfortunately, this is violated in numerous places in the metamodel. This results in numerous inconsistencies in the metamodel.

    Recommendation:

    As a practical resolution with minimal impact, it is recommended that this restriction be removed. This means that the use of the same association end name for a given association end implies a redefinition of the corresponding association end in an ancestor class.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Fri, 4 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 14.3.3

  • Key: UML22-861
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8469
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    Typo: Constraint 3 contains the word "IntectionFragment". Should be InteractionFragment

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sat, 5 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 16.3.6

  • Key: UML22-860
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8468
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Delete sub-section Attributes or change wording to "None." For the associations include:Include[*] and extend:Extend[*], the "Specialized Classifier.feature" is not shown in fig. 401. Add OCL notation to constraints [2] and [3] or indicate the OCL notation is not available. Add an ending ")" to Additional Operation OCL notation--one missing. Typo - 1st sent. of para 3 of Semantics, change "describe" to "Describes." There is no association or navigable link between UseCase and Actor shown in fig. 401. Add appropriate link(s).

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 4 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: Activities, ExpansionRegion (04)

  • Key: UML22-869
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8485
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    In ExpansionRegion, clarify that that input pins on expansion regions (introduced by merge with CompleteStructuredActivities) provide values that are constant across the execution of the region, and that output pins are not allowed.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 6 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: Activities, ExpansionRegion (03)

  • Key: UML22-868
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8484
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    ExpansionRegion: require that all input collections have the same number of elements at runtime.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 6 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: Activities, ExpansionRegion (02)

  • Key: UML22-867
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8483
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    ExpansionRegion: remove "If an expansion region has outputs, they must be collections of the same kind and must contain elements of the same type as the corresponding inputs." Inputs and outputs of expansion regions do not need to correspond, this was intended to refer to the pins that flows to the output. Add general constraints on types of source and targets of object flows rather than have the a special case for expansion nodes.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 6 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 16.3.5

  • Key: UML22-859
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8467
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add the generalization "NamedElement (from Kernal)" on page xxx (page 100 I believe). This generalization is shown in fig. 401 and mentioned in the Description sub-section. Delete sub-sections Attributes and Constraints or change wording to "None." In sub-section Semantics, I'm not certain that the following statement is reflected in fig. 401 "Since the primary use of the include relationship is for reuse of common parts, what is left in a base use case is usually not complete in iteself by dependent on the included parts to be meaningful. This is relfected in the direction of the relationship, indicating that the base use case depends on the addition but not vice versa." Reword 2nd sent of para 2, Semantics, to "All of the behavior of the included use case is executed...." or "The included use case behavior is executed at a single..."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 4 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 16.3.4

  • Key: UML22-858
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8466
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Fig. 401 shows 2 associations: extend:Extend{*] and useCase:UseCase[1]. Define these in the sub-section Associations. Delete sub-section Attributes or change the wording to "None."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 4 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see page 342 of ptc/2006-04-01

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

Section: 16.3.3

  • Key: UML22-857
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8465
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Under sub-section Generalizations add the generalization "NamedElement (from Kernal)" on page xxx" (page 100 I believe). This generalization is diagrammed in fig. 401. Delete sub-section Attributes or change wording to "None."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 4 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Indeed. This was a missed generalization.

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

UML 2 Super / Common Behaviors / missing multiplicites

  • Key: UML22-856
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8463
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Mr. Jim Amsden)
  • Summary:

    In figure 318 on page 463, the multiplicities of DurationObservationAction::duration and TimeObservationAction::now are not specified. This results in violations of the redefinition rules for these association ends.

    Recommendation:

    Set the multiplicities for these association ends to 1, to conform to the multiplicity of WriteStructuralfeatureAction::value association end that they redefine

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Fri, 4 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: Activities, ExpansionRegion

  • Key: UML22-866
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8482
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    ExpansionRegion, clarify wording in description: expansion nodes are not input pins.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 6 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: Activities

  • Key: UML22-865
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8481
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    <pre> ExceptionHandler, clarify working of constraint [1]: "[1] The exception body may not have any explicit input or output edges." It should say the exception handler and its input object node are not the source or target of any edge. </pre>

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 6 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

ValueSpecificationAction, Attribute section, is missing the return pin

  • Key: UML22-864
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8478
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    ValueSpecificationAction, Attribute section, is missing the return pin

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 6 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: Actions

  • Key: UML22-863
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8477
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Figure 141, remove import from IntermediateActions to Communications. Add an import from BasicActions to Communications

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 6 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: Common Behavior

  • Key: UML22-862
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8476
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Common Behavior: why does Figure 326 refer to Signal from Communications, but not Operation form Communications? (it looks like Communications can refer to Kernel:Operations rather than defining its own).

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 6 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 15.3.14

  • Key: UML22-841
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8443
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Association guard:Constraint[0..1] subsets ownedElement. Need to add this to the definition. Association replacedTransition:Transition[0..1] redefined redefinedElement. Need to add this to the definition. Association /redefinitionContext:Classifier[1] subsets redefinitionContext. Need to add this to the definition. Also need to add OCL notation. Constraint [2] - delete last paranthesis. Add OCL notation or a note that OCL cannot express constraint [7]. Add OCL notation or a note that OCL cannot express Additional operation [1]. Typos - pg. 626, para 4, sent 2, add "s" to transition. - pg. 627, 1st bullet under sub-section Example, first sent, delete the final "s" in "states." Why aren't he bulleted statements under sub-section Enabled (compound) transitions constraints? The activities named in fig. 396 ("MinorReq = ID;" and "MajorReq = ID:") are not the same format as indicated in Table 20 ("MinorReq := Id;") - the colon is missing before the equal sign in the figure.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 3 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: Appendix A

  • Key: UML22-840
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8440
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    A use case diagram is a structural diagram. Similar to operations in classes in shows the structure of the system services. Therefore a use case is a specialized Classifier and not Behavior like model elements of all other behavior diagrams (interaction, activity, and state machine).

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 3 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 15.3.11

  • Key: UML22-837
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8416
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Attributes are derived and need this noted. Also add OCL notation to the derived attributes as per the "How to Read this Specification" (page 14)indicates will be done. isComposit=(region>1) - modified from page 14. isOrthogonal=(region>=2) ??? isSimple=((region=0) and (submachineState=0)) ??? isSubmachineState=(SubmachineState>0) I question the multiplicity of the association connection:ConnectionPointReference[*]. Shouldn't it be [0..*] because the association wouldn't exist if the state was simple or compound. Ths association also subsets ownedMember and that needs to be added to the definition. According to fig. 354, the multiplicity for connectionPoint:Pseudostate is 0..8 and this association subsets ownedElement. I question the multipliticy of the association deferrableTrigger:Trigger[*]. Do all state have MULTIPLE deferrable triggers? First paragraph on page 605 says "a state may specify a set or event types that may be deferred in that state." Associations doActivity:Behavior[0..1], entry:Behavior[0..1], and exit:Behavior[0..1] all subset ownedElement according to fig. 354. Association redefinedState:State[0..1] redefines redefinedElement. This needs stating in the definition. I question the multiplicity of region:Region[*]. If the state is a simple state it has no regions (page 600). Change the multiplicity to [0..*] here and in fig. 354. Association /redefinitionContext:Classifier[1] subsets redefinitionContext and needs mentioning in the definition. Add OCL notation to constraint [3]. OCL font format doesn't appear correct for constraint [4]. Constraint [7] repeats constraint [1] but is just worded and expressed slightly differently. Should bulleted statements on page 605 immediately above Entering a non-orthogonal state be added as constraints? Should an exit point be added to the ATM state machine in fig. 391?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 1 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 15.3.11

  • Key: UML22-836
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8415
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    No mention of figures 387 and 390 are made in the text. Reference figure 387 on pages 600 (Composite state) and page 606 (Entering an orthogonal composite state). Reference figure 390 at end of paragraph 2 on page 613. Typos - In sentence under Exiting an orthogonal state, change "is" in last sentence to "are." - Under Composite state (pg 609) Upper case Decomposition compartment. - Page 606, Under Exiting non-orthogonal state, change "from a composite state..." to "from a simple composite state..." to agree with the line just above Simple state in sub-section Description on page 600. - Page 606, first paragraph, change "il defined" to "ill defined." - Page 612, under Examples, change "sub state machine" to "submachine state." - Page 614, first line, change "In Figure 391 this state machine" to "In Figure 391 the state machine of figure 389 an figure 390." - Page 614, first line of Rational change "Submachine states...has been..." to "State machines...have been...."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 1 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Minor typos and consistency with figures.

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

Action Semantics Section: 9.5

  • Key: UML22-835
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8413
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Codesic Consulting, Inc. ( Jeff Barnes)
  • Summary:

    The JumpAction->Inputs section documents jumpOccurrence:RuntimeInstance[1..1]. The second sentence of the documentation contains a typo that makes the meaning of the documentation unclear. Please re-write the second sentence.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Tue, 1 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Appendix C.1

  • Key: UML22-839
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8439
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    script is an artifact stereotype on compliance level L1. Artifact is an element on level L2. That's a mismatch.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 2 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Indeed. The entry should be moved to compliance level L2.

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

Section: 15.3.12

  • Key: UML22-838
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8433
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Delete sub-section Attributes or change line to "None." Association connectionPoint:Pseudostate[*] subsets ownedMember. According to fig. 354, there is an association submachineState:State[*] that needs to be added and defined in the text. Association extendedStateMachine:StateMachine[*] redefines:redefinableElement I think. Figure 355 is overwritten by fig. 356 and this association is hard to read. In fig. 355, classifier StateMachine is not generalized or connected to any other classifier in the figure. Draw appropriate connections or make the StateMachine classifier a separate figure. Correct spelling of "conectionPoint" in OCL notation for constraint [3]. Add OCL notation to Additional Operations [1], [3], and [4] or otherwise note that OCL notation is not available for these operations. Typos - Para immediately above Run-to-completion and concurrency (pg. 671), change "... the invoked object complete..." to "...the invoked object completes..." - Page 619, 7th para. change "is" to "are." - Page 612, 1st para, last sent., does the capitalization of "verifyTransaction" need changing? - Personal preference for easier understanding place commas in "for, e.g., classes" on page 623 in sub-section Rational (second such labeled sub-section). Complete the sentence/paragraph for the last paragraph under StateMachine extension.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 1 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Specification: Action Semantics Section: 9.5

  • Key: UML22-834
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8412
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Codesic Consulting, Inc. ( Jeff Barnes)
  • Summary:

    Figure 27 illustrates a directed association from JumpHandler to HandlerAction. Yet the documentation on page 115 says there is a reference from HandlerAction to JumpHandler (jumpHandler 1..1). Where is the association from HandlerAction to JumpHandler? The multiplicity at the (non-navigable) JumpHandler end of A_HandlerAction_JumpHandler is 0..*.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Tue, 1 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 15.3.10

  • Key: UML22-833
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8411
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Delete sub-section Attributes or change line to "None." Fig. 354 shows that association transition:Transition[*] subsets ownedMember as does association subvertex:Vertex[*]. Fig. 355 shows that association extendedRegion:Region[0..1] redefines redefinedElement and that association /redefinitionContext:Classifier[1] subsets redefinitionContext. Within subsections Additional constraints and Additional operations stateMachine often appears with a lower case "m." Typo - delete the apostrophy starting the sentence in Additional constraing [2].

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 15.3.9

  • Key: UML22-832
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8410
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Font style is not consistent in the list of literal values for PseudoStateKind. Delete sub-sections Attributes and Associations or change line to "None."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Minor editorial – follow suggestions

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

Section: 15.3.16

  • Key: UML22-843
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8445
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    The multiplicities for the association definitions do not agree with those shown in fig. 354. Typo - Additional operation [1], change "sate" to "state." Question - Are the "?" and "-- no other valid cases possible" legal OCL notation?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 3 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see pages 319/320 of ptc/2006-04-01

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

Section: 15.3.15

  • Key: UML22-842
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8444
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add OCL notation to the constraints or a note that OCL notation is unavailable for these constraints. Typos - first bullet of sub-section Semantics, change "occur" to "occurs." - second bullet of sub-section Semantics, cange "stat" to "state." If a transition of kind external leaves the border of the composite state, how can it end at the composite state itself? Please provide a figure to illustrate this.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 3 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

UML 2 Super / Collaborations / improper subset

  • Key: UML22-850
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8456
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Mr. Jim Amsden)
  • Summary:

    In figure 100 of ptc/04-10-02, the association end Classifier::representation subsets “Classifier::occurrence” and should subset “Classifier::collaborationUse”. The fix should also be applied to the Associations specification for Classifier in the Composite Structures chapter on page 175.

    Recommendation:

    Change figure 100 as specified above.

    In the entry for Associations of Classifier on page 175, replace the parenthesized expression:

    Subsets Classifier.occurrence

    By the expression:

    Subsets Classifier.collaborationUse

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Fri, 4 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Profiles::ObjectNode has wrong default multiplicity

  • Key: UML22-849
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8454
  • 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 1.4.2 — Fri, 4 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Profiles::ExtensionEnd has wrong default multiplicity

  • Key: UML22-848
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8453
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    ExtensionEnd should have a default multiplicity of 0..1 which differs from the inherited MultiplicityElements::lower which defaults to 1. I think therefore that there needs to be an override by ExtensionEnd redefining lower with a different default.

    Recommendation:

    Redefine inherited MultiplicityElement::lower to have default 0 in ExtensionEnd.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Fri, 4 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    OK, that is a more accurate specification.

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

Should Profiles::Image be an Element?

  • Key: UML22-845
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8449
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Mr. Jim Amsden)
  • Summary:

    Should Image a subclass of Element? Image and diagram interchange may benefit from reflective capabilities inherited from MOF. Having Image, and all UML metaclasses be a subclass of Element may make it easier for MOF based tools to reflectively navigate the visual notation.

    Recommendation:

    Make Profiles::Image a subclass of Element

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Fri, 4 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see pages 323/324 of ptc/2006-04-01

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

Section: 15.3.7

  • Key: UML22-844
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8446
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Inconsistent in the spelling of pre- and post-condition vs pre condition and post condition. Other sections use pre- and post-condition. Association postCondition:Constraint[0..1] subsets ownedElement and preCondition:Constraint[0..1] subsets guard according to fig 357. Question: Why doesn't association postCondition:Constraint subset guard instead or inaddition to ownedElement? For other concepts where pre- and post-conditions exist, they both subset guard

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 3 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Remove redundant superclass for Element

  • Key: UML22-847
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8452
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Mr. Jim Amsden)
  • Summary:

    Abstractions::Comments::Comment is a subclass of Abstractions::Comments::Element which is a subclass of Abstractions::Ownerships::Element. The resolution to issue 6279 redefines package merges such that the Element superclass of Element should be removed.

    Recommendation:

    Delete Abstractions::Comments::Element, and make Comment a subclass of Ownerships::Element. Move the associations from Comments::Element to Ownerships::Element

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Fri, 4 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

OCL for Property::opposite() is incorrect:

  • Key: UML22-846
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8451
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Mr. Jim Amsden)
  • Summary:

    OCL for InfrastructureLibrary::Core::Constructs::Property::opposite() should it be:

    opposite =

    if owningAssociation->empty() and association.memberEnd->size() = 2 then

    let otherEnd = (association.memberEnd - self)->any() in

    if otherEnd.owningAssociation->empty() then otherEnd else Set{} endif

    else Set {}

    endif

    Recommendation:

    Fix the operation definition.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Fri, 4 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 15.3.8

  • Key: UML22-831
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8409
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Typo - Change "Pseudostate are" to "Pseudostates are" in sub-section Description. Fig. 354 says that the association stateMachine:Statemachine[0..1] subsets namespace. Also correct "Statemachine" to S"tateMachine." Fig 354 also shows an association state:State[0..1] that subsets owner. Correct the number of parantheses for constraints [1], [4], and [6]. Bold the word "and" in constraint [3.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Minor editorials – change following suggestions

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

Section: 15.3.7

  • Key: UML22-830
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8408
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Typos - "In a protocol state machine, several transitions can refer to the same operation as illustrated below." Change below to "Figure 366" as the figure is above the text in the current version. Para. above Unreferred Operations, change "stat" to "state." Association "\referred:Operation[0..*]" needs the slash direction changed to "/" and the multiplicity of fig. 357 doesn't agree with that listed in the text. Change "No additional attributes" to "None."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Minor editorials

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

Section: 14.3.26

  • Key: UML22-817
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8350
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Typos - Place a period "." at the ent of i) and iii); In first line of Style guidelines sub-section, change "are" to "is."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 24 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 14.3.25

  • Key: UML22-816
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8349
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    The associations toBefore:GeneralOrdering and toAfter:GeneralOrdering use "EventOccurrence" in the definition. OccurrenceSpecification appears to be the renamed "EventOccurrence." The class EventOccurrence is not defined as a concept in this document. However, the name is still used in many places. EventOccurrence occurs in the following places: figures 307, 308, and 347; pages 509 (weak sequencing # 3), 544, 549, and 794; and in the Frame row, Notation column of tables 14, 16, 18, and 19. Either change the class name or define the concept

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 24 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 15.3.1

  • Key: UML22-823
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8401
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Typo - Delete the word "of" from the first sent. of sub-section Descriptions. Delete sub-section Attributes or state "None" instead of "No additional attributes." The multiplicities for the associations entry:Pseudostate[1..*] and exit:Pseudostate[1..*] don't agree with figure 354. Change the word "refreshens" to "references" in association definition for state:State[0..1]. In sub-section Semantics, last words of para 2, change "pseudo states" to "pseudostates." Under sub-section Presentation Options change Figure "362" to "361" in the para talking about entry point and change Figure "361" to "362" in the para talking about exit point. Just thought I'd mention that when I printed a hardcopy (PDF using Adobe Acrobat Reader 6.0), the submachine state symbol in fig. 359 had a bold outline and the entry circle is normal weight whereas the submachine state symbol line weight in figs. 360-362 are normal weight as is the example on pg, 638. The exit circle in fig. 360 and on pg. 638 is in bold line weight. There also appears to be a difference in the line weights in the softcopy version.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 8.3.1

  • Key: UML22-822
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8387
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    Fig. 87 on page 157 shows a composite structure diagram. Therefore the horizontal line below the component name is missing (see 9.3.13 for composite structure notation).

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 27 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion: This line is optional. Revised Text: N/A Disposition: Closed, no change

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

Section: 15.3.6

  • Key: UML22-829
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8407
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Change "No additional attributes" to "None." The association conformance:ProtocolConformance[*] subsets ownedElement. Please add a specialization statement to the definition. Fig. 357 shows another association: interface:Interface[0..1] that subsets namespace. Add to associations or delete from fig. Constraint [3] is missing two ending parantheses but they may be found in constraint [4] as it has two extra. Delete the very small dot in front of the list of specifications in sub-section Semantics. "Depending on the context" is confusing in light of constraint [1] and "or they can be different" needs further explanation. Totally reword and redefine this paragraph. I, unfortunately, don't know enough to help you further. Typos - Reword to "Protocol state machine interpretation can be: Change "sub-statemachines" to "sub-state machines" in first line of next to last para in sub-section Semantics. In last para of sub-section Semantics, last word of second sent. should be "machines."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 11.3.42

  • Key: UML22-828
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8406
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Dr. Chokri Mraidha)
  • Summary:

    In the ReplyAction specification, the association replyValue is specified as an OutputPin which is inconsistant with the specification of this association on Figure 152 (p 241) where it is specified as an InputPin to ReplyAction. The specification page 300 should be changed to InputPin instead of OutputPin.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 8197 for disposition

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

Section: 14.3.20

  • Key: UML22-812
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8345
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    According to fig. 329 the association interaction:Interaction[1] subsets namespace and the association argument:ValueSpecification[*] is ordered and subsets ownedElement. Correct text to reflect fig. Constraint [3] change the last word from "Parameter" to "Argument." In sub-section Semantics, para. 4, delete the dash . Typo - First para., pg 540, put a space between "as" and "well" In sub-section Notation, begin a new paragraph with the second sent. of the current 3rd paragraph

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 24 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 14.3.19

  • Key: UML22-811
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8343
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Change class name for the association selector to OpaqueExpression (as per fig. 328) or change class name on fig. 328. Interaction:Interaction[1] subsets namespace according to the fig. Mention the specialization in the text definition. Typo - First sent. of Semantics change "OccurrenceSpecification" to "OccurrenceSpecifications."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 24 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 14.3.24

  • Key: UML22-815
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8348
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Change the name of the enumeration list to MessageSortKind on fig. 329, as the section heading, and in sub-section Description

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Thu, 24 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 14.3.21

  • Key: UML22-814
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8347
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    In sub-section Description, change enumerator name from MessageSort to MessageKind

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 24 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Notice that the Issue refers the wrong section. The correct section number is 14.3.22.

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

Section: 14.3.21

  • Key: UML22-813
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8346
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Since the description say that a MessageEnd represents what can and not what must occur at the end of a message and fig. 329 shows the multiplicity of the association to be 0..1, change the multiplicity of messate:Message from [1] to [0..1].

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 24 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 15.3.5

  • Key: UML22-827
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8405
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Typos - For consistency, spell as "pre- and post-conditions" in the Semantics sub-section

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 15.3.5

  • Key: UML22-826
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8404
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Typo - In sub-section Description, change "abide" to "abides." Under sub-section Attributes, change "No additonal attributes" to "None." According to fig. 357, associations specificMachine:ProtocolStateMachine[1] subsets source, subsets owner and generalMachine:ProtocolStateMachine[1] subsets target. Mention these specializations in the definitions. Change sent. under sub-section Constraints to "None."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 14.4

  • Key: UML22-819
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8352
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Be consistent in the use of the period (.) ending the statement in the reference column of the tables. Place a period at the end of the sentence under sub-section Graphic Paths, pages 554 and 561. First line, page 556 shange shows to show.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 24 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 14.3.29

  • Key: UML22-818
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8351
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Association invariant:Constraint[1] subsets ownedElement and association covered:Lifekube[1] redefines (not subsets/specializes) covered according to fig. 328. Typos - Last sentence of sub-section Semantics, change has to have and is to are.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 24 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 12.3.4

  • Key: UML22-821
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8357
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: CEA ( Gerard Sebastien)
  • Summary:

    p 346, keyword «singleExecution» is used for activities that execute as a single shared execution. p 347, keyword «singleCopy» is used in figure is used to specify single execution. Anyway use an uppercase for the first letter of the keyword, as done for Precondition and Postcondition.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 25 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Pre and postconditions use lowercase first letter like all keywords, see Figure 207.

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

Section: 11.3.5

  • Key: UML22-820
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8356
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Dr. Chokri Mraidha)
  • Summary:

    The specification says: "If isReplaceAll is false and the structural feature is unordered and nonunique, then adding an existing value has no effect." This should be replaced by: "If isReplaceAll is false and the structural feature is unordered and UNIQUE, then adding an existing value has no effect."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 25 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 15.3.3

  • Key: UML22-825
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8403
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Change "No additonal attributes." to "None."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 15.3.2

  • Key: UML22-824
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8402
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Fig. 354 shows the association owningState:State[*]. Please add this to the sub-section or delete it from the diagram. Also, explain how a state can have multiple final states as indicated by the multiplicity in the figure. In the sub-section Semantics, the first sentence seems to contradict constraint number [4]. Please clarify more fully how a final state may be entered if there can be no entry behavior.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 14.3.17

  • Key: UML22-810
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8341
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Change the name of this enumeration to InteractionOperatorKind and add "break" to the list of Literals in the text

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 24 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 14.3.16

  • Key: UML22-809
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8340
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Typo - 2nd sent. under sub-section Description change represent to represents. Add specialization notes to definitions for associations. Association fragment:InteractionFragment subsets ownedMember according to fig. 331 and is ordered. Typo - End the 2nd paragraph under sub-section Semantics with a period. Association guard:InteractionConstraint subsets ownedElement.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 24 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 14.3.15

  • Key: UML22-808
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8339
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Separate the associations into packages. Add the specialization for subsets namespace to enclosingOperand:InteractionOperand[0..1] and subets ownedElement for enclosingInteraction:Interaction[0..1] as shown in the appropriate figures.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 24 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 14.3.2

  • Key: UML22-797
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8323
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Multiplicity of the association does not agree with fig. 330. Change fig. to agree with text definition

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 23 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 13

  • Key: UML22-796
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8322
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    General comments: Add OCL notation to the constraints where possible. If not possible state that OCL notation is not available for the constraint. Either delete sub-section headings where there is no data for the sub-section or add the word "None." Make certain that the multiplicities for the associations agree between the text and the associated figures. There is inconsistency in representation of 0..* on figures, sometimes the figures use * to mean 0..* (according to the text definitions) and then sometimes 0..* is used. Several times the figures will note that an association is a redefinition of or subsets a class but the text does not mention this. Be certain to add the appropriate statement to the text definition.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 23 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue N/A for disposition

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

Section: 13.3.30

  • Key: UML22-795
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8320
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    The generalization "Dependencies" is not listed in fig. 316 under NamedElement. Add this to the figure. The association port:Port[*] is not diagrammed anywhere. Either remove this association from the text or add it to a figure. The sub-section Changes from UML 1.x indicates that the corresponding metaclass was changed from Event but names listed in the BNF definition are all children or grandchildren of the metaclass Event in fig. 317. I believe something needs to change or be clarified but I don't know what.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 14.3.13

  • Key: UML22-807
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8338
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Separate the associations into appropriate packages which are identified. Multiplicity of association lifeline:LifeLine[0..*] is not diagrammed as 0..*. The association is diagrammed as subsets ownedMember. The association event:MessageEnd is not diagrammed anywhere. If such an association exists, it should probably be diagrammed in fig. 329. Association message:Message[*] subsets ownedMember in fig. 329. Association action:Action[*] subsets ownedElement in fig. 330. Typos - 2nd paragraph, pg 527, 2nd sent. should be "Similarly the deteailed actions...are often omited in Interactions,..." Delete the word "are" from 1st sent. of 3rd para under Notation

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 24 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 14.3.14

  • Key: UML22-806
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8337
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Both associations are shown in fig. 331 as "subsets ownedElement" so please add this specialization to the definition text or remove notes from the figure.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 24 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 14.3.4

  • Key: UML22-799
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8325
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Attribute sub-section heading needs to be changed to Associations. Fig. 331 shows message:NamedElement[0..*] as an association

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 23 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 14.3.3

  • Key: UML22-798
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8324
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Association operand:InteractionOperand[1..*] subsets ownedElement according to fig. 332. Please add appropriate specializes comment to text. Typo - In the last sentence of sub-section Semantics for Loop change wording from "The loop construct represent..." to "The loop construct represents..."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 23 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 14.3.10

  • Key: UML22-803
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8329
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Typos - Under sub-section Notation, start 3rd paragraph with "For ExecutionSpecification..." In the last sentence of paragraph 3 of Notation write " "(and start and finish associations refer to the very same OccurrenceSpecification)."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 23 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 14.3.8

  • Key: UML22-802
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8328
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Typos - Correct Semantics sub-section sentence to "An execution event represents the start or finish of the execution of an action or a behavior."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 23 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 14.3.6

  • Key: UML22-801
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8327
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    If DescriptionEvent has a constraint that no other OccurrenceSpecification may appear below the OccurrenceSpecification that references the DescructionEvent on a given Lifeline in an InteractionOperand then a similar constraint should be added to the CreationEvent. "No other OccurrenceSpecification may appear above an OccurrenceSpecification which references a CreaationEvent on a given Lifeline in an InteractionOperand."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 23 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 14.3.5

  • Key: UML22-800
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8326
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Fig. 331 does not show package name for the generalization InteractionFragment. Typo - Change paragraph 3 of Notation to "A Continuation that is alone in an InteractionFragment is considered to be at the end of the enclosing InteractionFragment."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 23 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 13.3.29

  • Key: UML22-794
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8319
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    To be consistent with other multiplicities in fig. 318, add the association multiplicity to the figure. Mention that the association redefines value as shown in the figure. I am not familiar with BNF notation but should "<timeobservation>" be spelled "<timeObservation>?"

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sat, 26 Feb 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 13.3.28

  • Key: UML22-793
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8318
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    To be consistent with other multiplicities on the figure, add the multiplicities for the associations. Also mention that each association redefines minimum or maximum

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see ptc/2006-04-01 p 261

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

Section: 13.3.27

  • Key: UML22-792
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8317
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Under sub-section Description change "represent" to "represents." Under sub-section Notation, reword "Often a TimeExpression is a non-negative integer" to "Often a TimeExpression is an UnlimitedNatural number." Saying that often a TimeExpression is a non-negative integer implies that it may, at times, be a negative integer

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see ptc/2006-04-01 p 260

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

Section: 14.3.12

  • Key: UML22-805
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8331
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Change wording of definitions for associations to: "The OccurrenceSpecification referenced that comes before the OccurrenceSpecification referenced by after" and "The OccurrenceSpecification referenced that comes after the OccurrenceSpecification referenced by before"

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 23 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 14.3.3 & 14.3.11

  • Key: UML22-804
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8330
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    The Description for the concept Gate identifies the different roles gates play as formal, actual, and expression. Fig. 332 uses the terms formal and actual in the association names but not expression. I think expression is very descriptive and suggest changing the name of the association from cfragmentGateGate to expressionGate:Gate. This would require changing figure 332 and the text for CombinedFragment.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 23 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 13.3.26

  • Key: UML22-791
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8316
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add package name SimpleTime to association when:TimeExpression[1]. Fig. 318 shows that this association redefines when. Add the association for the package Communications as shown in fig. 317. This is when:ValueSpecification[1] that subsets ownedElement.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolved by resolution to issue 8894.

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

Section: 13.3.24

  • Key: UML22-790
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8315
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Fig. 317 shows signal:Signal[1] as an association of SignalEvent, not an attribute. Either correct text or figure. Delete the "." leading the first paragraph under the sub-section Notation

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 13.3.3

  • Key: UML22-776
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8297
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Multiplicities for the associations need to be added to the text for raisedException:Classifier[0..*], and changed in the associated diagrams to reflect the correct multiplicity (1 for method:Behavior (according to the text) and not * as shown in fig. 311 and 0..* for fig. 315). Unless "specializes" means the same thing as "redefines" change either the text for raisedException:Classifier from specializes to redefines or change fig 315. from redefines to specializes. Regardless, less confusion would occur if the text and the figure used the same word.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 18 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 13.3.2

  • Key: UML22-775
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8295
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Specialization mentioned for the association context:BehavioredClassifier[0..1] is not shown on figure 311. Multiplicities for ownedParameter:Parameter in the text do not agree with fig. 311. According to the text the ownedParameter:Parameter references a list of parameters "that can be given" which implies that no parameters may be given and therefore the multiplicity should be [0..*]. This is not what is shown in fig. 311. Multiplicities for remaining associations listed do not agree between the text and the diagrams (fig. 311 & 313). Multiplicities should probably be [0..*] which are not what are shown in figs. 311 & 313. Add the specialization for the association redefinedBehavior:Behavior in the text to agree with fig. 311. Specializations listed for the associations precondition:Constraint and postcondition:Constraint do not agree with fig. 313. Figure 313 shows that these associations subset ownedRule. Add OCL notation to the constraints where possible or indicate that OCL notation is not available.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    In the recent version of the specification, the specialization for context:BehavioredClassifier has already been added. The multiplicities mentioned above are all “” which is equivalent to “0..”. To correct the remaining mismatch between text and diagram:

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

Section: 13.3.14

  • Key: UML22-784
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8308
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add OCL notation or a note that OCL is unable define a notation for the constraints.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 13.3.12

  • Key: UML22-783
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8307
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    To be consistent, add the multiplicity for duration:Duration[1] to figure 318. Also, fig. 318 indicates that the association redefines value. Please indicate this in the text. I am not familiar with BFN but should "<urationobservation>" be "<durationObservation>"?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 13.3.4

  • Key: UML22-778
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8301
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Under sub-section Generalizations change "Class" to "Classifier." Figures use italics for displaying the concept name so you need to mention that BehavioredClassifier is an abstract class. Under sub-section Associations add package name BasicBehaviors before the first two associations. Add the multiplicity which should probably be [0..*] and if this is correct then change fig. 311 to agree with [0..*] or 1 as is currently indicated by the text. If the multiplicity is as indicated in fig. 311 , then change the text to agree. For the association ownedTrigger:Trigger[0..*], fig. 316 does not indicate this multiplicity. Make the two agree. Add OCL notation or a note that OCL can not supply notation. The sub-section Semantics describes two BehavioredClassifiers - an immediate event and an input event pool. Possibly consider making these children of BehavioredClassifiers or of Event (fig. 316), i.e. ImmediateEventOccurrence and InputEventPool, instead of just Event. If this is done then two additional concepts would need to be added.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 13.3.8

  • Key: UML22-780
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8303
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Under sub-section Description change "each of its instance" to "each of its instances." The multiplicity for the association ownedReception:Reception in the text does not agree with fig. 314. If it is [0..*} both text and fig. 314 need changing. Specializes Classifier.feature is not shown in fig. 314 as a specialization of Class but rather as a subset of Interface. Correct either the fig. 314 or text.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 13.3.7

  • Key: UML22-779
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8302
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add the specializes or subsets comment to the association to agree with fig. 317. Question: If the default value of a Boolean expression is true and its value changes to false would there be a corresponding changeExpression? To me the description and semantics imply that the default value for all Boolean expressions is set at false and this isn't true (e.g., MutliplicityElement attribute isUnique; Port attribute isService). Therefore, what happens when those values change?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 13.3.23

  • Key: UML22-789
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8314
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Under sub-section Description change wording to the following: "A signal is a specification of a type of send request instances that communicated..." and "The data...are representedas attributes..."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 13.3.22

  • Key: UML22-788
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8313
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add OCL notation to constraint [2] or the note that ICL notation is not definable

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 13.3.9

  • Key: UML22-782
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8305
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Reword the last sentence under sub-section Semantics. Assuming is not good. State clearly that the ending point in time and the starting point in time would swap. Change "assuming" to "because." Under sub-section Notation, change "Often a Duration is a non-negative integer expression..." to "Often a Duration is an UnlimitedNatural number..." Use of the word "often" implies that the notation could be expresses as a negative integer which, for Duration is an impossibility (at least in our universe

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 13.3.10

  • Key: UML22-781
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8304
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Figure 318 shows an association of specification:DurationInterval[1] that redefines specification. Add this to the text or delete the association from the figure. Delete the "." after "DurationConstaint in Figure 320 caption.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 13.3.19

  • Key: UML22-786
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8311
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    The multiplicity of the attribute language:String[*] in the text does not agree with that shown in fig. 311. Change fig. 311 to agree with the text. Delete the sub-section heading Examples are there none.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 13.3.15

  • Key: UML22-785
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8309
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    The association multiplicity in the text does not agree with fig. 314. If multiplicity is [0..*], both text and figure need to be changed

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 13.3.20

  • Key: UML22-787
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8312
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add OCL notation to or a note that OCL can not define the constraints

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 7.3.36

  • Key: UML22-777
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8298
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    BNF of a operation defines name and type of a parameter as mandatory fields. But both are optional

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 12.3.35

  • Key: UML22-755
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8255
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    I forgot to mention that "ordered" needs to be added to the following associations: results:OutputPin[0..*], loopVariable:OutputPin[0..*], and loopVariableInput:InputPin[0..*] as shown in fig. 196.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 7 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Also added subsets statements to results, loopVariable, and loopVariableInput.

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

Section: 12.3

  • Key: UML22-754
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8254
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add sections for front end node and back end node as mentioned in LoopNode

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 7 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 12.3.35

  • Key: UML22-753
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8253
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Correct multiplicities of associations so that the figures (195 and 196) agree with text. Add subsets statments to descriptions as shown in fig. 96. Typo - 5th para, 1st sent of Semantic sub-section change "body sections has" to "body section has." Delete sub-sections Notation and Examples as there are none.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 7 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Multiplicities are in consistent format. Headers issue is duplicate with 8155.

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

Section: 11.3.48

  • Key: UML22-767
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8273
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Under sub-section Notation, say see fig. 307

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 14 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 12.3.48

  • Key: UML22-766
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8272
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    In sub-section Description, structured activity node is noted as possibly having pins in CompleteStructuredActivities but no pins show any relationship to StructuredActivityNode in fig. 196. The association variable:Variable[0..1] is diagrammed (fig. 195) as belonging to the StructuredActivities package which does not agree in multiplicity and which does indicate that ownedMember is subsetted. A third association is also diagrammed in fig. 195. The association activity:Activity[o..1]. The figure also shows that this association redefines Activity. Figure 196 shows an association of containedEdge:ActivityEdge[?..*]. The figure shows multiplicity as * but in too many cases this should be shown as 0..* In addition, fig. 196 indicates that this association redefined contaniedEdge. Add OCL notation to constraints. In 3rd para of sub-section Semantics, last sentence add the verb "are" between tokens and left. Under the sub-section notation change the word enclosed to enclosing and add the appropriate notation symbology as it is not found in the descriptions of the children of StructuredActivityNode (conditionalNode, loopNode, or sequenceNode as shown in fig. 195) or in section 12.4.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 14 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 12

  • Key: UML22-771
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8280
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    General comments. Change the multiplicities on the figures to reflect 0..* instead of only . Some of the figures show it the 0.. way but most do not. If the text lists associations as [0..*] the associated figures should agree. Add OCL notation where possible and where there is no OCL notation available so note it. Delete sub-section headings where there is nothing under them or state None. For specialized concepts, if there is no new information to impart change the word from none to the phrase no new if there was some information in the original concept description sub-section. Generalizations are often not diagrammed in the appropriate Abstract Syntax package diagrams. For instance, the concept ControlNode generalized ActivityNode (from BasicActivities. Even though ActivityNode (the parent) is found in other packages, ControlNode (the child) is not. Should mention be made that ControlNode generalizes ActivityNode from the StructuredActivities package when ContronNode isn't in this package? If so, explain more fully in the How to Read This Specification Section (6.5) about the direct generalizations of a concept being generalized to all packages to which the parent belongs. Where a generalization is diagrammed not all of the "from" packages are listed as indicated in the concept text. Add all package names to the parent namespace or use ellipses to indicate that the list is longer than the namespace allows.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 14 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 12.4

  • Key: UML22-770
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8279
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Typos - remove the dash from between page and the number when referencing. ActivityNode Notation cell delete ExecutableNode and ControlNode as they just refer the reader elsewhere. ControlNode Notation cell delete FinalNode as it just refers reader elsewhere. Add ActivityNode and FlowNode. ExeceptionHandler Notation cell does not exactly agree with fig. 253. In fig. 253 the small square sits across the HandlerBodyNode instead of abutting it.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 14 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 12.3.38

  • Key: UML22-758
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8258
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    The multiplicity of association (CompleteActivities) inState:State[0..*] does not agree with fig. 189. Add OCL notation to constraint (BasicActivities) [1]. Add OCL notation to contraints (CompleteActivities. Add "(BasicActivities)" to the 1st Semantics sub-section

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 8 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 12.3.37

  • Key: UML22-757
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8257
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add OCL notation to constraints. In the Semantics (CompleteActivities) sub-section, third para change receiving to multireceiving and is to are. In Examples sub-section, the example describing fig. 286, last line indicates that the selection specifies that a query operatiion that takes an Order evaluates the customer object via the Order.customer:Party association. This is not what is diagrammed in the right side of fig. 286.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 8 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    OCL is duplicate with 6346.

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

Profiles:Extension End

  • Key: UML22-756
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8256
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Mr. Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    Profiles:Extension End - the spec needs to be clear on the behaviour of the

    {required}

    property of an extension if the extending stereotype in question
    has subclasses. Are those sub-stereotypes also required?

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Tue, 8 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 12.2

  • Key: UML22-765
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8271
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Fig. 196 shows no relationship between concepts immediately under Action (StructuredActivityNode and ActivityEdge) and any of the other concepts in the diagram. There are no connecting lines. If this is truly the case, break this single diagram into two or, as I think (after reading section 12.3.47) there should be some relationship shown between the concepts on the right side of the diagram and those on the extreme left, add lines to show the appropriate relationships.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 14 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 12.3.47

  • Key: UML22-764
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8270
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Fo the association executableNode:ExecutableNode[*] mention that it redefines containedNode as shown in diagram 195

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 14 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Also added ordered to the property string.

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

UML 2 super/templates/

  • Key: UML22-763
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8265
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    The definition of Classifier and ClassifierTemplateParameter indicates that there may be additional constraint placed on the parameter. Examples and notation also indicate that. However, there is no defined way to express that constraint in the metamodel (at the very least it is not obvious and is very open for interpretation). The metamodel must provide a meta-association from ClassifierTemplateParameter to Classifier to represent the constraining classifier.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see pages 232/233 of ptc/2006-04-01

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

Section: 12.3.43

  • Key: UML22-760
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8262
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    The association condition:Constraint[0..*] does not have the same multiplicity as fig. 192. Also the fig. indicates that the association subsets ownedElement. Add OCL notation to constraints

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 8 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 12.3.41

  • Key: UML22-759
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8261
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    The attribute effect:ParameterEffectKind[0..1] does not display this multiplicity in fig. 192. Reword the definition of attribute isStream:Boolean[1..1]=false to "Tells whether an input parameter may accept valuses or an output parameter post values while the behavior is executing." parameterSet:ParameterSet[0..*] listed as an attribute is an association. Please move it to the Association sub-section. The multiplicity for parameterSet:ParameterSet[0..*] does not agree with fig. 192. Add OCL notation to the constraints. Under sub-section Notation the last sent. says to "See notation for Operations." but gives no reference location. Is this supposed to be at page 105?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 8 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 12.3.49

  • Key: UML22-774
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8294
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Under sub-section Associations and Constraints change None to No new

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 14 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 8232 for disposition

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

Section: 12.3.46

  • Key: UML22-773
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8293
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    For sub-sections Associations and Constraints change the None to No new.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 14 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 8231 for disposition

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

Section: 13.1

  • Key: UML22-772
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8292
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Figures 307 and 308 are identical. Fig. 308 does not show what the text is describing as the Communication Domain Model(especially the paragraph on pg 457 starting with "As shown in Figure 308..."). Fig. 307 (and current 308) multiplicity for the association execution:BehaviorExecution is diagrammed as * but I wonder if it shouldn't be 0..* since the text indicates that an object may or may not cause the execution of a behavior. In the paragraph immediately following fig. 309, I believe that "The execution of a send action results in a send request, which results in a signal event occurrence (not a call event occurrence as stated). Minor editing call - In the first line on page 457, change synchronously and asynchronously to synchronous and asynchronous.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 16 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see pages 240/241 of ptc/2006-04-01

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

UML 2 Super/templates/inexplicable constraint on defaults

  • Key: UML22-762
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8264
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    The definition of TemplateParameter states that the parameter cannot own at the same time its parametered element and default element. The ownership of those two elements is mutually exclusive. It is also expressed as an OCL constraint. However, there is no justification offered in the spec for this constraint and one is not obvious. The constraint should be removed.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Indeed, cannot see any justification for this. Remove the constraint.

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

Section: 12.3.44

  • Key: UML22-761
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8263
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add package name to first Constraint sub-section. Left fig of fig. 295 needs an "s" on end. Shouldn't exception handler edges also be used in figures 296 and 303? If not, please clarify that the execption pin notation takes the place of the notation for the exception handler notation.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 9 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 12.3.51

  • Key: UML22-769
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8276
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Under sub-sections Associations and Constraints change none to no new

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 14 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 8232 for disposition

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

Section: 12.3.50

  • Key: UML22-768
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8275
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add "See "ValuePin (from BasicAQctions)" on page 309." immediately under concept heading. Change None to No new under the sub-section Associations. Delete the word "these" in the 3rd sentence of sub-section Semantics. Delete sub-section Examples as there are none.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 14 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Empty section issue is duplicate with 8231. Headers issue is duplicate with 8155.

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

Section: 12.3.34

  • Key: UML22-752
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8252
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add the package name IntermediateActivities to the first Associations sub-section. Add the subsets ownedElement statement (as shown in fig 193) to the association joinSpec:ValueSpecification[1..1]. Typo - remove the second a between containing and join in the 4th sent of the Notation sub-section 1st para. Change AcceptOrder behavior to SendInvoice behavior (as shown in fig 277) in the 1st sentence in the Examples sub-section. Add OCL notation to the constraints

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 7 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 12.3.33

  • Key: UML22-751
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8250
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    The order cancellation request example lends itself to enhancement. Fig. 274 could be enhanced if there was drawn a fork from invoice providing multiple edges of "no payment needed" or "make payment" with the "no payment needed" edge directly entering the join. Another fork could also be added after the AcceptPayment activity with one outgoing edge labeled "refund payment" with an edge to an activity "IssueRefund" then an edge going to the join. The explanation would reiterate that a token transfer, once initiated (SendInvoice activity), that is outside of the region is not interruptable. That since the SendInvoice activity is outside the region, no matter when the CancelOrder interrupt activity is issued, the SendInvoice activity is issued. However, corrective activities are needed to be performed before the CloseOrder actvity can be accomplished. This would be to either issue the invoice stating no payment is due or to issue a refund once payment is received. Additionally, wouldn't the CancelOrder activity more likely go to the merge before the CloseOrder activity instead of directly to the Activity Final? Otherwise, logically thinking, some order is out there not closed (just canceled). But then maybe (probably??) I'm missing the point of the example in which case a better explanation of the example needs to be provided.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 7 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 12.3.17

  • Key: UML22-738
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8234
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Multiplicity for StructuredActivities associations test:ActivityNode[0..*] and body:ActivityNode[0..*] and for CompleteStructuredActivities association bodyOutput:outputPin[0..*] do not agree with figures 195 and 196 respectively. Remove the second set of parantheses from the sub-section heading Associations ((CompleteStructuredActivities)).

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 4 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 12.3.16

  • Key: UML22-737
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8233
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Package CompleteActivities is not supported by fig. 182 as a generalization for this concept. Change Figure 293 reference in sub-section Notation to either figure 294 or, more likely, figure 301.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 4 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 12.3.15

  • Key: UML22-736
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8232
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Change "None" to "No new" for sub-sections Attributes, Associations, and Constraints

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 4 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 8670 for disposition

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

Section: 12.3.14

  • Key: UML22-735
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8231
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    For the Attributes, Associations, and Constraints sub-sections change "None" to "No new." This would be a good policy to follow for all "(as Specialized)" concepts where no new information is presented in the 'as Specialized" concept.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 4 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion: This was fixed as part of an editorial pass in a previous release. Revised Text: N/A Disposition: Closed, no change

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

MultiplicityElement BNF too restrictive

  • Key: UML22-731
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8226
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    The BNF for Notation in 9.12 of Infra and 7.3.32 of Super does not allow specification of uniqueness-designator without preceding order-designator.
    This seems too restrictive and is in fact inconsistent with the example in Fig 59 of Super which just shows

    {unique}

    .

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Thu, 3 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 12.3.13

  • Key: UML22-730
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8225
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Fig. 192 spells the association as ownedParameterSet (no "s"), does not express the same multiplitity as the text, and indicates that the association subsets ownedmember (need to capitalize the "M" in the figure). Make text and figure agree.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 3 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 12.3.6 & 12.3.19

  • Key: UML22-741
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8237
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    I'm confused. Fig. 178 shows ActivityFinalNode as a child of ControlNode in the BasicActivities sub-package, but in fig. 183 it is a "grandchild" of ControlNode and a child of FinalNod in the IntermediateActivities sub-package. Can a concept be both a child and a grandchild of the same higher-level concept, in this case ControlNode?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 4 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 12.3.19

  • Key: UML22-740
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8236
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Fig. 179 does not support generalizations of CompleteActivities, CompleteStructuredActivities, or IntermediateActivities packages. Add OCL notation

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 4 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 12.3.18

  • Key: UML22-739
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8235
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    The generalization from CompleteStructuredActivities is not supported by the figures. Typo - add a space before last sentence in para 2 of sub-section Description. (Before Note that... .) Change wording of definition of attribute isDeterminate:Boolean to "If true, the modeler asserts that at most only one of concurrent tests will succeed and therefore the choice of the clause is deterministic." The multiplicity of the CompleteStructuredActivities association result:OutputPin[0..*] is not what is shown on fig 196. Also change the definition to reflect that the association is ordered and subsets output. Delete sub-section headers Notation, Presentation Option, and Examples are there are none. Suggest changing wording in sent 5 para 4 of sub-section semantics to "If the isDeterminate attribute has a true value, the modeler asserts that at most only one of concurrent test sections will yeild a test value (the predecessor relationship may be used to enforce this assertion)."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 4 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 12.3.28

  • Key: UML22-746
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8242
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add OCL notation to the constraint

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 7 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 6425 for disposition

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

Section: 12.3.27

  • Key: UML22-745
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8241
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add OCL notation to the constraint. In sub-section Semantics, last sent. of para 1 change "concurrency" to "mode." Typo - In sub-section Presentation Option, put a space after Figure 259. On Page 399, change figure reference number to 261. In fig. 261, chane <<concurrent>> to <<parallel>>.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 7 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Missing OCL issue is a duplicate of 6452. Empty section issues are duplicates of 8155.

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

Section: 12.3.23

  • Key: UML22-744
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8240
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add subsets note to association protectedNode:ExecutableNode[1..1] as shown on fig. 197. Add OCL notation to constraints. Under sub-section Presentation Option change "interrupting edge is a zig-zag adornment..." to "exception handler is a zig-zag adornment..." Delete sub-section heading Rationale as there is none. Typo - Under sub-section Changes from previous UML in para 2 put a space between first and second sentences.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 7 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    OCL is duplicate with 6346. Headers issue is duplicate with 8155.

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

Used of "Redefines ...from Abstractions" in descriptions is misleading

  • Key: UML22-734
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8229
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    For example 11.7.2 of Infra: the name property states
    Redefines the corresponding attributes from Basic::NamedElement and Abstractions::Visibilities::NamedElement.

    However there is no redefinition occurring; nor would it make sense.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Thu, 3 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

BNF Notation for Operation is too restrictive

  • Key: UML22-733
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8228
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    In 11.8.2 (Infra) and 7.3.36 (Super) the notation BNF requires a

    {<oper-property}

    any time there is a ':' after the operation name

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Thu, 3 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Incomplete BNF for Property

  • Key: UML22-732
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8227
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    In BNF Notation for Property (11.3.4 of Infra, 7.3.44 of Super), <prop-modifier> is defined but never refered to

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Thu, 3 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 12.3.24

  • Key: UML22-743
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8239
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Change type font to italics on fig. 195. Change association handler:ExceptionHandler [0..1] so that fig. 197 and text agree. Add the subsets ownedElement note as shown in fig 197.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 7 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 12.3.22

  • Key: UML22-742
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8238
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add OCL Notation to constraints. Typo - remove 2nd "a" from sent3 of para 2 of sub-section Notation. Delete sub-section headers Presentation Option and Style Guidelines as there are none.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 4 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Missing OCL issue is a duplicate of 6452. Empty section issues are duplicates of 8155.

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

Section: 12.3.38

  • Key: UML22-748
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8245
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    I may be all wet (after all it is a Monday morning and raining here) but I think fig. 265 needs to be redrawn. The notation between the BuildComponent and InstallComponent activites is different than the notation between the InstallComponent and DeliverApplication activities yet the flow is basically the same. To agree with the left side of the flow between BuildComponent and InstallComponent activities, there should be a fork after the InstallComponent activity with an edge going to DeliverApplication activity and an edge going to a decisionNode. The decisionNode should have two edges exiting it. One labeled [more components to be installed] and going back to the InstallComponent activity; a second labeled [no more components to be installed] going to a Flow final node. The edge and the [no more components to be installed] label need to be removed from the edge going from the decisionNode to the DeliverApplication activity. Out of curiosity, why was a fork notation used and not the decisionNode with three control flow edges leading from it?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 7 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 12.3.30

  • Key: UML22-747
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8243
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add OCL notation to the constraints

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 7 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 6425 for disposition

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

Section: 12.3.32

  • Key: UML22-750
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8248
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add OCL notation

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 7 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 6425 for disposition

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

Section: 12.3.31

  • Key: UML22-749
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8247
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add OCL notation to constraints. Reword last sentence in last paragraph of sub-section Semantics. The entire sentence is confusing and unclear

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 7 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    The missing OCL issue is a duplicate of 6425.

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

Section: 12.1

  • Key: UML22-729
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8224
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Typo - Capitalize the "M" in ownedMember of the subsets not for the BehavioralFeature association ownedParameterSet:ParameterSet

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 3 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 12.3.12

  • Key: UML22-728
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8223
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Associated fig. 192 spells association name as ownedParameterSet (no "s"), does not show the same multiplicity, and shows that this association subsets ownedMember. Make fig and text agree.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 3 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Multiplicity in fig. 192 is “*” and in associations section “[0..*]”. Both are the same.

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

Section: 12.3.10

  • Key: UML22-727
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8222
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Associated fig. 184 does not show generalizations from FundamentalActivities for ActivityGroup or from Dependencies for NamedElement. The association activity:Activity[0..1] is not diagrammed in fig. 184. The description for the association represents:Element[0..1] needs rewording. Does it mean "An element constraining the behaviors invoked by the nodes in the partition" (constraining used as a verb) or "The element constraining behaviors that are invoked by the nodes in the partition (constraining used as the noun "constraining behaviors")? Fig. 184 shows additional associations: ContainedEdge:ActivityEdge[1..1] and containedNode:ActivityNode[1..1]. These need to be added to text. Add OCL notation to constraints.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 3 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 12

  • Key: UML22-726
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8220
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Use of the term edge(s)is confusing without the appropriate qualifier - "Control" or "Object." Suggest changing edge or edges to ControlEdge(s) and/or ObjectEdge(s) as appropriate

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 3 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 12.3.9

  • Key: UML22-725
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8219
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add the multiplicity [1..] to the association. Reword the description of the association parameter:Parameter. It could be interpreted as "the same object node will accept as well as provide parameter values." If that's not the case, i.e., one node accepts and another not provides (which I think is what is meant) then change the "and" to "or." Add OCL notation to the constraints. Constraint [3] needs rewording to something like "Activity parameter nodes must have neither incoming nor outgoing edges" or "Activity parameter nodes must have only incoming or outgoing edges but not both." Wording depends on meaning of constraint. Please clarify semantics to address the following questions. Are input values placed as tokens on input activity parameter nodes at the beginning of flows? Since this node is at the beginning of the flow is that why it has no incoming edges? If it has no incomind edges, how are the values placed on the node? Para 1 of semantics says to see semantics at ObjectNode, Action, and ActivityParamenterNode. This is the semantics section for ActivityParameterNode. Delete that phrase or correct it to the proper reference semantics section. The package CompleteActivities does not show any diagrams with ActivityParameterNode. Delete those package references on pg. 366 or explain why that package is referenced.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 3 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see pages 200/201 of prc/2006-04-01

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

Section: 12.3.4

  • Key: UML22-716
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8208
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    None of the multiplicities listed with the associations agree with the multiplicities diagrammed. Please correct either figures (probable) or the text. Associations in the text do not mention any subsets that are illustrated in the associated figures. There is no figure given for Activity in the IntermediateActivity Package but several references to that package (pg 343, 345. Please add a figure for that package for Activity or add Activity to one of the IntermediateActivity figures. Figure 211 is not discussed and appears to give no added value to the section unless figure 210 should contain an action to create a Trouble Ticket.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 1 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    The multiplicities only differ in format.

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

Section: 12.3.2

  • Key: UML22-715
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8207
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    According to fig. 187 the associations localPrecondition:Constraint[0..*] and localPostcondition:Constraint[0..*] are subsets of ownedElement. In addition, the multiplicity shown in the fig does not agree with the multiplicity of the text for either association. Para 1, pg 338, sentence 3 appears to have an extra word - tokens - before control tokens. If this isn't extra, then rewrite sentence to make it more clear. The Rationale is a very good description of what an Action is and I suggest placing that paragraph in the Description section. The paragraph for the rationale is not really a rationale or justification--it is a description.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 1 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 12.2

  • Key: UML22-714
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8206
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Remove duplicate redefines activity statement for association activity between StructuredActivityNode and Activity.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 1 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 7099 for disposition

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

Section: 12.3.8

  • Key: UML22-721
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8215
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Delete the package name "(CompleteStructuredActivities)" after Attributes because ActivityNode is not part of that package according to the figures. Add subsets notations to the associations as shown in the figures. Change the multiplicities of the associations so that the figures and the text agree. Add OCL notation to the constraints

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 2 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 12.3.7

  • Key: UML22-720
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8214
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add IntermediateActivities to the section header list of packages. Typo - remove "that" from the first sentence. Add appropriate subsets information to the associations as shown in the diagrams. Make the text and diagram multiplicities agree for the associations. Add OCL notation to the constraints

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 2 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 12.3.6

  • Key: UML22-719
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8213
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Delete the headers Presentation Option and Style Guidelines as there are none. "In Figure 222, two ways to reach an activity final exist;..." the figure number needs to be changed to 223

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 2 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 11.3.25

  • Key: UML22-683
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8170
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add the superclass pointer "(from Kernal)" to fig. 143. No operations are indicated in fig 143. Constraint [2] appears to have an operation name missing or misspelled

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 28 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 11.3.24

  • Key: UML22-682
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8169
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    If this is not an action why is it discussed in Actions? Move to appropriate Chapter. Wouldn't the action be more like writing to LinkEndDestroyData? If it stays in this chapter please clarify the introduction and description especially explaining how this is different from LinkEndData. Also need to clarify/explain statement "Qualifer values are used in CompleteActions." I don't see a fit with that statement in this section. Attribute in fig 150 is isRemoveDuplicates:Boolean = false so change either the figure or the attribute name in the text. Add OCL notation to Constraints. Constraint [1] typo in "DestroyLinkActiuon" Constraint [2] needs to emphasize that the type UnlimitedNatural is >0. Delete the header Examples as there are none. Typo in Rationale - "LinkeEndDestructionData"

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 2 Jan 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 7.3.35

  • Key: UML22-629
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8100
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    The modifications made for multiple languages (Issue 3391) could often be taken by the reader to mean that multiple languages may exist simultaneously in a single opaque expression. An example is the attribute "language:String[0..*] specifies the languages in which the expression is stated" could be interpreted to mean that the expression could be stated in mixed languages. Additionally plurality of verbs and modifying expressions often do not agree with the plurality of the sentence subject. An example of this is "The languages of an opaque expression, is specified, is often..." Subject is the sentence is "languages" so verb should be "are." Furthermore, this statement implies that a single ("an") opaque expression may have more than one language ("languages").

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 8.3.1 - typo

  • Key: UML22-631
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8104
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Typo - Change "Components" to Component in ownedMember:PackageableElement[*] 1st sentence

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 21 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 8.3.1

  • Key: UML22-630
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8103
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add ending guillemets to specification in isIndirectlyInstantiated. Verify that OCL for /provided:Interface[*] is correct. 3rd and 4th lines don't look right to me

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 21 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 7.3.34

  • Key: UML22-628
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8099
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    The sentence "The contraint does not apply to the namespace itself, but may also apply to elements in the namespace." would be better if "also" was replaced with "instead."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 7.3.33

  • Key: UML22-627
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8098
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    I am not an OCL expert (barely a novice) but it seems to me that Constraint [2] is incorrect in stating ">select(ns|ns.name>isEmpty())". Shouldn't that be >select(ns|ns.name>notEmpty()) because the constraint is saying that there is a name and all of the containing namespaces have a names (in other words, all of the containing namespaces are notEmpty).

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 9.3.5

  • Key: UML22-637
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8112
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add Generalization TypedElement (from Kernal) to fig. 96.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 24 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 9.3.3

  • Key: UML22-636
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8110
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Incorrect page number for reference for "Property" under Description

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Mon, 24 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 9.3.2

  • Key: UML22-635
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8109
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Better choice of word in Changes from UML 1.x would be to change the "of" in last sentence to "that."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 24 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 8.3.1

  • Key: UML22-632
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8105
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add component icon to fig. 90 <<component>> :ShoppingCart to be consistent with others in diagram

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 24 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 9.20.2

  • Key: UML22-633
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8107
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Either delete Issue 7240 note from page, make the correction, or explain why the correction was not made.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 24 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 9.3.1

  • Key: UML22-634
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8108
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Page references are incorrect for "Property" and "StructuredClassifier".

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 24 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 9.3.9

  • Key: UML22-638
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8115
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add generalization for InvocationAction to fig 101 to agree with text on 187

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 24 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

InfrastructureLibrary defines, but should not use package merge

  • Key: UML22-561
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7956
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Mr. Jim Amsden)
  • Summary:

    The resolution to 7623 said to replace all «import» by «merge» in Infrastructure Figure 70. These changes should be reversed because they result in InfrastructureLibrary both defining and being defined by package merge making it very difficult to implement UML2.

    Any implementation would have to do these merges by hand in order to have an implementation of Constructs that could be used to implement package merge, EMOF CMOF, or any other UML2 compliance level.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Wed, 1 Dec 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed no change

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

section 2.10.4.1 detailed semantics of collaborations

  • Key: UML22-557
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7948
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    My question concerns section 2.10.4.1 (detailed semantics of collaborations). The last part of the 4th paragraph starts as follows:

    "However, instances of different classifiers can play the role defined by the classifier role, as long as they have all the required properties."

    Allow me to illustrate my interpretation of this section by means of an example.

    Suppose there is a class A with 5 operations, o1, o2, o3, o4 and o5, and there is a class B with 3 operations, identical to o2, o3 and o4.
    Suppose there is a classifier role R in a collaboration, which has A as its base. The role can then specify a subset of the features of A. These features are then required by instances which play the role. Suppose this subset consists of o2 and o3. Then the quote from the spec above claims that instances of B are allowed to play role R. Is this correct so far?

    Then, the spec goes on:

    "Several classifier roles may have the same base classifier, even in the same collaboration, but their features and contained elements may be different subsets of the features and contained elements of the classifier. These classifier roles specify different roles played by (possibly different) instances of the same classifier."

    So, considering again role R from my example, suppose there is now a different classifier role Q, which also has A as its base. Suppose Q specifies o3 and o4 as the required subset of A's features.

    Now the last sentence from the spec quote seems to say that only (possibly different) instances of A can play roles R and Q. This would mean that an instance of B is NOT allowed to play either R or Q, which would contradict my example above.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Wed, 24 Nov 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 7.3.43

  • Key: UML22-554
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7942
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    Notation for a primitive type should be <<primitiveType>> instead of <<primitive>>. That's more consistent to the general usage of keywords that they are identical to the metaclass name

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 22 Nov 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Interactions

  • Key: UML22-559
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7950
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Mr. Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    In the description of the Graphic Paths for a Communication Diagram I can
    find no mention of what the lines between the Lifelines correspond to -
    although I did find this in the description of Message: "On Communication
    Diagrams, the Messages are decorated by a small arrow along the connector
    close to the Message
    name and sequence number in the direction of the Message." I assume this
    means that the lines correspond to a Connector model element.

    The Graphic Paths section should be updated to include this information and
    justification added as to why a Connector is needed in order for Messages to
    be shown between two lifelines on a Communication Diagram (this seems an
    overly tight constraint to me).

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Fri, 26 Nov 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 7.3.44 - OCL incorrect

  • Key: UML22-558
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7949
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Paranor AG ( Earl Waldin)
  • Summary:

    The OCL for the derivation of association /opposite for Property in section 7.3.44, page 126 is incorrect. It's derivation in section "Constraints" on page 126 as given as follows: [1] If this property is owned by a class, associated with a binary association, and the other end of the association is also owned by a class, then opposite gives the other end. opposite = if owningAssociation->notEmpty() and association.memberEnd->size() = 2 then let otherEnd = (association.memberEnd - self)>any() in if otherEnd.owningAssociation>notEmpty() then otherEnd else Set{} endif else Set {} endif I think that the prose "this property is owned by a class" should translate into "class" and not "owningAssociation" in the above OCL. In other words, the prose does not agree with the OCL. So contraint [1] for opposite should read opposite = if class->notEmpty() and ... let ... in if otherEnd.class -> notEmpty() then ... else Set {} endif

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Fri, 26 Nov 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 6201 for disposition

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

Section: 7.2.8

  • Key: UML22-555
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7946
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: INSA ( Jean Louis Sourrouille)
  • Summary:

    In my opinion, the sentence "When a language is reflective, there is no need to define another language to specify its semantics." is false. Any natural language is reflective. However, just take a dictionary of a language that you don't know, you will not understand anything. In fact, the semantics of UML is described in english, not in UML, which explains that you can understand the metamodel.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Tue, 23 Nov 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

UML 2 Super Basic Interactions

  • Key: UML22-560
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7951
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Mr. Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    Basic Interactions includes SendOperationEvent whose superclass is
    MessageEvent, which is in CommonBehaviors::Communications.

    The problem is that the Basic Interactions package is in Level 1, but
    CommonBehaviors::Communications is in Level 2.

    The same is true for SendSignalEvent. In fact Event itself is also in
    Communications so there's a problem with the whole set of Event subtypes
    defined in BasicInteractions.

    Also BasicActions::SendSignalAction references Communications::Signal

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Fri, 26 Nov 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion: This issue was fixed in release 2.1.. Revised Text: N/A Disposition: Closed, no change

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

An observed time value must be written into a structural feature

  • Key: UML22-562
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7967
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    TimeObservationAction is a specialized WriteStructuralFeatureAction. An observed time value must be written into a structural feature. If modeling activities with that kind of action it would be useful to be able to write the time value to a variable instead of a structural feature. The time value is often used temporarily

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 3 Dec 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion: These actions were removed as part of an earlier fix. Revised Text: N/A Disposition: Closed, no change

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

Classes

  • Key: UML22-556
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7947
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    I see a problem in the definition of the InstanceSpecification of a new primitive like Real. The value is specified by a ValueSpecification. The UML metamodel of ValueSpecifications reflects the predefined primitive types of UML: LiteralInteger, LiteralString, and so on. This is an indirect dependency from the Kernel package to the AuxiliaryConstructs package. That dependency direction shouldn't be allowed. How to specify a value specification for a primitive type Real? I think that we need LiteralReal to do that.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Wed, 24 Nov 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 8069 for disposition

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

Section: 11.3.34

  • Key: UML22-691
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8178
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Association result:OutputPin[1..1] is Specialized from Action:output according to fig. 155. Rewrite Constraint [4] as "The type of the object input pin is the type of the association class that owns the association end." Complete the Semantics section. Delete the header Examples as there are none

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 28 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 11.3.33

  • Key: UML22-690
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8177
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Delete Examples header as there are none

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 28 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue N/A for disposition

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

Section: 11.3.31

  • Key: UML22-689
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8176
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Fig 153 shows that the association result:OutputPin[1..1] is subsetted. Add OCL notation for constraint [1]. I believe the wording of constraint [1] might be better as: "The type of the result output pin is the type of the classifier."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 28 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 11.3.26

  • Key: UML22-684
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8171
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    The generalization in figure 142 doesn't agree with that mentioned in the section. Attributes are both ordered. Delete header Examples as there are none

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 28 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Example header is duplicate of 8155.

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

Section: 11.3.27

  • Key: UML22-694
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8182
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Delete the Examples header as there are none

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 8155 for disposition

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

Section: 11.3.36

  • Key: UML22-693
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8181
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add OCL notation to constraint [2]. Delete Examples header as there are none

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 6452, 8155 for disposition

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

Section: 11.3.28

  • Key: UML22-686
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8173
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Typos - In description delete provide and change accept to accepts. Add OCL notation to Constraints. Delete header Examples as there are none.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 28 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    OCL issue is a duplicate of 6452. Header issue is a duplicate of 8155.

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

Section: 11.3.29

  • Key: UML22-687
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8174
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Please clarify the relationship and differences between QualifierValue, LinkEndCreationData, LinkEndData, and LinkEndDestructionData especially since QualifierValue, LinkEndData, and LinkEndCreationData are all in the CompleteActions package. Constraint [2] change "are" to "is" Delete Examples header as there are none.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 28 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 11.3.35

  • Key: UML22-692
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8180
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add the specialized statement needed for the association result"OutputPin[1..1] as shown in fig. 155. Add semantics or delete the header. Delete the Examples header as there are none.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 8155 for disposition

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

Section: 11.3.30

  • Key: UML22-688
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8175
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Association exception:InputPin[1..1] is subsetted according to fig 158. Delete Examples heading as there are none

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 28 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Headers issue is duplicate with 8155.

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

Section: 11.3.27

  • Key: UML22-685
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8172
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Description should mention the multiplicity expressed in fig. 143. Delete the header Examples as there are none

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 28 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Optional inputs

  • Key: UML22-588
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8037
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    When does an action start when all its inputs are optional?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 30 Dec 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Preserve order in result of read actions

  • Key: UML22-587
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8036
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    The semantics of the various read actions (ReadStructuralFeatureAction, etc) should specify that the order of the retrieved collections is preserved in the values of the output pin.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 30 Dec 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Interactions chapter refers to ActivityInvocations

  • Key: UML22-582
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8030
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Interactions chapter refers to ActivityInvocations The Interactions chapter still refers to ActivityInvocations, which was only in an intermediate draft of the original submission. I think it should be CallBehaviorAction or CallOperationAction, not sure.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 30 Dec 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    The term ActivityInvocations only appears once, on page 563 of ptc/04-10-02.

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

Destruction semantics in StructuredClassifier

  • Key: UML22-583
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8031
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Destruction semantics in StructuredClassifier The destruction semantics in StructuredClassifier should include destruction of links created due to connectors between noncomposite properties

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 30 Dec 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Figure 119 missing multiplicity

  • Key: UML22-585
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8033
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Figure 119 missing multiplicity. Figure 119 (Connectors and parts in a structure diagram) is missing a multiplicity on the right side of the connetor

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 30 Dec 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Link maintenance in StructuredClassifier

  • Key: UML22-584
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8032
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Link maintenance in StructuredClassifier The semantics of StructuredClassifier should indicate that links are created/destroyed according to connectors when objects are added/removed from the connected properties. Extend Create/Destroy/ClearLinkAction and Add/Remove/ClearStructuralFeature with boolean properties that "turn on" this semantics.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 30 Dec 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see ptc/2006-04-01 p 94

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

ObjectNode, constraint 1 In ObjectNode

  • Key: UML22-591
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8040
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    ObjectNode, constraint 1 In ObjectNode, Constraints (Complete Activities), the first constraint regarding upperbound should be removed. The size of the object node buffers can be any size.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 30 Dec 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

DestroyObjectAction semantics

  • Key: UML22-590
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8039
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Clarify the "owns" language in DestroyObjectAction to mean the objects related by composite associations

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 30 Dec 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

IsReadOnly constriant

  • Key: UML22-589
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8038
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    done) IsReadOnly constriant Constraint on StructuralFeature::isReadOnly: if true and there is no intialization value, then the lower multiplicity must be zero.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 30 Dec 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Notation for method

  • Key: UML22-586
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8035
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Need a notation for instances of the specification/method metaassociation (Figure 311).

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 30 Dec 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 6150 for disposition

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

Section: 11.3.1

  • Key: UML22-659
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8145
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add that retureInformation:OutputPin[1..1] is a specialization or subsets output as shown in fig. 152. Add OCL expression for constraint 1 or that the constraint cannot be expressed in OCL. Constraint [3] contains a typo in the 1st line "isUnmrashall" should be "isUnmarshall"

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Missing OCL is a duplicate of 6452.

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

Section: 11.1

  • Key: UML22-658
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8144
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Typos and rewording requests Basic Concepts para 2 - Change "Behavior" to "Behaviors" Basic Concepts para 3 - Change "Operations" to "Operation calls" Intermediate Concepts para 1 sentence 1 - change "various action primitive actions" to "various primitive actions" Intermediate Concepts para 1 sentence 3 - rewrite to something like: S"pecifically, a single primitive action is defined so that it either carries out a computation or accesses object memory, but never both." Intermediate Concepts para 6 sentence 4 - Add verb in "multiplicity bound ignored" to "multiplicity bound is ignored" Intermediate Concepts para 6 last sentence - replace the pronoun "these" with the appropriate noun - I don't know if "these" refers to the points where the lower multiplicity bound is ignored or the points where the modeler has determined that the lower multiplicity bound is enforced. Intermediate Actions, Read Write Actions (page 230) para 3 sentence 1 - needs rewording: "ranging from" implies a "to" something which is not listed; "implementation-dependent" is a modifiying phrase but I don't know what it is modifying (the following comma may not be needed). My interpretation of the sentence meaning is: "Value specificationc cover various expressions ranging from implementation-dependent constants to complex expressions with possible side-effects."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 7.3.15

  • Key: UML22-621
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8092
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    I am confused by the statements that say "the name of the imported element must be qualified in order to to used and is not added to the importing namespace." Add a statement to clarify that if the name is qualified, how the element is referenced by another element.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 19 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 7.3.12

  • Key: UML22-620
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8091
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Issues 6164 and 6159 still have not been addressed. Figure 36 reads that the client CarFactory is dependent upon the supplier Car which is not what the text states.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 19 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    The fix was not completed. Instead of VehicleType the text should refer to CarFactory.

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

Section: 7.3.32 Page: 96-99

  • Key: UML22-626
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8097
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    The document defines multiplicity as an "inclusive interval of non-negative integers" which is the same thing as Unlimited Naturals, but in several other places the "non-negative" qualifier for integer is left off leaving only integer as the definition of the lower bound and integers may be negative. Examples are Additional Operations [4]and in the second paragraph of semantics. Additional Operations [2] OCL is incorrect if the type for includesCardinality(c:Integer) is Integer because the third line says that includesCardinality = (lowerBound() <= C) and (UpperBound () >= C). Everywhere else it is stated that the upperBound is UnlimitedNatural NOT an integer. Remove the word "is" following specification in the second sentence of the first paragraph under Notation.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 7.3.32

  • Key: UML22-625
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8096
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Since the lower bound of multiplicity can not be negative by definition, shouldn't the type of /lower MultiplicityElement be UnlimitedNatural? Also, /upper is missing from the list of attributes

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 7.3.22

  • Key: UML22-624
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8095
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Figures 50 and 51 cause me confusion because Fig. 50 uses as the classifier name a type (String). Yet Fig. 51 shows "Other properties of the feature, such as type" on the second line of the slot streetNumber:Integer = 381. Should the classifier name in Fig. 50 be a type or something more like myAddress. Please clarify, especially that there is a difference, as indicated by the naming convertion, between the instance specification and the feature shown in the slot.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 19 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 6.5.1: Error in example

  • Key: UML22-616
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8086
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Error in example. Text for /isComposite : Boolean A state with isComposite = True is said to be a composite state. A composite state is a state that contains at leas one region> BUT the OCL says IsComposite = (region >1) which translates to is greater than one. Use the is equal to or greater than symbol or change the number to 0.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 14 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 7.3.10

  • Key: UML22-619
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8090
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    If constraind elements are those elements required to evaluate the constraint spedividation, why is the multiplicity for the specification: ValueSpecification[0..1]? Shouldn't the multiplicity be 1? If not, please clarify.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 18 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 7.3.20

  • Key: UML22-622
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8093
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Text says that Manager constitutes one GeneralizationSet but Figure 42 uses the word Employee. Please correct

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 19 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    The submitter is correct. This is a bug.

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

Section: 7.3.8

  • Key: UML22-618
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8089
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    The association package:Package[0..1] is listed as being an association of Classifier. However, the only figure to diagram this association is Figure 14 and the association is from Type not Classifier.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 14 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Stereotypes applying in UML 2.0

  • Key: UML22-623
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8094
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    I have some questions regarding stereotypes using in UML 2.0.

    1. How to declare user defined stereotype in the model? Should class with stereotype <<metaclass>> and metaclass name be created in the model? How to declare stereotype <<metaclass>>?

    2. Is some relationship between stereotyped model element and stereotype instance exist? Where stereotype instance should be created (contained) and how model element can collect all applied stereotypes?

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Mon, 17 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 7.3.3

  • Key: UML22-617
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8088
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Clarification of subsetting is still confusing to me. The Note has an incomplete sentence for the last "sentence." I believe you need to remove the starting word "If."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 14 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 11.3.20

  • Key: UML22-678
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8164
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Superclass generalization is not written on fig. 144. Association argument:InputPin[0..*] multiplicity does not agree with fig. 144. Association argument:InputPin[0..*]in fig. 144 says it is ordered and subsets input. Add statements to the definition of the association. Under Constraints say none.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 11.3.19

  • Key: UML22-677
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8163
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Bold the heading Associations. Delete the heading Examples as there are none. Constraint [2] of 11.3.18 says that input pin has no type but there is no such constraint mentioned for 11.3.19 (which is the section describing inputPin.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 11.3.22 -- significant revision?

  • Key: UML22-680
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8166
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    If LinkEndCreationData is not an action, should it be in this part? Wouldn't the action be to read data from this element or write data to this element? LinkEndCreationData is found in two packages but the discussion/text only addresses its use from the IntermediateActions with no mention of its use in CompleteActions. If this section is to stay in this part then rewrite introduction, description, associations, constraints and semantics to address its use/application in CompleteActions. OCL notation for Constraint[2] does not say that the UnlimitedNatural must be >0 as is stated in the definition of the association insertAt:InputPin. Too many closing ")" for the number of opening "(" in Constraint [2] OCL notation Delete the Examples header as there are none.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 28 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 11.3.21

  • Key: UML22-679
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8165
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Associated figures 148 & 150 do not diagram an direct association between LinkAction and InputPin. Please clarify, add to figures, or delete the association from the section. Constraint [2] OCL notation has an extra ending ) Semantics need to be rewritten clarifying how LinkAction and inputPin are associated. None of the figures containing the classifier LinkAction show an association with a multiplicity of 1..1. Delete heading Examples as there are none.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 11.3.40

  • Key: UML22-696
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8185
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Typo - removeAt:InputPin [0..1] Unlimitednatural needs correcting. Add specialization to association removeAt:InputPin [0..1] as shown in fig. 147. Constraint [1] needs OCL notation. Add that the Unlimited Natural number must be >0 to the constraint definition. Delete Examples header as there are none. Last statement in the Changes from previous UML is not supported by fig. 147. There is no other mention of RemoveAttributeValusAction in this version of the Superstructure

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Example header is duplicate of 8155. OCL is duplicate of 6346.

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

Section: 11.3.38

  • Key: UML22-695
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8183
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Delete the Examples header as there are none

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 8155 for disposition

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

Section: 11.3.23 -- significant revision?

  • Key: UML22-681
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8167
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    I read and understand little difference between LinkEndData and LinkEndCreationData or LinkEndDestructionData. If none of these elements are actions what are they doing in Actions? Wouldn't the action be to read to or write from these elements? Add the package CompleteActions name to the Description and mention that LinkEndData identifies one end of a link to be destroyed. Add "(IntermediateActions)" to the first Constraint header. I'm not certain that constraint (IntermediateActions) [3] multiplicity agrees with the association value:InputPin[0..1] mulitplicity The instruction under semantics to see LinkAction and its children needs to be rewritten. Through following all of the instructions to see different sections, I finally found semantics information in ReadLinkAction, CreateLinkAction, and DestroyLinkAction. Delete header Examples as there are none.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 28 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 11.3.14

  • Key: UML22-672
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8158
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    In description, change "positive integer" to "unlimitedNumber greater than 0" Delete Examples hearder as there are none

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Example header is duplicate of 8155.

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

Section: 11.3.18

  • Key: UML22-676
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8162
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    I am confused by the request of issue 7179 to replace 'input' by 'target' in both constraints and then seeing 'input' replaced by 'target' only in the OCL notation. Please clarify. I am also confused by constraint [2] since part 11.3.19 InputPin says nothing about the type of inputPin. Delete the header Examples as there are none.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 11.3.16

  • Key: UML22-674
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8160
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Constraint 1 says that the classifier cannot be abstract but fig. 146 shows the Classifier name in italics. Delete header Examples as there are none

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 11.3.17

  • Key: UML22-675
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8161
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Change "positive integer" in the Description section to "unlimitedNatural >0" Delete the header Example as there are none

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 11.3.15

  • Key: UML22-673
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8159
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Delete the header Examples as there are non

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 8155 for disposition

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

Section: 11.3.53

  • Key: UML22-709
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8198
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Put a line feed before Notation header. Delete Examples header as there are none

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 11.3.42

  • Key: UML22-708
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8197
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    The text does not agree with fig. 152. Correct either the figure or the text. Fig shows that ReplyAction generalizes Actions (from BasicActions), that the association replyToCall is to CallEvent not Trigger, that the association replyValue is to InputPin not OutputPin and that this association subsets input from Actions, that the association returnInformation:InputPin subsets input from Actions. Constraint [1] uses the word "trigger" but figure would indicate that "call event" would be more correct. This constraint needs OCL notation. Semantics really don't agree with figure. [2] needs the word "to" added after meaning and the word trigger is still used when the figure would indicate call even is mor appropriate.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    OCL is duplicate with 6346. Figure 152 should use Trigger instead of CallEvent.

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

Section: 11.3.43

  • Key: UML22-698
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8187
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Association target:inputPin[1] subsets input from BasicActions according to figure 145

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 11.3.41

  • Key: UML22-697
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8186
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    The association removeAt:InputPin[0..1] is subsets input from Actions according to fig. 157. Correct typo in Constraint [1] "removaeAt". Add OCL notation for the constraint. Constraint also needs to mention that the Unlimited Natural must be >0. Typo - Last line of para 1 of semantics - change "support" to "supports" Delete header Examples as there are none

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 11.3.2

  • Key: UML22-660
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8146
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add the specialization (subsets) statement to result:OutputPin[0..*] as shown in fig. 152. Add OCL statements to Constraints. Constraint [2] needs clarification. Last part of sentence is confusing. Typo - Semantics, para 2, sentence 1 - Change "unmarshall" it "isUnmarshall"

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Missing OCL is a duplicate of 6452.

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

Section: 11.3.9

  • Key: UML22-667
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8153
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add OCL notation to Constraints. Delete Examples heading as there are none

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issues 8155 and 6346 for disposition

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

Section: 11.3.8

  • Key: UML22-666
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8152
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Fig. 144 shows a default for isSynchronous:Boolean = true but this is not indicated in the Attributes section. Associations result:OutputPin[0..*] multiplicity does not match fig. 144; change the description to: "An ordered list of output pins..." and add a statement about the specialization or subsets. Add OCL notation to Constraints.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Multiplicity is in proper format. Lists are always ordered. OCL is duplicate with 6346.

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

Section: 11.3.12

  • Key: UML22-670
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8156
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Delete Examples header as there are none

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 8155 for disposition

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

Section: 11.3.11

  • Key: UML22-669
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8155
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Delete Examples header as there are none

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion: Fixed as part of a previous copy-edit pass of the spec. Revised Text: N/A Disposition: Closed, no change

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

Section: 11.3.10

  • Key: UML22-668
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8154
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add OCL notation to Constraints. Typo - place a period at the end of the definition of the operation:Operation[1] association Add a subsets or specialization statement to the association target:InputPin[1] as is shown in fig. 144

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    OCL is duplicate with 6346

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

Section: 11.3.6

  • Key: UML22-664
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8150
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    It seems to me that the OCL statement does not specify that the UnlimitedNatural needs to be >0. Add "The insertion point is ignored when replacing all values." as last sentence in para 2 of Semantics. Remove the header Examples as there are none.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 11.3.7

  • Key: UML22-665
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8151
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add OCL statements as appropriate for Constraints. Typo - Need a couple of line feeds before the header Notation

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Missing OCL is a duplicate of 6452.

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

Section: 11.3.5

  • Key: UML22-663
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8149
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    It seems to me that the OCL statement does not specify that the UnlimitedNatural needs to be >0. Remove the header Examples as there are none

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 11.3.13

  • Key: UML22-671
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8157
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Delete Examples header as there are none.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 8155 for disposition

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

Connector multiplicity notation

  • Key: UML22-579
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8027
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Connector multiplicity notation The notation section of ConnectorEnd says multiplicities shown on connector lines represent the multiplicities of both the association and the connector: These adornments specify properties of the association typing the connector. The multiplicity indicates the number of instances that may be connected to each instance of the role on the other end. But these multiplicity can be different, and have separate elements in the metamodel.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 30 Dec 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Associations between interfaces

  • Key: UML22-578
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8025
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Associations between interfaces The wording of the caption in Figure 56 implies that association between interfaces have implication on required and provided interfaces. My udisjoinnderstanding from mailing list discussion is that this is only an example, not a semantics. Should be clarified in the caption that this is an example of applying associations to interfaces.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 30 Dec 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

create dependency Figures 103 and 121

  • Key: UML22-580
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8028
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    create dependency Figures 103 and 121 use create dependencies, which do not apply to the example. Standard stereotypes defines create for BehavioralFeature as: "Specifies that the designated feature creates an instance of the classifier to which the feature is attached. May be promoted to the Classifier containing the feature."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 30 Dec 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Transitivity in composition

  • Key: UML22-573
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8015
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Evan K. Wallace)
  • Summary:

    Transitivity in composition: The semantics of Association say composite associations are transitive. Transitivity violates the single-owner rule for composition mentioned in the same paragraph. It also requires that the association have the same class on both ends.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 30 Dec 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

underlined association name

  • Key: UML22-581
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8029
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    underlined association name Figures 120 and 121 underline the association names, which doesn't seem consistent with the notation for instances in Figure 21.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 30 Dec 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The notation for instance specification seems clear that if an association name is shown on an instance specification, that this name would be underlined, see p.84: “It is not necessary to show an underlined name where it is clear from its connection to instance specifications that it represents a link and not an association.” (The diagram example in that section does not show the name.) Therefore, the above two figures are consistent with the notation defined for instance specifications. One could eliminate the association name, if so desired. Revised Text: Disposition: Closed, no change

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

Section: Classes

  • Key: UML22-577
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8021
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Specializing one association end Suppose we have a class diagram like this: <pre>
    aend bend
    A ----------------------------- B
    ^ ^

     
     
     
     
    subbend
    {subsets bend}

    SubA -------------------------- SubB

    </pre>
    What metarelation is used between the lower left end and the upper left end (aend)? It is not redefined or subsetted.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 30 Dec 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Add concept "StateInvariant"

  • Key: UML22-572
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7996
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SINTEF ICT ( Richard Torbjørn Sanders)
  • Summary:

    Add concept "StateInvariant" in figure, with arrows to "mystate" and "

    {Y.p == 15}

    "

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sat, 18 Dec 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Pin/parameter matching constraints

  • Key: UML22-574
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8017
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Mr. Jim Amsden)
  • Summary:

    Pin/parameter matching constraints: The wording for CallAction, constraints 2 and 3 should be consistent with the wording of constraint 3 for CallBehaviorAction and CallOperationAction

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 30 Dec 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: Classes

  • Key: UML22-576
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8019
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Dependency should specialize source/target On Dependency, client and supplier should specialize source and target from DirectedRelationship. Source/target are derived unions, so can't be used otherwise

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 30 Dec 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: CB/ACT

  • Key: UML22-575
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8018
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MEGA International ( Mr. Antoine Lonjon)
  • Summary:

    Matching by order difficult to implement Matching by order of the parameters of methods and operations and pins and parameters is difficult to implement in relation database implementations.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 30 Dec 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 12.3.9

  • Key: UML22-723
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8217
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add the multiplicity [1..] to the association. Reword the description of the association parameter:Parameter. It could be interpreted as "the same object node will accept as well as provide parameter values." If that's not the case, i.e., one node accepts and another not provides (which I think is what is meant) then change the "and" to "or." Add OCL notation to the constraints. Constraint [3] needs rewording to something like "Activity parameter nodes must have neither incoming nor outgoing edges" or "Activity parameter nodes must have only incoming or outgoing edges but not both." Wording depends on meaning of constraint. Please clarify semantics to address the following questions. Are input values placed as tokens on input activity parameter nodes at the beginning of flows? Since this node is at the beginning of the flow is that why it has no incoming edges? If it has no incomind edges, how are the values placed on the node? Para 1 of semantics says to see semantics at ObjectNode, Action, and ActivityParamenterNode. This is the semantics section for ActivityParameterNode. Delete that phrase or correct it to the proper reference semantics section. The package CompleteActivities does not show any diagrams with ActivityParameterNode. Delete those package references on pg. 366 or explain why that package is referenced.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 3 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 12.1

  • Key: UML22-722
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8216
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    If BasicActivities and StructuralActivities are orthogonal, why does the structural level require the basic level? This concept is not supported by fig. 175. Please forgive me if I've already sent this one in, but I hadn't marked my comment as submitted.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 3 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 8202 for disposition

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

Section: 8.3.4

  • Key: UML22-641
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8120
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Correct statement under Constraints to read "No additional constraints."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 24 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 9.3.10

  • Key: UML22-640
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8117
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    I can't find appropriate figure for the generalization "Parameter (from Kernel, AssociationClasses)". Add appropriate OCL notation to Constraints

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 24 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 10.3.1

  • Key: UML22-647
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8132
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Figure 124 does not show what the Generalizations "Classifier (from Kernel, Dependencies, PowerTypes)" indicates, or the association ownedProperty:Property, or the multiplicity listed for attribute filename:String[0..1]

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 25 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 10.3.1

  • Key: UML22-648
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8133
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Typo in 1st line of Notation. In Semantics, clarify which Appendix to see

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 25 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Both matters raised by this issue represent valid editorial clarifications to the text.

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

Section: 12.3.13

  • Key: UML22-644
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8129
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Under Notation change "name of the part" to rolename to differentiate it from the name of the part (as in composition).

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 25 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 12.3.13

  • Key: UML22-645
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8130
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Fig 121 uses the word "make" for the constructor. Unfortunately, this word could be misconstrued to be a noun and refer to the make of the car (Volvo, Audie, Ford) instead of the verb it is intend to be. Suggest changing "make" to "assemble."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 25 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 9.3.13

  • Key: UML22-643
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8128
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Associations need derived symbol added to role:ConnectableElement and /part:Property (as shown in fig. 95), a statement that role is derived, and multiplicities added to all associations (as shown in fig. 95).

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 25 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see ptc/2006-04-01 page 140

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

Section: 9.3.9

  • Key: UML22-639
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8116
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add OCL notation to Constraints. Notation says to see "CallOperationAction" for an example, but no examples are given in that section

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 24 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 9.2

  • Key: UML22-646
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8131
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    There is no explanation in the chapter or the section on StrucutredActivities as to why two StructuredActivities packages are drawn, both <<merge>> in fig. 94. Please clarify somewhere

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 25 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 9.3.12

  • Key: UML22-642
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8127
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    In Examples, the reference page number to SturcturedClassifier is incorrect

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 25 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 7.4.1

  • Key: UML22-615
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8085
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Multiplicity is non-negative so shouldn't the lower bound be typed as an unlimited natural (a non-negative number) instead of an integer which can be negative? The upper bound is typed as an unlimited natural. This question also applies to Infrastructure (ptc/03-09-15, sections 9.11 and 9.12).

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 7.3.6

  • Key: UML22-614
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8084
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    There appears to be a conflict between the Superstructure VisibilityKind and the Infrastructure VisibilityKind (ptc/03-09-15, section 9.20.2, pg 93). Superstructure lists the four found in vers 1.5 of UML but Infrastructure lists only public and private. What is the correct enumeration for VisibilityKind? Has the Superstructure refined the Infrastructure? If so, a clarification that Superstructure VisibilityKind is refining that from Infrastructure would be helpful.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 11.8.3

  • Key: UML22-610
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8080
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Figure 98 shows an merged package P::A in the source package S. I do not see how P::A got merged when Figure 97 shows no merge between target P and source S or between source R and source S. The text says that packages P and Q are being merged by package R while package S merges on package Q (with the open ended arrow indicating Q as the target but the keyword <<merge>> at the end nearest S. The statement above Figure 98 says the transformed packages R and Q are shown but the figure has the packages labeled R and S. There appears to be no merge connection between P and S but a subpackage from P appears in S. The text and figures are very confusing and need clarification

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 7 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 11.6.1

  • Key: UML22-609
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8079
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    The each sentence in the third paragraph under semantics appears to have an incorrect "and" in them. I believe the and should be replaced by the word "or" in each sentence. The second paragraph seems to have a couple of misplaced hyphens.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 6 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 7.3.3

  • Key: UML22-613
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8083
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Second sentence in second paragraph under description is somewhat confusing. "The constraint does not necessilarily apply to the namespace itself, but may also apply to the elements in the namespace." The use of the word "also" bothers me. Do you mean "instead" rather than also. Wouldn't it make more sense, in the context of the first part of the sentence, that the constraint could instead apply to the elements in the namespace rather than the namespace. If you mean that a constraint could apply to both or the namespace or the element in the namespace then the statement needs to be reworded

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    The text does need to be reworded to eliminate such confusion.

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

Section: 13.1.5

  • Key: UML22-612
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8082
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Figure 115 shows the <<enumeration>> Color, but shouldn't that be labeled as ColorKind as shown in Figure 88 and specified in Conventions and Typography in 8.5?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 10 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 11.5

  • Key: UML22-607
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8076
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    The phrase that starts "These constructs that are used..." is not a complete sentence and confusing. I believe that the word "that" needs to be deleted

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 5 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

search for referenced item -- Section: 11.3.4

  • Key: UML22-606
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8075
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    A reference is made to the Operations Diagram in the Description section but no figure number (93) or page number (146) is given. It would save time and greatly decrease the frustration factor for this reader if I didn't have to search for the referenced item.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 5 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Figure 68

  • Key: UML22-603
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8072
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Figure 68 does not show the

    {composite}

    notation for the attribute ownedType: Type

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 4 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

methods not defined under attributes

  • Key: UML22-602
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8070
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    In all previous sections when a diagram shows a named association, the text defines these under the heading Associations. All of a sudden you've changed methods and are not defining these under attributes. A clarification as to why this is done would help those of us who are not UML experts.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 4 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 13.1.2

  • Key: UML22-611
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8081
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Additional option [1] says that the query lowerBound () returns the lower bound of the multiplicity as an Integer. Why is the type Interger used instead of the type UnlimitedNatural? An integer can be a negative number but not so with naturals. My understanding is that multipliticity is not allowed to be less than 0.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 10 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 11.3.3

  • Key: UML22-605
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8074
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    The description refers to the Classifiers Diagram but no figure number (Figure 84) or page number (page 127) is given. It would greatly facilitate the reading if the user did not have to search for this. In section 6.3 on How to Read this Specification, it is stated that extensive cross-references are given. This specification would be better if more cross-references were given, especially when a figure or section that is found elsewhere in the document is referenced. I sent in a request to clarify Chapter/Section 10.2. I have since found that an excellent clarification exists in Chapter 11.3. If this had be referenced in Chapter 10.2 it would have saved this reader several hours of confusion and frustration

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 5 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 11.3.1

  • Key: UML22-604
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8073
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    The last phrase in the sixth paragraph from the top which starts with "For n-ary associations..." is an incomplete prepositional phrase and the meaning is unclear

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 4 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Actor is a specialized Classifier and not BehavioredClassifier

  • Key: UML22-608
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8078
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    Actor is a specialized Classifier and not BehavioredClassifier. Therefore an actor is not allowed to realize an interface. I propose to inherit Actor from BehavioredClassifier. It is useful to model actors with interfaces. The actor/subject communication requires the definition of signals/messages that can be sent from the subject to an actor.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 6 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see ptc/2006-04-01 p 108/109

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

Section: 12.1

  • Key: UML22-711
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8202
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Italicize activity as well as execution in sent 2 of para 1 under Actions and activities. Basic Activities describes basic and structured levels as orthogonal where either can be used without the other or both can be used to support modeling... . Yet StructuredActivities says that this level requires the basic level. Fig. 175 does not support this statement. Please clarify and fix.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 11.3.54

  • Key: UML22-710
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8199
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Delete header Examples as there are none

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 8155 for disposition

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

{redefined } should be named {redefines }

  • Key: UML22-713
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8204
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary: {redefined <end-name>}

    should be named

    {redefines <end-name>}
  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 1 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Typo in the Superstructure spec; it does not occur in the Infrastructure.

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

Property string {bag} is redundant

  • Key: UML22-712
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8203
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    Property string

    {bag}

    is redundant. Use property string

    {nonunique}

    defined for MultiplicityElement instead

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 1 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 12.3.5

  • Key: UML22-718
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8210
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add subsets (or specializes) or redefines statements to associations as indicated by the associated figures. Correct either the association multiplicity or the associated diagram multiplicity so that they agree. Italicize ActivityEdge in fig. 196. Add OCL notation to constraints. In Semantics (CompleteActivities) change "Edges" beginning paragraphs 3 and 4 to "ActivityEdges". In notation change stick-arrowhead to open arrowhead

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 1 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 12.3.4

  • Key: UML22-717
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8209
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add OCL notation to constraints

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 1 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 6452 for disposition

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

Section: 11.3.48

  • Key: UML22-703
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8192
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Fig. 241 shows the generalization of UnmarshallAction to be Actions (from Basic). Correct either figure or text. Association object:inputPin[1..1] subsets nput from Input and association result:OutputPin[1..1] subsets output from Output according to fig 241. Add OCL notation to constraints

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    OCL is duplicate with 6346.

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

Section: 11.3.46

  • Key: UML22-701
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8190
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add OCL notation to constraint [2]. My guess would be self.object.type=self.classifier.type (That's pure guess since I know very little OCL.) Delete header Examples as there are none

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 6452, 8155 for disposition

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

Section: 11.3.45

  • Key: UML22-700
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8189
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add OCL Notation to Constraints

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 6452 for disposition

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

Section: 11.3.52

  • Key: UML22-707
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8196
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Delete Examples header as there are none

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 8155 for disposition

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

Section: 11.3.51

  • Key: UML22-706
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8195
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Delete Examples header as there are none

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 9 Jan 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 8155 for disposition

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

Section: 11.3.50

  • Key: UML22-705
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8194
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Association value:ValueSpecification[1] does not express a specialization in the figure. Please correct either text or figure. Add OCL notation to constraints

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    OCL request is duplicate of 6346.

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

Section: 11.3.44

  • Key: UML22-699
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8188
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Association target:inputPin[1] subsets input from Input according to fig 144. Add OCL notation to the constraints. Semantics [1] change "his" to "the".

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    OCL is duplicate with 6346.

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

Section: 11.3.49

  • Key: UML22-704
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8193
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add OCL notation to constraints. Delete Examples header as there are none

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 6452, 8155 for disposition

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

Section: 11.3.47

  • Key: UML22-702
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8191
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Delete header Example as there are none

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 8155 for disposition

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

unclear statement

  • Key: UML22-596
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8064
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    The last part of the following statement makes no sense to me: "Understandability. While increasing the precision and conciseness, the specification techniques should also improve the readability of the specification. For this reason a less than strict formalism is applied, since a strict formalism formal technigues" It appears that part of the sentence got left out as there is no period

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 4 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    There is a word missing in this text.

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

Text references Figure 8 and the correct figure number is 6

  • Key: UML22-595
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8063
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Text references Figure 8 and the correct figure number is 6

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 4 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    This is indeed an incorrect figure reference.

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

Section is badly worded and does not make a lot of sense

  • Key: UML22-599
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8067
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Section is badly worded and does not make a lot of sense. I interpreted it as "Often an informal convention is used to show (a part of) a construct, e.g., the name of a class should be centered and in bold."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 4 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

clarify what a directed association is

  • Key: UML22-598
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8066
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    am not an expert on UML and am reading this to learn about it. Could you please clarify what a directed association is. A search of the document does not yield any other reference to this term.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 4 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Terminology Issue

  • Key: UML22-593
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8042
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Stephen Mellor)
  • Summary:

    When we build a state machine (nee State chart diagram) to define the behavior of a Dog, say, each dog instance has its own state.

    In other words, each copy of the state machine diagram has it's own state. What is the official term for each-copy-of-the-state-machine, the entity that has state. We need to be able to say "The <state machine thing> for Fido is in the state 'Barking'" and "The <state machine thing> for Rover is in the state Sleeping".

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Thu, 30 Dec 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution: The submitter does not raise an issue against the specification, but asks a question for clarification. Such terminology might be useful in explaining the semantics, but is not required for the specification. Disposition: Closed, no change

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

typing error in the statement :unrestricted ?

  • Key: UML22-600
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8068
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    believe there is a typing error in the statement :unrestricted: Indicated that there is no restriction no [should be to?] adding new values, changing a value, or removing values to an occurrence of a StructuralFeature

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 4 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

extra word in the last sentence of the paragraph under Attributes

  • Key: UML22-597
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8065
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    believe that there is an extra word in the last sentence of the paragraph under Attributes. "If the mulitplicity of the attribute is supressed if it is '1' (default in UML)." I believe the sentence should read "The multipliticy of the attribute is supressed if is is '1' (default in UML)."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 4 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

section 9.20.2 VisibilityKind lists two types of visibility

  • Key: UML22-594
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8062
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    In section 9.20.2 VisibilityKind lists two types of visibility-Public and Private. Yet the glossary (page 19) and Figure 80 on page 119 (and many other figures) list threePublic, Private, and Protected. Version 1.5 also defined a fourth type of visibility-Package. Please clarify and or enhance the definition of VisibilityKind in 9.20.2 to explain the differences between the glossary and the Figure.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 4 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

StructuredActivityNode specialized multiplicity

  • Key: UML22-592
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8041
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    The semantics of StructuredActivityNode still says "This constraint is modeled as a specialized multiplicity from ActivityNode and ActivityEdge to StructuredActivityNode". The FTF changed the metamodel for this to not use specialized multiplicity.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 30 Dec 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

What happened to real numbers

  • Key: UML22-601
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8069
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    The elements for numbers you define in the Literals package are LiteralInteger and LiteralUnlimitedNatural. What happened to real numbers? Natural numbers do no include decimals.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 4 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 12

  • Key: UML22-724
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8218
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Use of the term edge(s)is confusing without the appropriate qualifier - "Control" or "Object." Suggest changing edge or edges to ControlEdge(s) and/or ObjectEdge(s) as appropriate

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 3 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 11.3.4

  • Key: UML22-662
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8148
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Association fromAction:Action[1] missing the specialization or subsets statement shown in fig. 159. Add OCL statements to constraints. Fig. 161 shows the association +action between i2:ActionInputPin and s1:ReadSetAction and between i4:ActionInputPin and s2:ReadSetAction but this is not an association defined for ActionInputPin in the text or shown on fig. 159. Either correct +action association to +fromAction or add +action as an association of ActionInputPin. I may be totally incorrect but shouldn't there be some link or association from the classifier bar:Signal?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See revised text. The rest is duplicate with 6452.

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

Section: 11.3.3

  • Key: UML22-661
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8147
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Fig. 142 does not list Dependencies as a generalization. Associations /input:InputPin[*] and /output:OutputPin[*] need the specialization or subset statement as shown in fig. 143 Association /context:Classifier[1] does not agree with multiplicity in fig. 142 Delete headers Examples and Rationale as these sections are blank

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 27 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 10.3.10

  • Key: UML22-655
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8140
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Fig 124 shows that the Association utilizedElement:PackageableElement also subsets target

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 25 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 10.3.9

  • Key: UML22-654
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8139
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Constraints are not shown on fig 126 as other constraints have been shown on other figures. Under Notation, should "instance" be "instance specification?"

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 25 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 10.4

  • Key: UML22-657
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8143
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Table 8 Node Reference says Node has keyword options <<device>> and <<execution environment>> but these are not mentioned in the Node section nor are they diagrammed anywhere.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Wed, 26 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 10.3.6

  • Key: UML22-652
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8137
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Fig 126 does not show all generalizations listed; text for the Association deployment:Deployment[*] does not mention that the association specializes ownedElement as shown in the figure

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 25 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 10.3.11

  • Key: UML22-656
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8141
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    The specialization of the association nestedNode:Node is not shown in fig. 125

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 26 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    There is no nestedClassifier association end that applies to this case.

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

Section: 10.3.4

  • Key: UML22-650
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8135
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    The Associations for the Nodes Package text do not agree with Fig. 126.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 25 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 10.3.8

  • Key: UML22-653
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8138
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    I don't believe that fig 125 shows the composite association between nodes and ExecutionEnvironment as expressed in Semantics. Typo - add ending guillemets to <<J2EE container.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 25 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 10.3.3

  • Key: UML22-649
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8134
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Kernel generalization is not shown in fig. 126

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 25 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section: 10.3.5

  • Key: UML22-651
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8136
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Generalization, Association, and Constraints in text don't agree with fig. 127

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 25 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see ptc/2006-04-01 page148/149

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

ReduceAction

  • Key: UML22-565
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7977
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Stephen Mellor)
  • Summary:

    It has come to my attention that the removal of the ReduceAction (fair
    enough) requires the use of a variable (a very bad idea) to construct an
    alternative specification.

    To do something like Reduce(<data expression>, Add) in UML 1.5, you
    would have to say:

    • An activity/structure node with variable Sum.
    • The expansion region takes the collection as input and has no
      output. In this case, the output collection will have only one
      element in it.
    • In the region, edges coming from/going to the inputs/outputs take
      elements from the input collections and put elements in the output
      collections.
    • The region uses CallOperationAction with operation timeofLastCall to
      get the time and CallBehaviorAction on the (primitive)
      FunctionBehavior for addition and updates the variable.
    • After the region is complete, the variable has the sum in it.

    The 1.5 Action Model included variables so that those who "needed" them
    could have them. However, the introduction of variables changes the
    static-single-assignemnt nature of the language and would now require
    data-flow analysis of a developer model to work out what is happening.
    Before all we had to do was scan for Variable Actions and reject the
    developer model so proposed.

    In other words, those of us in the translation business did not need
    variables, and we could ignore those models that used them. Now we're
    stuck.

    Topic: ReduceAction

    UML 1.5 had ReduceAction, which repeatedly applied a function pairwise
    to elements of a collection until only only element is left. It did not
    constrain order or concurrency of application. It was replaced with
    ExpansionRegion UML 2, which requires commitment to order and
    concurrency.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Corrections to issue description:

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

UML 2 Super / Incorrect statement on port visibility

  • Key: UML22-564
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7973
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    The updated UML spec p162 states:

    "UML Superstructure 2.0 Draft Adopted Specification

    A port of a classifier is shown as a small square symbol. The name of the port is placed near the square symbol. If the port
    symbol is placed overlapping the boundary of the rectangle symbol denoting that classifier this port is exposed (i.e., its
    visibility is public). If the port is shown inside the rectangle symbol, then the port is hidden and its visibility is as specified (it
    is protected by default)."

    This text was supposed to be removed by the FTF – the placement of the port is independent of its visibility. Port placement is merely a question of graphical convenience. Their visibility is indicated by the usual means as for all other properties (+, -, and #).

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Fri, 10 Dec 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 14.3.7

  • Key: UML22-566
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7986
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SINTEF ( Richard Sanders)
  • Summary:

    ... of an object. (missing period) ... destruction of the instance -> of the object ... that this instanceowns -> instance owns

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sat, 18 Dec 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Minor error in BNF of an message argument

  • Key: UML22-563
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7970
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    Minor error in BNF of an message argument: Instead <argument> ::= (<[parameter-name> ‘=’] write <argument> ::= ([<parameter-name> ‘=’]

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 7 Dec 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 14.3.14

  • Key: UML22-568
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7988
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SINTEF ( Richard Sanders)
  • Summary:

    ... <interactionconstraint> -> <InteractionConstraint> ... in Figure 335 -> Figure 335 or 352

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sat, 18 Dec 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 14.3.16

  • Key: UML22-569
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7989
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SINTEF ( Richard Sanders)
  • Summary:

    ... and InteractionOperand represent -> represents

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sat, 18 Dec 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

StateInvariants/Continuations

  • Key: UML22-571
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7995
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SINTEF ICT ( Richard Torbjørn Sanders)
  • Summary:

    StateInvariants/Continuations: add to figure a Continuation (e.g. Idle) that spans :Y and an additional lifeline :X

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sat, 18 Dec 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: Table 14

  • Key: UML22-570
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7990
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SINTEF ( Richard Sanders)
  • Summary:

    Bottom of page: Node type "Stop" should be "Destruction event"

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sat, 18 Dec 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 14.3.13

  • Key: UML22-567
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7987
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SINTEF ( Richard Sanders)
  • Summary:

    ... needs not be the whole -> need not be

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sat, 18 Dec 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

DataType attributes UML 2 Super (ptc/04-10-02)

  • Key: UML22-553
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7939
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Mr. Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    On Figure 13, DataType::ownedAttribute is specified as ordered but in the
    associations section on page 59, it is not specified as ordered.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Fri, 19 Nov 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • 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

In normative XMI file for the metamodel, no Associations have a name.

  • Key: UML22-534
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7105
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    In the normative XMI file for the metamodel, no Associations have a
    name.
    The name is needed for generating APIs and (in some cases) XMI elements;
    and their absence actually makes UML2 an invalid MOF2 metamodel: MOF2
    Core has the following constraint for CMOF:
    [6] Names are required for all classifiers and features (though there is
    nothing to prevent these names being automatically generated by a tool).

    (Association is a classifier)

    We could get by with not having a name in the MDL and auto-generating a
    name into the XMI. This is in fact what the Unisys XMI plug-in did when
    no Association name was provided - and this was hence reflected in the
    normative XMI for UML 1.x (the names were of the form A_<end1>_<end2>).

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Mon, 8 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

UML 2 Super/Interactions/Constraints for create messages

  • Key: UML22-533
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6989
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: KDM Analytics ( Dr. Nikolai Mansourov)
  • Summary:

    page 429 Constraints for message need to include "no EventOccurences before receiving the create message". In the graphic notation this is handled by defining the create graphic path as flowing into the Lifeline head symbol, but since we do not want to introduce the concept of a Lifeline head in the meta-model, we need an additional constraint.

    Constraints need to be updated as new sorts of messages are added.

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Mon, 16 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

UML2 Infra/11.5.1/Invalid reference to Attribute class

  • Key: UML22-536
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7274
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    In section 11.5.1 (DataType) the first association is specified as:

    ownedAttribute: Attribute[*] The Attributes owned by the DataType.

    This is out of date: the class Attribute has been replaced by Property,
    though the association name is OK referring to 'Attribute'. This is
    reflected in the diagram above that text (Fig 86).

    Proposed resolution:
    Replace the above text with:
    ownedAttribute: Property[*] The Properties owned by the DataType.

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Wed, 28 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Figure 78

  • Key: UML22-535
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7246
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Figure 78 - inconsistencies with Class Descriptions Figure 78 shows an enumeration ConnectorKind which is not defined in this chapter, however (see also Issue #7001). Suggestion: define ConnectorKind in section 8.3 - Class Descriptions. Figure 78 shows an association between Connector and Behavior with association end "+contract". This association is not defined in Section 8.3.2 - Connector, however.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion: Fixed by the resolution to issue 8976 in UML 2.1. Revised Text: N/A Disposition: Closed, no change

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

Class InfrastructureLibrary::Core::Basic::Property

  • Key: UML22-532
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6923
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fraunhofer FOKUS, Germany ( Michael Soden)
  • Summary:

    Class InfrastructureLibrary::Core::Basic::Property contains an attribute named 'default' of type 'String'. If initial values should be provided for a Property instance, then there is no possibility to evaluate the string without a schema. I'm not sure about the intension of this default property, especially for MOF (it seems to be useable only for visualization in UML).

    Proposed resolution: If evaluation should be processable by tools (e.g. code generators), then the type of 'default' must be changed to class "Type" or a schema for evaluation should be provided.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 19 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

In 2.13.3, the first sub-section about ActivityGraph is not numbered

  • Key: UML22-531
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6727
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Condris Technologies ( Valentin Crettaz)
  • Summary:

    In 2.13.3, the first sub-section about ActivityGraph is not numbered, it should be 2.13.3.1. Subsequent sub-sections should be renumbered

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Thu, 18 Dec 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

missing closing parenthesis

  • Key: UML22-529
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6725
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Condris Technologies ( Valentin Crettaz)
  • Summary:

    In the second additional operation of the model element StateMachine, there is a missing closing parenthesis in the last else branch, i.e. the last else branch should read

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Thu, 18 Dec 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Indeed so.

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

The Composition section does not follow the usual conventions

  • Key: UML22-528
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6724
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Condris Technologies ( Valentin Crettaz)
  • Summary:

    The Composition section does not follow the usual conventions of first presenting the attributes and then the associations of the model element.

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Thu, 18 Dec 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

In "2.9.3.5 Instance", numbering of different well-formedness rules wrong

  • Key: UML22-526
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6703
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Condris Technologies ( Valentin Crettaz)
  • Summary:

    In "2.9.3.5 Instance", the numbering of the different well-formedness rules is wrong. Below rule [2], there are two rule [3], one of which is not left-aligned properly.

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Wed, 17 Dec 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

The numbering of the sub-sections in 2.7.2 is wrong

  • Key: UML22-525
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6702
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Condris Technologies ( Valentin Crettaz)
  • Summary:

    The numbering of the sub-sections in 2.7.2 is wrong. In "2.7 Data Types", we have "2.7.1 Overview" and "2.7.2 Abstract Syntax". Below that, the numbering starts with "2.7.3.1 AggregationKind" instead of "2.7.2.1 AggregationKind".

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Wed, 17 Dec 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Associations section of element JumpHandler

  • Key: UML22-523
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6697
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Condris Technologies ( Valentin Crettaz)
  • Summary:

    In the Associations section of element JumpHandler, the protectedAction association misses appropriate type information.

    The line should read:

    protectedAction: Action [0..*]

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Mon, 15 Dec 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Remove one of the dots between protectedAction and availableOutput

  • Key: UML22-522
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6696
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Condris Technologies ( Valentin Crettaz)
  • Summary:

    In the Outputs listing, "self.jumpHandler.protectedAction..availableOutput.type" should read "self.jumpHandler.protectedAction.availableOutput.type"

    Remove one of the dots between protectedAction and availableOutput

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Mon, 15 Dec 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

UML 2.0 infra and super Constraints Diagram of the Kernel

  • Key: UML22-524
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6699
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: TimeWarp Engineering Ltd. ( Steven Cramer)
  • Summary:

    The Constraint:namespace to Namespace:ownedRule association depicted in the super structure spec on page (31) should be made navigable on both ends and the namespace property should be renamed to owningNamespace and this should subset context and subset namespace.

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Tue, 16 Dec 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

The section about Procedure does not contain any well-formedness rules

  • Key: UML22-527
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6704
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Condris Technologies ( Valentin Crettaz)
  • Summary:

    The section about Procedure does not contain any well-formedness rules. Instead, the section repeats the content (copy-paste!!) of section 2.9.2.11 about attributes and associations.

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Wed, 17 Dec 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

At the bottom of the page, the characters "antics." should be removed

  • Key: UML22-530
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6726
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Condris Technologies ( Valentin Crettaz)
  • Summary:

    At the bottom of the page, the characters "antics." should be removed

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Thu, 18 Dec 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Inconsistent use of 'Element' between MOF and UML

  • Key: UML22-549
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7889
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    UML uses Element to mean any Element in a Model, which is inherently something that has an identity separate from its value: this even includes elements such as ValueSpecification.
    MOF uses Object for such a thing, and uses Element to represent any value: specifically when used to declare parameters in Reflection then Element is used to represent both 'Objects' and plain data values (such as integers or strings) used as property or parameter values. Object inherits from Element.

    Proposed resolution:

    MOF should swap the names of Object and Element: this makes it consistent with UML and with languages such as Java where java.lang.object can represent data values.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Mon, 1 Nov 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Missing XMI tags in spec and XMI rendition of metamodel

  • Key: UML22-548
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7783
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    This issue applies to Infrastructure, Superstructure and MOF

    In the XMI for Superstructure for example (in OMG document ad/03-04-02),
    while this does use the nsuri for MOF (using the correct form
    xmlns:cmof="http:///schema.omg.org/spec/mof/2.0/cmof.xmi) it does not
    contain any XMI tags to define for UML what its nsuri and prefix should
    be: which are needed in order to generate the UML xsd.
    Neither does the XMI for the MOF Core itself contain an XMI tag to
    define that the nsuri and prefix should be as just quoted.

    In any case these important values should be included in the
    specification documents as well as being buried in tags in the XMI
    files.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Fri, 24 Sep 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

ptc-03-09-15/Constructs::Class superClass property

  • Key: UML22-504
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6493
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: David Frankel Consulting ( David Frankel)
  • Summary:

    Issue: Constructs::Class has a superClass property that redefines general,
    which is from Constructs::Classifier (section 11.3, figure 73, p. 111); but
    Constructs::Class also inherits from Basic::Class, which has superClass as a
    property (section 10.2, 66, p. 97). What does this mean? Is this a bug?
    Is it something correct having to do with package merge?

    Recommendation: Determine whether this is intended or an oversight. If it
    is an oversight, correct it. If not, explain the meaning of having these
    both of these properties.

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Fri, 7 Nov 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

ptc-03-09-15/Non-navigable ends with no role names nor multiplicities

  • Key: UML22-503
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6492
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: David Frankel Consulting ( David Frankel)
  • Summary:

    Issue: It appears that associations with neither end names nor
    multiplicities on non-navigable ends are used in parts of the UML Core that
    are defined via CMOF. See, for example, section 9.9, figure 35, p. 62, for
    example. I understand that for elements defined via EMOF, this signifies a
    simple property. But is it appropriate for elements defined with CMOF.

    Recommendation: Either correct this by adding multiplicities and end names
    or explain in the specification why it is alright to omit them in these
    cases

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Fri, 7 Nov 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    The meaning of this convention should be explained in the document.

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

UML 2 Issue: Message notation

  • Key: UML22-502
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6463
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    PROBLEM STATEMENT
    According to Superstructure, p. 430, the notation for messages in
    interaction diagrams is as follows (we put assumptions between parenthesis):

    asynchronous message - (solid line) open arrowhead
    synchronous message - (solid line) filled arrowhead
    reply message - dashed line (filled or open arrowhead?)
    object creation - dashed line open arrowhead

    However, the example given in Figure 333, p. 414, shows a different
    notation:

    asynchronous message - solid line open arrowhead (not shown in this diagram,
    but in others)
    synchronous message - solid line filled arrowhead
    reply message - dashed line OPEN arrowhead
    object creation - SOLID line open arrowhead

    Another confusing aspect of the notation is that in a reply message, which
    is not a true message, the message name is the name of the operation invoked
    on the callee (same as in the corresponding synchronous call), but it
    suggests instead that there is an operation with this name in the caller. In
    Figure 333, the reply labeled as "foo(_)" visually suggests that there is an
    operation named foo in class C1, which is wrong: foo is defined in C2, not
    in C1. It would make more sense to label a reply message with the name of
    the value returned.

    PROPOSED SOLUTION
    The simplest solution would be to fix Figure 333 using a dashed arrow to
    represent object creation, although this would yield the same notation for
    object creation and reply message. Therefore, beyond this simplest solution,
    we propose something more advanced: First, state explicitly the notation for
    all kinds of messages, leaving no place for assumptions. Second, use a
    filled arrowhead for reply messages, since this emphasizes the conceptual
    proximity to the synchronous message it is a reply from. Third, use the
    notation for object creation also for object deletion, which currently is
    not mentioned. That is:

    asynchronous message - SOLID LINE open arrowhead
    synchronous message - SOLID LINE filled arrowhead
    reply message - dashed line FILLED ARROWHEAD
    object creation OR DELETION - dashed line open arrowhead

    Or better, simply drop object creation as an special kind of message. Object
    creation (and deletion) was not considered a special kind of message in UML
    1, and it is not at all clear why it should be in UML 2. Probably, an object
    creation is either synchronous or asynchronous, but not "something else" in
    the same meta-specialization row. In fact, the constraints and semantics of
    Message (Superstructure, p. 429) do not consider object creation as
    messages: "The signature must either refer an Operation (...) or a Signal",
    "A Message reflects either an Operation call (...) or a sending and
    reception of a Signal". Neither does the meta-attribute Message.messageSort,
    which has the following permitted values: synchCall, synchSignal,
    asynchCall, asynchSignal. By the way, what do synchSignal and asynchCall
    mean? The "sorts" of message are not defined in the Spec. Although calls are
    considered in other places to be either synchronous or asynchronous, signals
    are explicitly defined to be asynchronous (Superstructure, pp. 15, 371, 394
    and 395), therefore at least synchSignal is banned.

    Finally, we also propose to label reply messages with the name of the value
    returned by the operation call, not the operation name itself. In Figure
    333, this would leave the replies foo() and doit() without label, and the
    last reply would be labeled simply as "x".

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Fri, 7 Nov 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Why not using the UML1 activity symbol for UML2 actions?

  • Key: UML22-508
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6503
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    I didn't recognize it before, but now I am surprised that the action
    symbol
    is not the same as the UML1 activity symbol ("shape with straight top
    and bottom
    and with convex arcs on the two sides").
    Actions are no activities, but the semantic is similar for
    the "normal" UML user.
    In UML1 the user has to distinguish between the activity symbol and
    the state symbol ("round-cornered rectangle"), especially if states
    and activities
    are shown within the same diagram.
    Now you has to use the UML1 state symbol for actions. I think that
    this is confusing
    for the normal UML user.
    Another point is that the action symbol is the same as the state
    symbol. There will
    be no chance for a misunderstanding, because both symbols are not
    allowed within the same
    diagram. But it would be much clearer if the action symbol has a
    different notation and
    looks like the UML1 activity symbol.

    So, why not using the UML1 activity symbol for UML2 actions?

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Fri, 7 Nov 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Multiplicity seems to be broken - UML2 Infra & Super

  • Key: UML22-507
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6502
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Daimler AG ( Mario Jeckle)
  • Summary:

    The current Infastructure document defines it at page 54 as (line
    numbers have been added by me):
    (1) multiplicity ::= multiplicity_range
    (2) multiplicity_range ::= [lower '..'] upper
    (3) lower ::= integer
    (4) upper ::= unlimited_natural | '*'

    But at page 56 (also page 20 of the Superstructure document which
    copies
    the definition) it says:

    (5) multiplicity ::= multiplicty_range [

    {order_designator}

    ]
    (6) multiplicity_range ::= [lower '..'] upper
    (7) lower ::= integer | value_specification
    (8) upper ::= unlimited_natural | '*' | value_specification
    (9) order_designator ::= ordered | unordered
    (10) uniqueness_designator ::= unique | nonunique

    There are several problems arising from this definition:

    (P1) (9) and (10) are never used
    (P2) Defining the lower bound as "integer" (according to page 142 of
    the
    Infrastructure document) allows it to specify multiplicities with
    lower bounds below 0 (e.g. [-5..7], [-42..0])
    (P3) (4) and (8) include the asterisk symbol to denote an
    infinite
    upper bound. Though, this is redundant since the symbol is already
    there
    as part of the lexical representation of unlimited_natural (according
    to
    page 144 of the Infrastructure document)
    (P3) (4) and (8) define the upper bound using the datatype
    "unlimited_natural" which comprimises all integer numbers starting
    from
    zero. Thus multiplicities like [0..0] would be legal.
    (P4) It should be mentioned that the lower part is lower or equal to
    the
    value given for the upper part (where '*' is geater than any other
    element of the set named integer). Otherwise multiplicities like
    [8..2]
    would be considered legal.
    (P5) What is the role of the value_specification mentioned at (8) and
    (9) isn't it redundant there?

    Or am I just misreading the spec?

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Fri, 7 Nov 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

UML 2 Super / Dependency / ownership of dependencies

  • Key: UML22-499
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6451
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    At present, a dependency is not owned by any other element except a package. It seems to make sense for a dependency to be owned by its source. For example, the client of a usage should own it, since that would mean that the usage would be deleted along whenever its client is deleted – it makes no sense to have a dependency independently of the depending (source) element.

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Fri, 7 Nov 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Clarification of Information Flow semantics

  • Key: UML22-498
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6446
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Pivot Point ( Cris Kobryn)
  • Summary:

    Description: Consider the following recommendations to improve Information
    Flow semantics:
    b) Allow Information Flow to be specialized and decomposed using
    aggregation.
    c) Allow Information Flow between classifiers with ports and interfaces.
    Make provisions for relating the information flow to a port, such that an
    Information Flow can flow through a port.
    d) Allow Information Flows between classifiers with object flows across
    activity partitions.
    e) Change the name from Information Flow to Item Flow (or something similar)
    to allow for the flow of non-information, such as physical items specified
    in systems engineering applications.

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Thu, 6 Nov 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Activity diagram problems

  • Key: UML22-497
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6444
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Pivot Point ( Cris Kobryn)
  • Summary:

    Description: The following are some recommendations to improve Activity
    diagrams for systems engineering applications:
    a) Generalize pins so that they can be applied to control as well as data.
    b) Clarify how activity diagrams can be used to represent continuous
    behavior (e.g., streaming input).
    c) Clarify how an object node to represent a role.

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Thu, 6 Nov 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

UML 2 Infra/Metamodel::Constructs/invalid OCL constraint for "opposite"

  • Key: UML22-490
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6201
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    Is OCL for InfrastructureLibrary::Core::Constructs::Property::opposite() incorrect? Should it be:
    opposite =
    if owningAssociation->empty() and association.memberEnd->size() = 2 then
    let otherEnd = (association.memberEnd - self)->any() in
    if otherEnd.owningAssociation->empty() then otherEnd else Set{} endif
    else Set {}
    endif

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Sun, 7 Sep 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 8451 for disposition

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

UML 2 Super/Metamodel::Kernel/missing merges

  • Key: UML22-489
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6197
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    Kernel does not merge Abstractions::Namespaces, Abstractions, Multiplicities, Ownerships, and Visibilities

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Sun, 7 Sep 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

UML 2 Super/Package merge/redefinitions issue - lost association ends

  • Key: UML22-488
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6194
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    There is a subtle problem with redefinitions resulting from package merge. Property names have to match by name or the merging property has to redefine the merged property, AND the property types have the same name. Otherwise association ends are lost. For example, consider package Communications which is merged into BehaivorStateMachines. Communications has association ownedBehavior:Behavior <--> context:BehavioredClassifier (ignoring multiplicities to keep the text simpler). BehaviorStateMachines has class StateMachine which specializes Behavior, and has association ownedStateMachine:StateMachine

    {redefines ownedBehavior}

    <--> context:BehavioredClassifier. After the merge, merging BehavioredClassifier must contain two properties for ownedBehavior:Behavior and ownedStatemachine:StateMachine. Otherwise the association to the superclass is lost. This is a case where a class ends up redefining one of its own properties, and where ! the redefined and redefining properties both appear in the merged result.

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Sun, 7 Sep 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

UML 2 Super/Metamodel::Super/missing merge

  • Key: UML22-487
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6187
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    Package Super isn't merged anywhere, so the constraints it adds to Classifier are never included in L3

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Sun, 7 Sep 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

raisedException

  • Key: UML22-493
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6275
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: TimeWarp Engineering Ltd. ( Steven Cramer)
  • Summary:

    Reviewing of the Rose MDL file the diagram Constructs::Operations (Class Diagram) displays raisedException as a reference from both BehavioralFeature as well as Operation. Operation inherits from BehavioralFeature as well.

    I believe this violates a well-formedness rule that all structural features must be distinguishable.

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Thu, 18 Sep 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 8461 for disposition

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

UML 2 Super / Templates / TemplateParameter not named

  • Key: UML22-492
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6262
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    TemplateParameters do not appear to be namable. They inherit from Element and not NamedElement. In UML 1.5 they inherited from ModelElement (i.e. were namable). They need to be named to be referred to in the implementation of the template.

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Tue, 23 Sep 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

UML 2 Super/pg.75/kinds of changeability

  • Key: UML22-491
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6216
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    pg. 75: StructuralFeature::isReadOnly
    Limits severely limits previous capabilities to define various kinds of changeability. Even if some people think that the varieties of changeablity are not right, we should make this an enumerated value to provide extensibility for profiles. Call it "changeablity" as before. Should have enum values:

    Changeable (unrestricted)

    readOnly (no changes after initialization)

    [Note that the meaning and semantics of "initialization" are completely undefined, so this isn't all that useful.]

    The following additional choices were available in UML1:

    CreateOnly (add a set any time after initialization but no further changes)

    addOnly (may add members to the set but not change or remove any)

    Both of these occur in practice often enough.

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Sun, 7 Sep 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section 9.3.4 page 161, Presentation Option

  • Key: UML22-496
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6423
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Sparx Systems Pty Ltd ( Mr. J.D. Baker)
  • Summary:

    The statement "A dashed arrow with a stick arrowhead may be used to show that a collaboration is used in a classifier, optionally labelled with
    the keyword «represents»." and the accompanying example are confusing. Please clarify what this presentation option is trying to accomplish.

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Tue, 4 Nov 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

UML 2 Super / Kernel features / cannot exclude superclass properties

  • Key: UML22-495
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6398
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    In practice it is not always possible to refactor class hierarchies to ensure that all attributes are defined in the appropraite classes in that hierarchy. For example, a class hierarchy may be supplied by a third party or may be used by multiple products whereas the refactoring may only be required in a subset of them. In such cases, it is extremely useful to be able to exclude undesirable features inherited from a superclass. This einently practical technique should be supported in UML to allow those systems that use that feature to be properly modeled.

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Fri, 31 Oct 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Syntax of names

  • Key: UML22-494
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6389
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Issue: The UML infrastructure specification does not specify the syntax for names. This prevents model interchange.

    Proposal: Specify the syntax for the string in Name. At least, the characters that may be used in names, and any rules about where in the name certain characters may not (or may) appear.

    Include in the syntax specification a list of characters used in (or excluded from) names using (seven and) eight bit characters and a list of characters used in (or excluded from) names using sixteen bit characters.

    [After a quick glance, the rules sent to the UML 2 Superstructure FTF mail list looks like it will do the job. Or, in any event, get us started.]

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Wed, 22 Oct 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

UML 2 Issue: definition of navigability

  • Key: UML22-501
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6460
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    PROBLEM STATEMENT
    There is no definition for navigability or navigation in the Spec. Other
    concepts of similar importance, such as visibility, multiplicity, etc., are
    defined in the Spec, so it is not clear why it should be assumed that this
    concept does not require a definition.

    PROPOSED SOLUTION
    Add definition in Section 4 (Terms and definitions): The navigability of a
    binary association specifies the ability of an instance of the source
    classifier to access the instances of the target classifier by means of the
    association instances (links) that connect them. Navigability is closely
    related to the possibility of sending messages through associations (a
    message cannot be sent through an association instance against its
    navigability, that is, navigability is required for sending messages through
    associations), but they remain nonetheless different concepts.

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Fri, 7 Nov 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion: This issue was resolved in UML 2.1 where an explanation of navigability was provided (see page 41 top in formal/07-02/05) Revised Text: N/A Disposition: Closed, no change

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

Use 'represent' for the relationship of a model

  • Key: UML22-500
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6456
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    "An instance specification is a model element that represents an instance in a modeled system." [7.7.1] That is, the relationship of the instanceSpecification with a class to an object of that class is the representation relationship.

    At the same time, a lifeline represents a connectable element. [14.2]

    This is an example of a recurrent problem in the specification: model elements that represent other model elements.

    At the same time, "attributes of a class are represented by instances of Propert[ies]..."

    This is an example of an occassional and quite striking problem in the specification: items in the modeled system that represent model elements.

    The theory of representation needs to be settled. That done, the specification needs to be reviewed with this in mind and all improper uses of representation corrected.

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Fri, 7 Nov 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Rose Model of UML 2.0 spec

  • Key: UML22-506
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6501
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Pivot Point ( Cris Kobryn)
  • Summary:

    Class Diagram:Constructs/Packages in the Rose file shows the
    nestedPackage/package association the spec shows
    nestedPackage/nestingpackage

    I believe the spec to be in error...

    I am not sure where to report this and or who keeps this model up to
    date. Any recommendations would be appreciated

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Fri, 7 Nov 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

ptc-03-09-15/Relationships among Core packages

  • Key: UML22-505
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6496
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: David Frankel Consulting ( David Frankel)
  • Summary:

    Issue: The superficial impression that Core::Abstractions is the lowest
    layer in the U2P Core does not stand up under close examination.
    Core::Basic is closer to being the fundamental layer because it uses none of
    the new association modeling constructs (such as derived unions and subsets)
    to define itself; but is not entirely so because it imports two packages
    from Abstractions.

    Recommendation: It would be worth considering whether the two packages that
    Basic imports from Abstractions can be placed in Basic, so that Basic is
    unambiguously the lowest layer in Core. This would also make EMOF
    unambiguously the lowest-—i.e. the most fundamental—-layer of MOF, since
    EMOF is based on Core::Basic while CMOF is based on Core::Constructs.

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Fri, 7 Nov 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Move Comment into Basic and add Kind

  • Key: UML22-547
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7782
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    Move Comment into Basic and add Kind
    The ability to annotate and describe elements and diagrams is pretty
    fundamental so should be included in Basic.
    There should also be the recognition that there are different kinds of
    comment: for example most tools have a dialog allowing people to enter a
    Description for an Element; and separately may allow the element to be
    annotated on diagrams in a particular context. At the moment there is no
    way to distinguish these.
    The UML Metamodel itself is an example of the need for different kinds
    of Comment: each Class has a number of distinct sections (e.g.
    Description, Semantics, Notation).
    Hence there should be a 'kind' attribute on Comment to reflect this.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Fri, 24 Sep 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Disposition: Closed, no change

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

Unconsistent Profile extension description (02)

  • Key: UML22-546
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7757
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Softeam ( Philippe Desfray)
  • Summary:

    18.3.5 says that "A profile by definition extends a reference metamodel or another profile."
    While in theory I could see how it might be modeled, I don't see how the latter could work in practice with real tools. Let's extend the current example and define a new Profile called ClockTechnology with Stereotype AtomicClock with baseClass Clock and property radioactiveElement:String..."

    Import between profiles is supported, and stereotype generalization is the usual way to achieve what has been called "extending a profile".

    The reference to profile extension should be simply discarded. A profile extends a reference metamodel.
    .

    Discussion

    In Profiles:Profile:semantics, change the first sentence

    A profile by definition extends a reference metamodel or another profile.

    Into

    A profile by definition extends a reference metamodel.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Fri, 3 Sep 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Unconsistent association extension description

  • Key: UML22-545
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7756
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Softeam ( Philippe Desfray)
  • Summary:

    b) More worryingly, 18.3.5 Semantics also says "As part of a profile, it is not possible to have an association between two stereotypes or between a stereotype and a metaclass unless they are subsets of existing associations in the reference metamodel." I fail to see how a profile could in fact could cause an association between 2 stereotypes to subset an existing association in a reference metamodel since the stereotypes do not at all inherit from the baseClasses so do not inherit any of its properties or associations in order to be able to subset them: this is emphasized by the MOF representation shown in the new Figure 447.

    Indeed profiles do not support association subsetting. This should be made clear in the spec to avoid any confusion while using profiles.
    .

    Discussion

    In Profiles:Profile:semantics, change the paragraph

    As part of a profile, it is not possible to have an association between two stereotypes or between a stereotype and a metaclass unless they are subsets of existing associations in the reference metamodel.

    Into

    As part of a profile, it is not possible to have an association between two stereotypes or between a stereotype and a metaclass.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Fri, 3 Sep 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section 11.7

  • Key: UML22-538
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7343
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology ( Thomas Weigert)
  • Summary:

    In the manner of representing the relationship between BehavioralFeature and Parameter the infrastructure imposes either a limit on the nature of parameters on modeling languages reusing the infrastructure or forces them to duplicate this mechanism. The infrastructure decided to represent as concrete associations the kinds of parameters, and distinguishes two: returnResult and formalParameter. The parameter association is then derived as a union of these. However, there may be a large number of parameter kinds. For example, the superstructure defines four, and one can easily imagine additional ones. To be more reusable and expandable, parameter should be characterized by its kind (does it return a result, is it a formal parameter). Note that this is, in reality, a property of the parameter, not of the relation between BehavioralFeature and Parameter and thus is modeled better this way anyway. Define an attribute "direction" on Parameter of type "ParameterDirectionKind". In infrastructure give it two values: in, and returnResult. This type can be extended in other languages, e.g., the UML uses also out, and inout). Make BehavioralFeature.parameter concrete. Make the formalParameter and returnResult associations derived from the direction attribute of each parameter. The result is the identical model, but much more reusable. Note that the superstructure was forced to introduce both mechanisms, thus running into the risk of inconsistencies, if the two mechanisms do not match up. There is no negative impact on the infrastructure of relying on the more reusable option proposed here. The number of model elements stored in the repository is identical for infrastructure, and lower for superstructure.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 16 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

simple time model" in CommonBehavior

  • Key: UML22-537
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7303
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology ( Thomas Weigert)
  • Summary:

    For the "simple time model" in CommonBehavior, it is unclear when the DurationObservationAction and TimeObservationAction would be executed. For one, it is not stated when these actions are executed. I assume that when the execution of the model reaches the point of the attached model elements, then these actions are executed. Several problems: It is unclear what determines when these actions are executed. If the actions are embedded in a sequence of actions, where control flow indicates when they execute, what is the meaning of the association to a named element? If that named element is reached later in the execution, does the execution wait? If it is reached earlier, does that element have to wait until the action sequence is enabled? (ii) There should be some constraint on the "NamedElements" associated with TimeExpression that limits those to elements that can be enountered during execution, as these elements appear to determine when these actions are evaluated. There is a tension between these actions being embedded in a sequence of actions where their execution is determined by the control and data flow, and the associated "NamedElements" that would determine the observation of time also. Normally, actions are used within a sequence of actions (an activity). These two actions are different in that they seem to make no sense within an activity due to that they have very special invocation points. They seem to only make sense as stand-alone elements. Maybe it should not be an action, but some other model element, that should dictate how time and duration are observed.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 5 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion: Fixed as part of the resolution to issue 8894 in UML 2.1 Revised Text: N/A Disposition: Closed, no change

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

Problem with diagram references in Profiles section

  • Key: UML22-551
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7909
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    2nd paragraph in Stereotype Semantics does not have proper cross-references to the figures and hence they have not been updated as other figures have been inserted. The para currently reads:
    An instance "S" of Stereotype is a kind of (meta) class. Relating it to a metaclass "C" from the reference metamodel (typically UML) using an "Extension" (which is a specific kind of association), signifies that model elements of type C can be extended by an instance of "S" (see example Figure 454). At the model level (such as in Figure 457) instances of "S" are related to "C" model elements (instances of "C") by links (occurrences of the association/extension from "S’ to "C").

    But the 2 references should be to Figure 456 and Figure 461 respectively.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Sun, 14 Nov 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Design principles

  • Key: UML22-550
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7908
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: none ( Markus Flueckiger)
  • Summary:

    have a general problem with the UML 2.0 specification. A graphical modelling language is essential for succesful software development. However the more I read about UML 2.0 the more I had the impression that UML 2.0 has not been developed with actual real-world software development in mind. Just to give one highlight of UML 2.0 is the merge relation between packages: The relation leads to bad designs and incomprehensible software systems, e.g. like like badly designed inheritance hierarchies etc. Especially consider the following case: a trifle change in the diagram (change the merge relationship into e.g. an access relationship) causes a tremendous amount of changes on the code and the configuration level. The only way to handle this is to forbid the merge relationship and to hope that nobody is blind enough to actually use it. Reading the manual, I stumbled over numerous similar issues. I'm sorry to say but I'm very disappointed with UML 2.0 as it is

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Wed, 10 Nov 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

The specification is fond of using 'typically.'

  • Key: UML22-544
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7407
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: X-Change Technologies ( Joaquin Miller)
  • Summary:

    The specification is fond of using 'typically.' The term should be use with care in a specification. Typically, 'must' or 'may' are better choices. For example, at 7.4.1 p.42: The multiplicity bounds are typically shown in the format: lower-bound..upper-bound It will be better to write: The multiplicity bounds are shown in the format: lower-bound..upper-bound simply deleting 'typically.' (In this case, the syntax specification should show the case when the two bounds are equal.)

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 31 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

TimeObservationAction and DurationObservationAction

  • Key: UML22-543
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7406
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology ( Thomas Weigert)
  • Summary:

    TimeObservationAction and DurationObservationAction are described as actions, but are not really actions like the actions of the action chapter. They would never be used when defining a behavior, but are part of a metalanguage to define temporal constraints and to refer to measured times and durations in formulating such constraints. However, these two elements are the only aspects of this language, everything else is left to be defined later (see TimeExpression). Putting these two mechanisms into the specifications unduly constrains any profile that would want to define a notation for expressing temporal constraints. Such a language might not see a need to use the actions described in this chapter. My recommendation is to find a different way of expressing time observations and duration observations in the metamodel. The syntax examples clearly show that they are not meant to be used within an activity as actions. Note that the only way to use these observations is to create a "fake" activity attached to the interaction (e.g., as a nestedClassifier) which contains only this action. A rather convoluted and heavy-weight means of expressing the simple concept of "NOW" (as the point in time when some model element is executed). A simpler mechanism is clearly needed.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sat, 29 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion: Fixed as part of the resolution to issue 8894 in UML 2.1 Revised Text: N/A Disposition: Closed, no change

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

add an interaction fragment

  • Key: UML22-541
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7397
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology ( Thomas Weigert)
  • Summary:

    Sequence diagrams are often used to describe abstract system behavior in the form of the interaction of the system with its environment. Experience has shown that systems have normal behavior and exceptional behavior (in response to unusual or unexpected events). UML2 has introduced a mechanism of representing exceptions. However, interactions do not give us a vehicle of showing exceptional behavior. Recommendation: add an interaction fragment indicating exceptional handling similar to the way this is done in the activity chapter.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 30 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Interactions model sequences of events

  • Key: UML22-540
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7392
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology ( Thomas Weigert)
  • Summary:

    Interactions model sequences of events. The metaclass EventOccurrence represents the occurrence of an event. Currently, there are the following kinds of events known: i. sending of a message ii. receiving of a message iii. start of the execution of a behavior iv. finish of the execution of a behavior v. stop First, clearly, there could be many more events that one might want to represent on a lifeline. In particular, the invocation of an action is a possible event, and should be allowed to be represented. Secondly, event occurrence is modeled poorly. It is shown as a kind of message end, which means that every event occurrence inherits the notion of being a message end point, even if the event has nothing to do with a message (such as a stop event). Clearly the inheritance hierarchy is inverted. A message end can represent an event occurrence (such as the sending or receiving of a message). But not every event occurrence is a message event.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sat, 29 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion: This was fixed in UML 2.1 Revised Text: N/A Disposition: Closed, no change

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

Clarify example in figure 133

  • Key: UML22-539
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7362
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Dr. Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    Could you describe in details the meaning of the example described in Figure 133, because it could very useful to understand the deployment specification concept. Moreover, is there anything lacking in figure 134? It contains no model element with the <<deployment specification>> stereotype.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 19 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

XMI schema

  • Key: UML22-542
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7401
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: X-Change Technologies ( Joaquin Miller)
  • Summary:

    "[C]omplying with a package requires complying with its abstract syntax, well-formedness rules, semantics, notation and XMI schema," [2] but there is no XMI schema. "It is expected that the normative XMI for this specification will be generated by a Finalization Task Force, which will architectually align and finalize the relevant specifications." [Appendix F] That is consistent with the OMG Document Archives, which show: ad/03-04-02: XMI for U2 Partners' UML 2.0: Superstructure, 3rd. revision (Contact: Mr. Cris Kobryn) No description of this document is available. Formats: Note: Not yet available. An XMI schema should be supplied, or the requirement to comply with an XMI schema should be removed.

  • Reported: RAS 2.0b1 — Mon, 31 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

DataType attributes UML 2 Super (ptc/04-10-02)

  • Key: UML22-552
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7938
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Mr. Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    On Figure 13, DataType::ownedAttribute is specified as ordered but in the
    associations section on page 59, it is not specified as ordered.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Fri, 19 Nov 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 7939 for disposition

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

UML 2 Super/Metamodel::Constructs/owningComment

  • Key: UML22-486
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6176
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    Constructs association owningCommet:Element[0..1] c-> ownedCommet:Comment[0..*] should have been owningElement:Element[0..1] c-> ownedCommet:Comment[0..*] as defined in Kernel/Root.

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Sun, 7 Sep 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see below

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

Classes diagram of the Core::Constructs package

  • Key: UML22-485
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6006
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Honeywell ( Steven Hickman)
  • Summary:

    In the Classes diagram of the Core::Constructs package, the references to StructuralFeature, Relationship, Type, and Classifier have no cross-reference to the package where they were originally defined, whereas other concepts in this diagram do. It is clear from the fact that some of these concepts are involved in derived roles or relationships, that they MUST have been defined somewhere else.

    The document needs to be fixed so that it is self consistent and so that proper cross-references are indicated.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sat, 19 Jul 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

cross-reference missing

  • Key: UML22-484
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6005
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Honeywell ( Steven Hickman)
  • Summary:

    The reference to TypedElement in the Expressions diagram for Core::Constructs makes no cross-reference to the definition of TypedElement in Core::Abstractions::TypedElements or Core::Basic.

    Is it a reference to either of these or is it yet another definition of a concept with the same name?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sat, 19 Jul 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Relationship and DirectedRelationship in Core::Constructs

  • Key: UML22-483
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6004
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Honeywell ( Steven Hickman)
  • Summary:

    There doesn't seem to be any value in the specialization of Relationship and DirectedRelationship in Core::Constructs from their definitions in Core::Abstractions::Relationships. The documentation clearly states that the specializations don't add anything to the either concept. In fact, it appears that this can be said for everything in the Core::Constructs Root Diagram.

    If this is the case, why do these specializations exist? The UML spec is big enough - there is no point in adding things that don't need to be there. If the goal is to merely create a single diagram that includes concepts and relationships that were previously spread across multiple diagrams, then why not simply create the diagram and have every contained concept refer to the package where it was originally defined?

    If there is a compelling reason for these specializations, then that reason needs to be spelled out in the spec - because it isn't obvious to me.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sat, 19 Jul 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

document appears to be inconsistent in how it handles concepts

  • Key: UML22-482
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6003
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Honeywell ( Steven Hickman)
  • Summary:

    This document appears to be inconsistent in how it handles concepts with the same name. In some cases, the class diagrams make it clear that a concept is being imported from one package to another by reference. However, there are a lot of cases where the same concept name is used in separate packages but it is not clear if it is the same concept, a parallel concept, or a refinement of the concept.

    In many cases the documentation of the concepts is the same (or nearly so) everywhere it appears. This tends to imply that it is, in fact, the same concept. However, if this were the case, then it should be defined in one package and imported by reference in other packages. On the other hand, since the import by reference is actually done in some cases, that tends to imply that, where the import by reference is not done, something else significant is going on. What that significant thing "is" is never made clear - at least not as far as I can tell.

    I suspect the same problem exists in the UML 2.0 Superstructure submission because they were both written by the same group.

    Proper understanding of the metamodel becomes impossible without this issue getting resolved. Someone needs to go through both of these documents and locate every place the same concept name is used in multiple packages and make sure it is clear how the concepts with the same name in different packages relate to each other.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sat, 19 Jul 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Designates a Generalization

  • Key: UML22-477
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5794
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: yahoo.com ( Jeff Barnes)
  • Summary:

    The text:

    Designates a Generalization whose parent GeneralizableElement is the immediate ancestor of the current GeneralizableElement.

    disagrees in plurality with the * cardinality of the generalization association end between GeneralizableElement and Generalization in the Core Package - Relationships diagram (Figure 2-6) on page 2-14.

  • Reported: UML 1.4 — Sun, 15 Dec 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed no change

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

Namespace issue (UML 1.4 formal/2002-09-67, 2.5.3.26 Namespace )

  • Key: UML22-476
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5593
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: blomesystem ??????? ( Michael Zavyalov)
  • Summary:

    The Namespace has the following definition constraint (p. 2-64): [1] The operation contents results in a Set containing all ModelElements contained by the Namespace. contents : Set(ModelElement) contents = self.ownedElement -> union(self.namespace, contents)

    The errors: 1. Syntax error in the union operation. According to Object Constraint Language Specification set has operation (p. 6-38) set->union(set2 : Set(T)) : Set(T) with the single parameter !

    2. The functions contents and allContents are used to receive all composite and aggregate elements of namespace according to specification of these functions (Is that right ?). For example all overriden functions in the descedent elements (Package, DataType) release these functions in this manner. In this case function contents must be realized as: contents = self.ownedElement 3.The functions contents and allContents is sometimes used to receive list of «accessable» objects ! For example: definition constraint #2 for BehavioralFeature (p. 2-54): [2] The type of the Parameters should be included in the Namespace of the Classifier. self.parameter->forAll( p | self.owner.namespace.allContents->includes (p.type) ) Why parameter can't use imported DataType ? Why parameter can't use DataType located in the Namespace binded with the namespace of classifier by «friend» Permission ? Note that DataType may be included in the namespace of namespace of owner. It also may be included directly into owner ! I may send the collection of such errors («contents» instead of «acessable»).

  • Reported: UML 1.4 — Sun, 25 Aug 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion: This is an issue raised against the UML 1 metamodel, which is no longer valid. Revised Text: N/A Disposition: Closed, no change

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

Sending a signal after a delay

  • Key: UML22-475
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4937
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Stephen Mellor)
  • Summary:

    Sending a signal after a delay

  • Reported: XMI 1.3 — Tue, 5 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The feature requested is already supported in UML 2.1: Precede an action by an AcceptEventAction, where the latter references a trigger that refers to a TimeEvent. Thus, for example, if you have a sequence of an AcceptEventAction with a TimeEvent specifyinig the desired delay and a SendSignalAction, then the signal will not be sent until the delay has passed. Note that this feature is extremely generic, probably giving the user even too much support (you can define a statemachine purely with actions, if there are not proper constraint placed on the events allowed in the AcceptEventAction).

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

Does visibility apply to creating an destroying links?

  • Key: UML22-474
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4448
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    It isn't clear whether visibility of association ends applies to
    creating and destroying links. If it does, then what if one end is
    private and the other public, can the private end create or destroy
    a link?

  • Reported: XMI 1.2 — Fri, 3 Aug 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

relationship should just be a cross-reference

  • Key: UML22-481
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6002
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: self ( Steve Hickman)
  • Summary:

    There is no clear relationship between NamedElement, TypedElement and Type as defined in Core::Basic and items by the same name in Core::Abstractions::Namespaces and Core::Abstractions::TypedElements. There is no reference between the two although the concepts seem identical.

    It seems like the relationship should just be a cross-reference. However, is it a type-instance relationship? Or is a refinement relationship (as can be seen in other parts of the spec)? Or is it something else? What is going on here?

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Sat, 19 Jul 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed no change

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

formal/03-03-01 : Omission of definition of Class "Action"

  • Key: UML22-480
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5907
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    I believe I found an omission from the UML 1.5 Specification formal/03-03-01:

    p. 2-112, Fig. 2-18: Association between "Message" and "Action (from Common Behavior)"

    In Sec. 2.9 Common Behavior; none of the diagrams or text specify Class "Action".

    p. Index-1 cites "Action" p 2-103.

    p. 2-103 has no mention of "Action".

    The first item in Sec. 2.9.3 is "2.9.3.1 AttributeLink", not "2.9.3.1 Action" as would be alphabetized.

    My question is what is definition of the "Action" Class in Fig. 2-18?

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Mon, 21 Apr 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed no change

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

Specify XMI parameters for the UML / XMI interchange format

  • Key: UML22-473
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3898
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: DSTC ( Stephen Crawley)
  • Summary:

    When the UML spec standardises an XMI-generated interchange format for
    UML
    models, it should include:

    • the "input" MOF meta-model for UML that was used to generate the
      interchange format, and
    • a formal statement of the other XMI "parameters" used to generate
      the interchange format.

    If possible, the UML spec should include a definitive meta-model for
    UML
    expressed as a MOF / XMI document. This is a MOF alignment issue.

  • Reported: UML 1.3 — Fri, 22 Sep 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

logic upperbound is the same as the lower bound.

  • Key: UML22-479
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5896
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    3] The operation lowerbound returns the lowest lower bound of the ranges in a multiplicity. lowerbound( ) : Integer; lowerbound = self.range->exists(r : MultiplicityRange |r.lower = result) and self.range->forall(r : MultiplicityRange |r.lower <= result) [4] The operation upperbound returns the highest upper bound of the ranges in a multiplicity. upperbound( ) : UnlimitedInteger; upperbound = self.range->exists(r : MultiplicityRange |r.upper = result) and self.range->forall(r : MultiplicityRange |r.upper <= result) =============================================

    according to the logic upperbound is the same as the lower bound.

    should the upperbound read as r.upper >= result instead of r.upper <= result on the last line?

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Fri, 4 Apr 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed no change

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

2.5.2.27 ModelElement

  • Key: UML22-478
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5804
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: yahoo.com ( Jeff Barnes)
  • Summary:

    The text "deploymentLocation The set of locations may differ. Often it is more restrictive on the child." has no corresponding association in any diagram. The closest match is documented in 2.5.2.12 Component on pages 2-31 and 2-32. If this is the non-inherited feature discussed on page 2-44 is it not redundant and doesn't it cloud the meaning of the feature?

  • Reported: UML 1.4 — Thu, 19 Dec 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed no change

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

UML 2 Super / Classes / dependencies should be unidirectional

  • Key: UML22-511
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6630
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    In the metamodel, UML::Classes::Dependencies::NamedElement::supplierDependency should not be navigable, as it does not make sense for the supplier of a dependency to know about its dependencies

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

two classes "NamedElement

  • Key: UML22-510
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6525
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Pivot Point ( Cris Kobryn)
  • Summary:

    Secondly, there are two classes "NamedElement" holding un-redefined
    attribute "name", one is in the
    package "InfrastructureLibrary.Core.Basic", and the other is in the
    package "InfrastructureLibrary.Core.Abstractions.Namespaces". The
    problem is that there are a lot of classes directly or indirectly
    inheriting both of them e.g. class "InstanceSpecification" in package
    uml.classes.kernel, and it causes problem of duplicated parameters in
    class creation in the generated JMI interfaces. e.g.
    "
    public InstanceSpecification createInstanceSpecification
    (java.lang.String name,
    infrastructurelibrary.core.abstractions.visibilities.VisibilityKind
    visibility, java.lang.String name, java.util.Collection classifier);
    "
    Similiar cases happen to attribute "type", "isAbstract" etc.

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Fri, 7 Nov 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

well-formedness rules are not numbered correctly

  • Key: UML22-515
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6641
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Condris Technologies ( Valentin Crettaz)
  • Summary:

    The well-formedness rules are not numbered correctly. After the note in the middle of the page, the numbering scheme starts over at [1] instead of going on to [10].

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

number of the figure is wrong

  • Key: UML22-514
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6640
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    At the bottom of page 2-216, the paragraph "This life cycle may be depicted informally using a statechart diagram, as shown in Figure 2-39." should actually read "This life cycle may be depicted informally using a statechart diagram, as shown in Figure 2-40." The number of the figure is wrong.

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Tue, 25 Nov 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

UML 1.5 table of contents

  • Key: UML22-520
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6665
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: EWSolutions ( Patrick Cross)
  • Summary:

    The example text <Company xmi:id="Company_1" name="Acme"> <HQAddress xmi:id="Address_1" Street="Side Street" </Company>City="Hometown"/> should be <Company xmi:id="Company_1" name="Acme"> <HQAddress xmi:id="Address_1" Street="Side Street" City="Hometown"/> </Company>

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Wed, 3 Dec 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

In the last paragraph, the period after the word "collections" on the secon

  • Key: UML22-519
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6662
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Condris Technologies ( Valentin Crettaz)
  • Summary:

    In the last paragraph, the period after the word "collections" on the second line should be removed

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Tue, 2 Dec 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

In paragraph 5, the addition of 2, 5, 7 and -3 does not yield 9 but 11

  • Key: UML22-518
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6661
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Condris Technologies ( Valentin Crettaz)
  • Summary:

    In paragraph 5, the addition of 2, 5, 7 and -3 does not yield 9 but 11. That's why "...subaction Addition is the scalar 9." should read "...subaction Addition is the scalar 11."

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Tue, 2 Dec 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

The multiplicity of association named subaction of type Action ill formed

  • Key: UML22-517
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6660
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Condris Technologies ( Valentin Crettaz)
  • Summary:

    The multiplicity of the association named subaction of type Action is ill formed. Instead of [1..] it should read [1..1].

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Mon, 1 Dec 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Operations and derived attributes

  • Key: UML22-521
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6692
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: TimeWarp Engineering Ltd. ( Steven Cramer)
  • Summary:

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

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

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

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

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Wed, 10 Dec 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

class "InfrastructureLibrary.core.constructs.Association",

  • Key: UML22-509
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6524
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Pivot Point ( Cris Kobryn)
  • Summary:

    found something strange in the specification of UML 2.0.
    First of all, in the
    class "InfrastructureLibrary.core.constructs.Association", there is
    an attribute "ownedEnd" with return type
    of "InfrastructureLibrary.Core.Constructs.Property" and 0...*; and it
    its direct subclass "infrastructurelibrary.profiles.Extension", there
    is an attribute "ownedEnd" which redefines ownedEnd in
    class "Association", but with return
    type "infrastructurelibrary.profiles.ExtensionEnd" and multiplicity
    of 1. It causes conflicts of generated JMI interface.

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Fri, 7 Nov 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

remove paragraph

  • Key: UML22-513
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6639
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Condris Technologies ( Valentin Crettaz)
  • Summary:

    The paragraph starting at the bottom of page 2-200 with "A user model uses instances..." and finishing at the top of page 2-201 describes figure 2-37 which has been removed from the specification 1.4 when transiting to 1.5. Thus, the paragraph should be either adapted to reflect the change or removed.

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Tue, 25 Nov 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

UML 2 Infra/Metamodel/missing derivation indicators

  • Key: UML22-512
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6637
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    Package::nestedPackage and Profile::ownedStereotype should be derived, just as Package::ownedType is (all three subset Package::ownedMember). In general, if the contents of a subset are determined soley by type (and the superset property is not derived), the subset property should be derived.

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Fri, 21 Nov 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion: This was fixed in release 2.1. Revised Text: N/A Disposition: Closed, no change

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

multiplicity of the association named "type" of type DataType

  • Key: UML22-516
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6659
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Condris Technologies ( Valentin Crettaz)
  • Summary:

    The multiplicity of the association named "type" of type DataType is given as [1..1}. It should be [1..1], i.e. with square brackets instead of curly braces

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Tue, 2 Dec 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • 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

Bad cross reference for InterfaceRealization Notation

  • Key: UML22-250
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9881
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    The notation part of Section 7.3.25 says "See Interface(from
    Interfaces)". However this has nothing to do with Realization. The
    cross-reference should in fact be to Realization - section 7.3.45 -
    which does have the notation needed.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 3 Jul 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

PrimitiveTypes access by UML (M1) models

  • Key: UML22-249
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9878
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    UML allows M1-level models to reuse the primitive types defined in the PrimitiveTypes package in the UML Infrastructure (e.g., Integer, String, etc.). Currently, this package is merged into L0 and is not separately accessible and should have its own URI so that it can be imported by M1 models without having to import the UML metamodel.

    This may also mean that instead of merging the package PrimitiveTypes into L0, the package should be imported

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Unclear which Property has aggregation

  • Key: UML22-253
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9889
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    Where a diagram has a diamond it is not clear which end has the aggregation metaproperty. This can be discovered but only with a lot of detecetive work. For example 7.3.3 states "An association with aggregationKind = shared differs in notation from binary associations in adding a hollow diamond as a terminal adornment at the aggregate end of the association line. ". Nothing makes sufficiently clear that, for an aggregate property, that the diamond is depicted at the opposite end to the multiplicity and other annotations for that property.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 6 Jul 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Move Property::isId from MOF to UML

  • Key: UML22-252
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9888
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    It is a general requirement to be able to indicate candidate keys in UML models. This should be in Infrastructure (s still usable by MOF) and merged into Superstructure.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 6 Jul 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Notation for stereotypes on Comments and other elements

  • Key: UML22-248
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9877
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    Section 18.3.8, Notation, states "When a stereotype is applied to a model element (an instance of a stereotype is linked to an instance of a metaclass), the name of the stereotype is shown within a pair of guillemets above or before the name of the model element. " However several elements do not have names - for example Comment and LiteralString (the ODM Profile does define stereotypes on the latter).

    SysML contains the following.
    A comment note box may contain stereotype keywords or icons even though Comment is not a named element. UML specifies placement of a stereotype keyword relative to the name of the element. SysML makes explicit that they may appear inside a comment box as well. The stereotype keywords, if present, should appear prior to the comment text. The stereotype properties, if present, should appear after the comment text. The typical placement of stereotype icons is in the upper-right-hand corner of the containing graphical node.
    This approach should be used by UML and generalized for other non-named elements

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Duplicate of 9706

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

text-diagram out of synch in Infrastructure 11.4.1

  • Key: UML22-251
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9885
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Capability Measurement ( Karl Frank)
  • Summary:

    Bran at the Boston meeting remarked on the practical difficulty of keeping the Infrastructure doc up to date and in synch, text to diagrams and diagrams to underlying xmi.

    This is a report of a place where the text is out of synch with metamodel diagrams in doc.

    reference is to 06-04-03 Infrastructrue v2.1 doc.

    11.4.1 Classifier

    Associations • feature : Feature [*] Redefines the corresponding association in Abstractions. Subsets Namespace::member and is a derived union. Note that there may be members of the Classifier that are of the type Feature but are not included in this association (e.g., inherited features). Constraints No additional constraints Semantics No additional semantics

    Problem here is that Figure 11.16, the Constructs classifier diagram, shows the important general association, Classifier to Classifier, which is not mentioned in the text, needs to be documented under 11.4.1 Associations and probably also Semantics

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 6 Jul 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Clarify isRequired

  • Key: UML22-254
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9890
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    18.3.2 the description for isRequired, while technically correct, is somewhat terse and does not make clear that the references to 'multiplicity are to the lower and upper properties of ExtensionEnd

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 6 Jul 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • 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

General ordering cycles

  • Key: UML22-217
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9806
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    There should be a constraint preventing the definition of general ordering cycles (involving occurrence specifications), as there is with generalizations

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 6 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

What exactly is a state list?

  • Key: UML22-215
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9800
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    The UML2.1 specification defines a state list:

    The special case of the transition from the junction having a history as
    target may optionally be presented as the target
    being the state list state symbol. See Figure 15.27 and Figure 15.28 for
    examples.

    I couldn't map that definition to the example. There is no junction and
    no history state. Can someone
    provide fig. 15.27 in another notation without state list?

    I'm not the first one who's asking this. Probably we should provide such
    an example in the spec.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 30 May 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 9.14.2

  • Key: UML22-214
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9760
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Self-Employed ( Steven Coco)
  • Summary:

    The definition of Namespace lists as a generalization, Namespace. This appears to be an error: it appears this is intented to refer to NamedElement.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 24 May 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 11.1.3

  • Key: UML22-213
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9752
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Watt Systems Technologies ( Kenneth Lloyd)
  • Summary:

    Element reads "Constructs::Element reuses the definition of Element from Abstractions::Comments." Since this element has been removed should this read "Constructs::Element reuses the definition of Element from Abstractions::Ownerships." as reflected in the merge?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 17 May 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Action inputs/outputs

  • Key: UML22-212
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9720
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    Seeing as Action::input and Action::output are derived compositions that subset Element::ownedElement, all subsets of them should be compositions (I thought Karl had added a constraint to this effect?). In particular, OpaqueAction::inputValue, OpaqueAction::outputValue, AcceptEventAction::result, AcceptCallAction::returnInformation, UnmarshallAction::result should be composite

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 15 May 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 7.3.44

  • 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

Completion event modeling

  • Key: UML22-219
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9808
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    Completion events are an explicit concept in UML statecharts. However, there is no corresponding metaclass either in the Common Behavior section or in Statecharts. Since completion events trigger transitions, it may be necessary to have an explicit CompletionEvent metaclass. For instance, we may want to model an interaction in which execution occurrences are initiated by completion events.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 7 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Requires the addition of a new meta class. This needs to be postponed to a later revision when we will have more time to investigate this proposal and its impacts.

    Revised Text:
    N/A
    Disposition: Closed, out of scope

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

Editorial bug in 2.1 Superstructure Convenience document

  • Key: UML22-216
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9803
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    The Convenience document is inconsistent with the resolution with 9087 and itself: the spec shows Package::packagedElement as derived in the Associations section of 7.3.37 whereas it's clearly not in the resolution. Figure 7.14 is actually OK as is the metamodel.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 5 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

7.3.4 Association Class

  • Key: UML22-183
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9249
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Paranor AG ( Earl Waldin)
  • Summary:

    The specification should state when navigation between an association class and the endpoints of that association class are allowed. When there is an association class between two classes, OCL allows navigation between these classes and the association class itself (see Sections 7.5.4 and 7.5.5 of the OCL 2.0 specification ptc/2005-06-06). However, navigability in UML2 is defined with respect to the metaclass Property and the semantics describe navigability in terms of navigating across an association via a property, i.e., from one endpoint to the other (see the definition of isNavigable() in Section 7.3.44, subsection Additional Operations, and descriptions of navigability in sections 7.3.3 - Association, 7.3.7 - Class, and 7.3.44 – Property.) No mention of navigability to and from association classes is found in section 7.3.4 – Association Class, nor any place else in the specification. One simple possibility would be for navigation involving association classes to respect navigation between its endpoints. For example, if classes C1 and C2 are connected by an association class A, then if one can navigate from C1 to C2 (C1->C2), then one can navigate from C1 to A (C1->A) and from A to C2 (A->C2). Another simple possibility would be to always allow navigation from an association class to its endpoints while requiring navigation from an endpoint to the association class to respect navigability. For example, if the association is one-way navigable from C1 to C2 (C1->C2) then one could navigate from C1 to A (C1->A) and from A to C2 (A->C2) as above and, in addition, from A to C1 (A->C1). Anything more complex than these two simple alternatives requires deeper investigation into the semantics of the UML metamodel or even changing the metamodel. For example, the association ownedEnd: Property for Association in section 7.3.3 could subset Classifier::attribute instead of Classifier::feature. Or in the definition of Association Class in 7.3.4 one could allow the inherited associations ownedAttribute: Property and ownedEnd: Property to overlap, i.e., be non-disjoint, although this may have technical difficulties because these two associations are compositions.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 05:00 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 mandatory compositions and associations

  • Key: UML22-264
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10074
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    I initially thought this just affected chapter 11 and compositions, but the more I looked the wider the impact: this seems quite a systemic problem.

    There are several significant metamodel errors that would prevent population of models in repositories that enforce association semantics. These affect both the diagrams and the metamodel (though I have not checked every association in the metamodel XMI).
    The common problem is metaclasses being shown with multiple mandatory composite owners (i.e. a multiplicity of 1 as opposed to 0..1) next to the black diamond. In some cases this is implicit (the default multiplicity being 1..1, in others explicitly '1'). Since any instance can have at most one composite owner, to have more than one such owner mandatory makes for an 'impossible' (to be valid) metamodel.

    There are non-composition cases where it also does not make sense to have associations mandatory. Often the mandatory nature is implicit (there is not explicit multiplicity shown on the diagrams).

    Here is the list of diagrams and the problematic classes:
    Figure 7.7 Element (not every Element will be constrained)
    Figure 7.8 StructuralFeature (not every StructuralFeature will have a Slot defined for it in some instance model) and Classifier (again not every Classifier will have at least one InstanceSpecification)
    Figure 7.9 NamedElement, Classifier (for redefinedElement, general), RedefinableElement (for redefinedElement, redefinitionContext)
    Figure 7.10 Type
    Figure 7.12 Type (via endType), Class(via superClass), and Property (via opposite, redefinedProperty, subsettedProperty)

    Figure 8.2 Classifier (not every Classifier will realize a Component) and Interface (not every Interface will be both provided and required by at least one Component)

    Figure 10.2 Artifact (inverse of nestedArtifact is mandatory - not every Artifact will be nested in another)
    Figure 10.3 Node (ditto for nestedNode)

    Figure 11.3 InputPin and OutputPin
    Figure 11.4 InputPin and OutputPin
    Figure 11.5 InputPin
    Figure 11.8 InputPin
    Figure 11.13 InputPin
    Figure 11.17 InputPin and OutputPin.

    Figure 11.2 does not have mandatory composition but requires each InputPin (and OutputPin) to be the inputValue of an OpaqueAction which seems quite wrong.

    Figure 12.10 ValueSpecification
    Figure 12.11 ValueSpecification
    Figure 12.13 Constraint
    Figure 12.14 ValueSpecification
    Figure 12.19 ValueSpecification

    Figure 13.12 ValueSpecification
    Figure 13.13 ValueSpecification and Observation (the latter is not a composition error but it seems wrong)

    Figure 14.3 Constraint
    Figure 14.5 NamedElement (again not composition but not every NamedElement should be the signature of a Message)
    Figure 14.7 ValueSpecification

    Figure 15.2 Trigger (there is only one mandatory composition but it makes the optional composition useless since the latter could never be set)

    Figure 17.16 ParameterableElement (not a composition but each ParameterableElement will not be the default of a TemplateParameter)

    Proposed Resolution: mark all the above association ends as 0..1 and update the metamodel accordingly

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

11.3.47 on StructuralFeatureAction (and related sections on subclasses)

  • Key: UML22-263
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10045
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Mr. Ed Seidewitz)
  • Summary:

    Consider a link object that is an instance of an association
    > class that owns its ends. In this case, according to the
    > metamodel, it is the association class that is the
    > featuring classifier of the end properties (owningAssociation
    > subsets featuringClassifier). The properties of the object
    > input pin of a StructuralFeatureAction are determined by the
    > featuring classifier of the feature, which would imply that
    > the object being accessed in the case of an owned feature of
    > an association class is the link object that is the instance
    > of that association class.
    >
    > BUT, the semantics of StructuralFeatureAction say that "If
    > the structural feature is an association end, then actions on
    > the feature have the same semantics as actions on the links
    > that have the feature as an end. See specializations of
    > StructuralFeatureAction" – which is consistent with your
    > claims. This is an inconsistency in the spec. For the
    > semantics to work correctly, the syntactic constraints (on
    > typing of the object, visibility,
    > etc.) would have to be adjusted for the case of an
    > association end owned by an association class.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    (Note that the StructuralFeatureAction subclause is numbered 11.3.48 in Version 2.2.)
    The issue summary states that "the properties of the object input pin of a StructuralFeatureAction are determined by the featuring classifier of the feature." However, the specification does not actually formally require this. Rather, Subclause 11.3.48 includes instead the following constraint:
    [2] The type of the object input pin is the same as the classifier of the object passed on this pin.
    This statement is actually tautological if the normal typing rules are enforced, and does not place any constraint on the relationship of the type of the object input pin and the featuring classifier of the feature.
    The intent really is that a StructuralFeatureAction for a structural feature that is an association end have the same semantics as for the appropriate link action. The ownership of the association end should not matter. For example, this allows a ReadStructuralFeatureAction to be used to read the navigable opposite end of a binary association, whether that end is owned by the opposite end type or owned by the association itself (in which case the ReadStructuralFeatureAction acts like a ReadLinkAction). This way, the action does not have to be changed just because the model may be updated to change the end ownership - the ability to read the end depends only on its navigability.
    If this is clarified and formalized in the specification, then the above issue becomes moot.

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

Section: 9.16.1

  • Key: UML22-262
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10007
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: ISP ( Leonid Dvoryansky)
  • Summary:

    Double declaration: RedefinableElement::isRedefinitionContexValid(redefinable: RedefinableElement): Boolean; RedefinableElement::isRedefinitionContextValid (redefined:RedefinableElement):Boolean; isRedifinitionContextValid = redefinitionContext->exists(c | c.allparents()-> includes (redefined.redefinitionContext)) ) Is the "isRedefinitionContexValid" declaration redundant?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Appears to have already been fixed. See Additional Operation [2] in section 7.3.46. Editorial note: However the fix has not been applied to Infrastructure.

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

Section: 9.19.1

  • Key: UML22-261
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10006
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: ISP ( Leonid Dvoryansky)
  • Summary:

    Wrong definition of hasVisibilityOf() Classifier::hasVisibilityOf(n: NamedElement) : Boolean; pre: self.allParents()>collect(c | c.member)>includes ... if (self.inheritedMember->includes ) then hasVisibilityOf = (n.visibility <> #private) else hasVisibilityOf = true ... should be: if (not self.inheritedMember->includes ) then hasVisibilityOf = (n.visibility <> #private) else hasVisibilityOf = true

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    There is more wrong than suggested in the issue. If you work through the logic of hasVisbilityOf, you end up with a tautology as demonstrated by Ed with the following argument:
    To determine if a.hasVisibilityOf is true, assuming n is private, we need to be able to deduce that (including the proposed change)
    if (not a.inheritedMember->includes) then false else true
    is true, under the constraint that
    a.inheritedMember->includesAll(a.inherit(a.parents()->collect(p | p.inheritableMembers(a)))
    where
    p.inheritableMembers(a) = p.member->select(m | a.hasVisibilityOf(m))
    Clearly, given the above constraint, not a.inheritedMember->includes is true if
    not (a.inherit(a.parents()>collect(p | p.member>select(m | a.hasVisibilityOf(m)))->includes)
    This, in turn, is equivalent to
    not (a.parents().member->includes and a.hasVisibilityOf and a.inherit)
    The conclusion so far is, therefore, that a.hasVisibilityOf is true if the above expression is false, that is, if
    a.parents().member->includes and a.hasVisibilityOf and a.inherit implies a.hasVisibilityOf
    Now, if either a.parents().member->includes or a.inherit are false, then the antecedent in the above implication is false, which means that a.hasVisibilityOf must be false. On the other hand, if both a.parents().member->includes and a.inherit are true, then the implication reduces to the tautology
    a.hasVisibilityOf implies a.hasVisibilityOf
    which is true whether or not a.hasVisibilityOf is true.
    However, it is not apparent why if (not a.inheritedMember->includes) is needed at all. If we simply define hasVisibilityOf as n.visibility <> private, i.e. members are visible in a child if they are not private, we remove the tautology and simplify the logic.

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

Section: 9.12.1

  • Key: UML22-258
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10003
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: ISP ( Leonid Dvoryansky)
  • Summary:

    In UML Infrastructure version 2.0 formal/05-07-05 p.67 I've found that nonterminal <upper> has the alternative '', but <unlimited_natural> nonterminal range already contains '' as a possible deducible terminal sequence. <multiplicity> ::= <multiplicity-range> <multiplicity-range> ::= [ <lower> ‘..’ ] <upper> <lower> ::= <integer> <upper> ::= ‘*’ | <unlimited_natural>

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Merged Metam.:Property::class with redefinition of non-inherited property

  • Key: UML22-257
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10001
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    Merged metamodel has Property::class with redefinition of a non-inherited property
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In UML 2.1 we have the following:
    Kernel defines Class which inherits from Classifier, and has Class::ownedAttribute of type Kernel::Property.

    Composite Structures also defines Class which inherits from EncapsulatedClassifier which inherits from StructuredClassifier which inherits from Kernel::Classifier (curiously not Collaborations::Classifier in the same section).
    Now StructuredClassifier also defines property StructuredClassifier::ownedAttribute of type InternalStructures::Property

    So in the Merge, we have:
    L3::Class with property L3::Class::ownedAttribute of type L3::Property
    this will inherit from:
    L3::Classifier and L3::EncapsulatedClassifier, with the latter inheriting from L3::StructuredClassifier.
    And L3::StructuredClassifier will continue to have a property L3::StructuredClassifier::ownedAttribute.
    This would be inherited by L3::Class which has its own ownedAttribute.

    Hence there must be a redefinition L3::Class::ownedAttribute redefines L3::StructuredClassifier::ownedAttribute (there is).
    Likewise there must also be a generalization between the 2 associations (there is).

    However there is a change of the property ownership: at the subclass Property::class is owned by Property, and L3::A_ownedAttribute_structuredClassifier::structuredClassifier is owned by the Association.
    And there is no redefinition (or subsetting) between the two.

    Note that Figure 9.2 of ptc/06-04-02 does show a redefinition - but of "_structuredClassifier" with an underscore (not sure what that is supposed to mean).

    Proposed resolution:

    The Property::class property should be owned by the association (but still be navigable), and a redefinition needs to be added in section 9.3.12

    {redefines structuredClassifier}

    .

    Add Property::classifier as a derived union and have all opposites of ?::ownedAttribute subset it.
    This way, access to a property's (owning) classifier can be obtained uniformly - note that a number of the OCL expressions are currently written (incorrectly) with this assumption.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 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

navigating from link to link ends

  • Key: UML22-256
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9961
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    It is not possible to navigate from link to connected instances if slots are not created or Association is not assigned as type.
    Is it possible to create slots in instance of Association even if properties are owned in connected Classes? Are they required? Are they for navigating?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    An InstanceSpecification can have slots for a Classifier corresponding to any of the members that are StructuralFeatures.
    This is deducable from the OCL but not at all clear in the text.
    See also the resolution to 18177 which allows slots to be created for private members and clarifies further
    which features are slottable.
    This also resolves 12912.

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

ExtensionEnd description refers to old use of navigability

  • Key: UML22-255
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9891
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    18.3.3 second paragraph of description uses the old definition of navigability as implying property ownership

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 6 Jul 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 9.10.3

  • Key: UML22-260
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10005
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: ISP ( Leonid Dvoryansky)
  • Summary:

    Wrong definition of value association: value : InstanceSpecification [*] should be: value : ValueSpecification [*]

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This appears to have been fixedin Superstructure, The text “value: InstanceSpecification” does not appear in the specification. The property value is typed by ValueSpecification in Superstructure.

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

Section: 9.13

  • Key: UML22-259
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10004
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: ISP ( Leonid Dvoryansky)
  • Summary:

    MultiplicityElement is derived from itself

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 27 Jul 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

Section: 15

  • Key: UML22-285
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10498
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Université de Mons-Hainaut ( Alessandro Folli)
  • Summary:

    The subject of my thesis is "UML MODEL REFACTORING USING GRAPH TRANSFORMATION" and I'm trying to represent UML models using graphs. I have read the "UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification" document and I can't exactly understand which is the region the transitions belong to. On page 553 it defines the container association as "Designates the region that owns this transition.". On page 529 it defines the transition association as "The set of transitions owned by the region. Note that internal transitions are owned by a region, but applies to the source state." I have taken a look to the previous UML specification version. Regions were not present and it defined the relationship between StateMachine and Transition as "Associates the StateMachine with its Transitions. Note that internal Transitions are owned by the State and not by the StateMachine. All other Transitions which are essentially relationships between States are owned by the StateMachine. Multiplicity is '0..*'. " Is it correct if I suppose that all the transitions, excluded internal transitions, are contained by the top-level region? Thank you.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The owner of a transition does not imply any semantics; therefore a specific owner will not be defined. It is suggested that the LCA of the source and target is used, but it can really be any region that is directly or indirectly owned by the state machine context.
    This resolution also affects the constraint on internal transitions sourcing a composite state. Because the internal transition can be owned by any region (and not necessarily a region that belongs to the source state) the restriction that a state must be composite to have internal transitions is unnecessary. Therefore this needs to be corrected as well.

  • 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

Section: 14.3.10

  • Key: UML22-291
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10530
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Hitachi INS Sosftware ( Toru Arakaki)
  • Summary:

    Old name, "ExecutionOccurences", of "ExecutionSpecification" is still used in the document. Line 14 of the page 465: "ExecutionOccurences are represented ..." Line 22 of the page 465: "Overlapping execution occurrences on the same lifeline ..." Description of Figure 14.15 of the page 465: "Overlapping execution occurrences" Line 18 of the page 463: "An ExecutionEvent models the start or finish of an execution occurrence."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 14.3.14

  • Key: UML22-290
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10529
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Hitachi INS Software ( Toru Arakaki)
  • Summary:

    The Notation of the InteractionConstraint is incorrect. A character after "Boolean-expression" should be > not ’. AS-IS: <interactionconstraint> ::= [‘[‘ (<Boolean-expression’ | ‘else‘) ‘]’] TO-BE: <interactionconstraint> ::= [‘[‘ (<Boolean-expression> | ‘else‘) ‘]’]

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 9598 for disposition

  • 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

Section: e. g. 12.2. page 287

  • Key: UML22-296
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10594
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Jens Kuttig - Computer und Medien ( Jens Kuttig)
  • Summary:

    Some elements are black outlined with a white background, some are red outlined with yellow background. Some edges are black, some are red, some are purple. What does the diffrent colors in the diagramms mean? I cannot find any explanation within the document.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 15 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

assembly connectors

  • Key: UML22-201
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9578
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    Chapter 8.3.2
    An assembly connector is a connector between two components that defines

    that one component provides the services that another component
    requires. An
    assembly connector is a connector that is defined from a required
    interface
    or port to a provided interface or port.

    All constraints are using terms "connector between Interface and Port"
    also.
    I suggest to change or remove this misleading text.

    Agreed. This text is highly misleading in a number of ways:

    (1) It suggests that connectors connect components. They actually connect
    parts typed by components.

    (2) It suggests that connectors connect interfaces – which they do not
    (because only connectable elements can be connected and interfaces are not
    connectable elements).

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This complaint is handled by other resolutions, primarily 8900 and 9464.

    Revised Text:
    None.
    Disposition: Duplicate of 8900 and 9464.

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

New Issue on multiple guillemot pairs for same element

  • Key: UML22-200
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9577
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Section 18.3.8 has the following paragraph:

    Presentation Options If multiple stereotypes are applied to an element,
    it is possible to show this by enclosing each stereotype name within a
    pair of
    guillemets and listing them after each other. A tool can choose whether it
    will
    display stereotypes or not. In particular, some tools can choose not to
    display
    “required stereotypes,” but to display only their attributes (tagged
    values) if
    any.

    Annex B has the following paragraph:

    If multiple keywords and/or stereotype names apply to the same model element,
    they all appear between the same pair of guillemets, separated by commas:
    “«” <label> [“,” <label>]* “»”

    These two paragraphs seem to contradict each other, since the annex B does
    not
    allow multiple guillemet pairs for the same element, while 18.3.8 does.

    Proposed Solution:
    Add clarification that Both presentation options should be allowed.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

11.3.26 OpaqueAction

  • Key: UML22-210
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9710
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: IBM ( Brent Nicolle)
  • Summary:

    11.3.26 OpaqueAction states it has a Generalization: "Pin (from BasicActions) on page 256." This doesn't make sense; pins and actions are very different things. I think figure 11.2 shows the intended Generalization: "Action (from BasicActions) on page 230."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 12 May 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This was editorially resolved in UML 2.2.
    Revised Text:
    None.
    Disposition: Closed, no change.

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

Definition of stereotype placement requires a name

  • Key: UML22-209
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9706
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    Section 18.3.8, Notation states: "When a stereotype is applied to a model element (an instance of a stereotype is linked to an instance of a metaclass), the name of the stereotype is shown within a pair of guillemets above or before the name of the model element."
    This is too specific and does not state how to notate an element which is unnamed (which could be addressed by referring to where the name would be) or has no name property defined: for example Comment (here a more creative approach is needed).

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 4 May 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

the default for a Property should not be inconsistent with its type

  • Key: UML22-206
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9622
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    There should be a constraint on Property that the ValueSpecification used for its default should not conflict with its type.
    In some cases, for example if an OpaqueExpression is used, then the type of the value cannot be determined. However if it can then it should not be inconsistent.
    This would, for example require the default for a Integer-typed Property to be an instance of LiteralInteger and not LiteralString or any other LiteralX.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 2 May 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved

  • 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

packagedElement

  • Key: UML22-204
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9605
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Mr. Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    In 06-01-02, I note that in Fig 7.14, packagedElement is not marked as derived but in section 7.3.37 it is – can you clarify which it is?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 24 Apr 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

ptc/06-01-02:14.3.14, Notation

  • Key: UML22-203
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9598
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Mr. Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    The following notation expression isn’t well formed:

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

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 24 Apr 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

UML's support for null values and semantics is unclear

  • Key: UML22-207
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9700
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    UML's support for null values and semantics is unclear.
    For example if a Property is defined [1..1] then is a value of null (represented by LiteralNull) permitted? (LiteralNull is defined as "LiteralNull is intended to be used to explicitly model the lack of a value.")
    Can null values be used to create a sparse array? If not how is a fixed length sparse array to be modeled?
    Can a unique multivalued property contain multiple nulls?
    How do the StructuralFeatureActions react in the presence of null?
    [Note that the issue is NOT related to the "null token"]

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 4 May 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

UML 2/ Super / SendSignalEvent erratum

  • Key: UML22-211
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9718
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    A minor issue I stumbled over in UML Superstructure ptc/06-04-02.

    SendSignalEvent [14.3.28] specialises MessageEvent [13.3.18], which
    "specifies the RECEIPT ..." Perhaps that should be reworded?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sat, 13 May 2006 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

Question on InfrastrucutreLibrary::BehavioralFeatures::Parameter

  • Key: UML22-199
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9556
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dell Technologies ( Mr. George Ericson)
  • Summary:

    In Infrastructures, since TypedElements::TypedElement is subclassed from Namespaces::NamedElement, is it necessary that BehavioralFeatures::Parameter be subclassed from both TypedElements::TypedElement and Namespaces::NamedElement?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

"Property::lowerValue" is not a good name

  • Key: UML22-208
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9704
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    It could easily be taken to mean a constraint on the value not the multiplicity, e.g. for an 'temperature' property, that its value is not allowed to be below -273. Would be better named "lowerBoundValue" or similar.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 4 May 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Fig 7.14

  • Key: UML22-202
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9597
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Mr. Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    In 06-01-02, I note that in Fig 7.14, packagedElement is not marked as derived but in section 7.3.37 it is – can you clarify which it is?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 24 Apr 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • 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

Section: 17.5

  • Key: UML22-275
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10347
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: CNAM ( Jean-Frederic Etienne)
  • Summary:

    Is it possible in UML 2.0 specification to define a formal template parameter, for which the actual parameter to be given during parameter substitution is not a classifier but an instance of a specific classifier (more precisely, an instance of a specific class). If this is possible, what should be the type of the parameterable element exposed by the formal template parameter?? Does it have to be of type InstanceSpecification (or even ValueSpecification) to indicate that we are expecting an Object as actual parameter?? Moreover, what should be the type of the parameterable element to be exposed as actual parameter to indicate that we are providing a specific instance or value?? Finally what should be the proper notation for such template parameter to make the distinction with classifier template parameter??

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    InstanceSpecification is not a ParameterableElement, so it cannot be used as a TemplateParameter. Providing a specific instance to a part would be done by assignment, not template bindings. See WriteStructuralFeatureAction.
    Revised Text:
    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

Activity shape

  • Key: UML22-283
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10388
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    would like to shed some light on Activity notation (symbol) as such (Figure 12.33 in ptc/2006-04-02).
    Is it just alternative notation of Activity Diagram Frame or this symbol is intended to use in Activity diagrams as sub parts of other Activity?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • 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

text of specs and corresponding XMI specs should be clarified

  • Key: UML22-235
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9833
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    The relationship between the text of the specs and the corresponding XMI specifications should be clarified to explicitly state that, in cases of disagreement between the text and the XMI, the latter takes precedence.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Put a paragraph into clause 2 to clarify this

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

UML 2: "isLeaf"

  • Key: UML22-234
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9831
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    The "isLeaf" attribute of Class implies that there cannot be any subclasses of a class, but there is no corresponding OCL constraint that enforces that.

    Also, "isLeaf" is only defined in the Superstructure and not in the Infrastructure – should it be defined in the Infrastructure as well?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The meaning of the 'isLeaf' attribute changed from UML 1.x to UML 2.x
    In UML 1.5 (formal/03-03-01), 'isLeaf' is a property defined in two contexts:

    • In GeneralizableElement (see 2.5.2.23) where it "specifies whether the GeneralizableElement is a GeneralizableElement with no descendents. True indicates that it may not have descendents, false indicates that it may have descendents (whether or not it actuallyhas any descendents at the moment)"
      The fact that the UML 1.5 concept of a leaf in a generalization hierarchy has no equivalent in UML 2.2 has been raised as a separate issue from this - see issue 10515.
    • In Operation (2.5.2.30) where "if true, then the implementation of the operation may not be overriden by a descendant class. If false, then the implementation of the operation may be overridden by a descendant class (but it need not be overridden)."
      The UML 1.5 concept of a non-overridable operation corresponds to the UML 2.2 of RedefinableElement::isLeaf (see 7.3.46)
      The second part of this issue, i.e., whether the UML 2.2 infrastructure (formal/09-02-04) needs a capability for modeling a specialization leaf in a redefinition hierarchy is a strategic issue out of scope for the UML2 RTF.
      See resolution to issue 12532 for the OCL constraint enforcing the meaning of isLeaf in the context of redefinitions.
      Disposition: Closed No Change
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Section: 15.3.14 Transition

  • Key: UML22-227
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9824
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Paranor AG ( Earl Waldin)
  • Summary:

    In section 15.3.14, Transition, subsection Constraints you will find the following constraint: [6] An initial transition at the topmost level (region of a statemachine) either has no trigger or it has a trigger with the stereotype “create”. ... OCL body for constraint ... The element to be stereotyped in this constraint is a Trigger. If you look in Appendix C: Standard Stereotypes you will not find this stereotype. It appears that this constraint is left over from UML1.4/1.5. In UML 1.4 the corresponding stereotyped element in this constraint was an Event. In particular it was a CallEvent. The corresponding <<create>> stereotype is listed in Appendix C as a retired stereotype. So, either the constraint should be deleted or the stereotype must be brought out of retirement.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 7

  • Key: UML22-226
  • 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

Figure 7.4 invalid redefines

  • Key: UML22-238
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9843
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    This contains an unnamed property that

    {redefines _namespace}

    . There is
    no property _namespace and the redefining property should be should be
    named.
    In Infra there is no such redefinition in Figure 11.21- is it actually
    needed?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

EnumerationLiteral should constrain InstanceSpecification

  • Key: UML22-237
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9841
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    EnumerationLiteral currently inherits from InstanceSpecification.
    However it does not make sense for it to have all the capabilities of
    the latter, for example Slots.
    Therefore a constraint should be added to EnumerationLiteral as follows:
    slot.isEmpty
    Furthermore it does not make sense for EnumerationLiteral to have a
    separate classifier than its Enumeration. So the following redefinition
    should be added:
    enumeration

    {redefines classifier}

    (alternatively if this is felt too complex there should be a constraint
    {classifier.isEmpty)

    Another option would be for EnumerationLiteral to inherit from
    ValueSpecification - as suggested by the name of the class (other
    Literal classes are subtypes of ValueSpecification). However this would
    probably be too major a change to justify the benefit.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Stereotype attributes inherited from Class

  • Key: UML22-233
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9830
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    What is the interpretation of the various atttributes that Stereotype inherits from Class, such as "isLeaf" and "isAbstract"? Do they mean the same thing, or are they inapplicable, or subtly different?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • 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 11.4.1 "Classifier" (in Constructs)

  • Key: UML22-231
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9828
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    The description says: "Constructs::Classifier merges the definitions of Classifier from Basic and Abstractions."
    a) The "Abstractions"package is not supposed to be merged by Constructs.
    b) There is no Basic::Classifier, so this reference is probably in error. There is Basic::Class, though.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Notation (p 154, formal/05-07-04 )

  • Key: UML22-228
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9825
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    I observed some minor errors on Document formal/05-07-04 while reading it, but
    there is an aparent inconsistence that must be checked. I will explain it
    below.

    On page 154 we can read:
    "Notation
    A component realization is notated in the same way as the realization dependency
    (i.e., as a general dashed line with an open arrow-head)."

    But on page 125 we can read:
    "A Realization dependency is shown as a dashed line with a triangular arrowhead
    at the end that corresponds to the realized element."

    It's clear that the error is on page 154 definition

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section 11.4.1 "Classifier" (in Constructs)

  • Key: UML22-230
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9827
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    The association "feature" is not marked as a derived element, but probably should be.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section 10.2.1 "Class" (in Basic)

  • Key: UML22-229
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9826
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    "ownedAttribute", "ownedOperation" and "superClass" are listed as attributes, but they probably should be listed as associations

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • 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

Section: 7.3.7

  • Key: UML22-192
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9375
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Paranor AG ( Earl Waldin)
  • Summary:

    Incorrect specification of association Class::nestedClassifier. The specification of the association Class::nestedClassifier, section 7.3.7, page 46 states that it subsets Element::ownedMember. The Class Element does not have an association ownedMember. Element does have an association ownedElement, but that is not likely correct because a nested classifier is really a namedElement. Most likely, Class::nestedClassifier should subset Namespace::ownedMember.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 10829 for disposition

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

AssociationClass is severely underspecified

  • Key: UML22-191
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9374
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    It is not at all clear which Properties will result on both the AssociationClass and the end Classes. The Semantics section of 7.3.4 says nothing more specific than "The semantics of an association class is a combination of the semantics of an ordinary association and of a class." - without saying anything about how they are combined. neither is there any indication as to how to access the attributes of the AssociationClass.
    One specific issue is that the composition property is inherited twice: ownedEnd and ownedAttribute - with no redefinition or subsets relationship between them.
    Neither is anything said about the effect of navigability.

    Proposed resolution:

    AssociationClass should redefine ownedNavigableEnd

    In the example in 7.3.4 the following properties will result. C: indicates here that C owns P via the Class:ownedAttribute property. In this case both ends are owned by the class not the association (though the absence of dots at the line ends would imply otherwise - the example should be redrawn).
    Several extra properties are implied by the diagram and have to be implicitly created by the tool. These are marked !! below.

    Person::company: Company[1..*] association=Job
    !!Person::job: Job[1..*] // This then allows access to the properties of Job such as Salary. Note that Person::job.association isEmpty

    Company::person: Person[*] association=Job
    !!Company::job: Job[*]

    Job::salary: Integer[1]
    !!Job::person: Person[1]
    !!Job::company: Company[1]
    Job.memberEnd=(Person::company, Company::person)
    Job.ownedEnd->isEmpty=true

    There needs to be a discussion and clear rules for the invented names for the new properties and constraints to avoid clashes. Also need to address issues related to unions/subsets/redefines/navigability and their effect on the implicit properties.

    Also there is a complication if the Association class itself has further associations: how in the metamodel are these Properties on t he AssociationClass distinguished from the 'main' Ends representing the line to which the AC is attached.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    For explanations, see "Changes from previous UML" below. The OCL in this resolution is written according to OCL 2.1 ptc-09-05-02. Where the changes in the revised text pertain to metaclasses in the superstructure merged from InfrastructureLibrary::Core::Constructs which is the resulting package of merging several package increments from InfrastructureLibrary::Core::Abstractions as specified in clause 11.2 of the UML 2.2 Infrastructure, then the revisions described below have to be similarly reflected in InfrastructureLibrary::Core::Constructs (i.e. the resulting metaclass) and in the metaclass increments merged from the sub-packages of InfrastructureLibrary::Core::Abstractions.
    The revised text clarifies that owned ends of an association class, as an association, are disjoint from owned attributes of that same association class.. Navigability for association classes is the same as associations. Navigation from instances of association classes to their end objects, and any other unaddressed aspects of the issue, will be refiled as a separate issue.
    This resolution includes an OCL constraint which depends on the OCL 2.1 revision:
    context AssociationClass
    self.A_general_classifier::classifier
    ->forAll(oclIsKindOf(AssociationClass))
    The meaning of this constraint is as follows:
    self.A_general_classifier::classifier
    This expression navigates the association A_general_classifier in the inverse direction of the navigability of the property /Classifier::general : Classifier[*].
    That is, it provides the set of classifiers that specialize 'self'.
    See 7.5.3 (Properties: AssociationEnds and Navigability), p. 18-19 in OCL 2.1 http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ptc/09-05-02

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

Show an example of correct notation for the metamodel

  • Key: UML22-190
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9372
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    Though section 6.5.2 explains and justifies the convention (in the UML2 spec only) for use of navigability arrows to represent property ownership, it would be worth showing a non-normative example of one of the metamodel diagrams with the correct 'dot at line end' notation used. This depends on the resolution to issue A) above.

    C) Use the new 'dot' notation in examples
    Currently there is only one example of its use. However most of the examples have taken an unadorned line to indicate that both ends are owned by the respective classes: now the same diagram indicates both ends are owned by the association. Though tools may be at liberty to hid the adornments the spec itself should be extremely precise in the examples and show the adornments explicitly since otherwise the diagrams are ambiguous.
    Note that the conventions in 6.5.2 explicitly apply only to the diagrams for the metamodel itself (see line 1 of 6.5.2).

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 05:00 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

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

Optional name attribute in NamedElement is misleading and insufficient

  • Key: UML22-184
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9256
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Borland Software Corporation ( Stephen Palmer)
  • Summary:

    find it very unintuitive that the name attribute of a NamedElement is optional and If specified may be any valid string, including the empty string. A more accurate name for an element that has the capacity to have a name but does not necessarily have one would be, NameableElement instead of the misleading NamedElement.
    However, elements that do not have a name (or that have a name comprising solely of the empty string or white space characters) have no means through which a human can precisely reference them other than through their physical location on a diagram. This leaves open an opportunity for ambiguity in referencing elements and possible mis-communication. For this reason, the name attribute of NamedElement should be required, should not be allowed to contain just the empty string or just white space characters and should be unique within the element's package. In practise, even an artificially generated name for an element is preferable to no name at all.

    The question of whether the name of an element should be displayed on a particular diagram is a completely different subject and should, in general, be a decision made on a case-by-case basis by the modeller. However, even when the name is not displayed on a diagram, requiring elements to have a readable name provides tool-makers with opportunities to show the name of the element in tool tips, status bars, model navigation panes, etc so that the element can still be readily identified and precisely distinguished from others by human users of the model.

    It is very common in many organizations to have both a short name for an element and a longer more descriptive name for an element. For example, a use case may have the short name UC-OP0001 and a longer name 'Place Order'. The current NamedElement has no provision for such a scheme. In practise, it would be frequently very useful NamedElements had an optional longer name as well as a required short name attribute. Whether the short or long name (when provided) are used on a particular diagram or in any other context is again a matter for the modeller and tool-makers.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion
    The use of NamedElements with no names is well established in a number of cases in UML. Tools can provide all the
    advantages described by the issue author if the modeler gives a NamedElement a name, but it is more convenient to
    allow the modeler the choice of whether to do that.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

UML 2 Super / Components / connectors to interfaces

  • Key: UML22-197
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9464
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    In chapter 8 there are several references that indicate that a connector can be drawn between two or more interfaces. This is not possible, since an interface is not a connectable element.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Indeed so. The revised text below corrects this.

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

reference to Figure 12.87 missing

  • Key: UML22-187
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9341
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    Last para on p385 starts: "Figure 12.86 shows a fragment of a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) computation containing an expansion region. Outside the region, there are operations" - the reference should be to Figure 12.87

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    agreed

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

Section: 14.4

  • Key: UML22-186
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9340
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Digital River ( Mark Mendel)
  • Summary:

    The comment in figure 14.2 in the top right cell identifies the last message as a reply, but it is in fact a creation message. See 14.3.20 Message, Notation, pg. 478: Synchronous Messages typically represent method calls and are shown with a filled arrow head. The reply message from a method has a dashed line. Object creation Message has a dashed line with an open arrow.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The only indication of the notation for reply messages in 2.4.1 was table 14.2 and some examples, all of
    which showed a dashed line with open arrowhead. So we assume this was normative even though it was not
    very explicit.

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

No ObjectEvent corresponding to SendObjectAction

  • Key: UML22-194
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9403
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Mr. Jim Amsden)
  • Summary:

    SendObjectAction sends the object on its request InputPin the object at its target InputPin.

    AcceptEventAction can have a trigger that is a SignalEvent or CallEvent, but there is no Event type for ObjectEvent to represent the receipt of an object from a SendObjectAction. SignalEvent cannot be the trigger because it is not a Class and is not general enough.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion
    This issue is obsolete. The UML 2.5 specification, in subclause 16.3.3, under “Send Actions”, now includes the
    following text in the description of the semantics of SendObjectAction: “If the object [sent by the action] is a Signal
    instance, then it may be handled by the target object in the same way as an instance sent from a SendSignalAction
    or BroadcastSignalAction. Otherwise, the reception of the object can only be handled using an AnyReceiveEvent (as
    described under Message Events in sub clause 13.3.3).”
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

Fig 12.10

  • Key: UML22-193
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9395
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Mr. Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    Fig 12.10 shows Activity.partition with multiplicity 1 but the text on page 329 shows [0..*].I suspect that the former is correct.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This was resolved in the final resolution of issue 8208 in UML 2.1. (It was actually 0..* that was correct.)
    Revised Text:
    None
    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

UML 2.1/Superstructure/ call triggers vs signal triggers

  • Key: UML22-188
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9351
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    P. 603 makes reference to "CallTriggers" and "SignalTriggers". I believe the wording on that whole paragraph under "Example" should be changed slightly.
    P. 246 makes reference to "SignalTrigger"
    P. 453 makes reference to "call trigger" ( I believe the wording should be modified slightly. )

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 1 Feb 2006 05:00 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: 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

UML 2.2 RTF issue - line styles for profiles

  • Key: UML22-198
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9513
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    UML stereotypes can have an associated icon. For shapes there are 2 options for applying the icon: display the icon in the top right of the standard UML shape, or completely replace the standard shape with the icon.
    However for lines there is only the option of displaying the icon 'near' the standard UML representation of the line. This is somewhat clunky at best and limits the flexibility of profiles.

    The equivalent of using the icon to replace the original UML shape would be to allow the specification of a new line style: the icon could be used to represent both ends and the middle - and the tool would repeat the middle section in order to create an actual line.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 5 Apr 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

UML 2 Super / Composite Structure / ambiguous constraint

  • Key: UML22-195
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9413
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    There is a constraint on page 159.:

    [5] An assembly connector must only be defined from a required Interface or Ports to a provided Interface or Port.

    The wording is quite unclear. Interfaces are not by themselves required or provided but relative to a port or a classifier. Also, it implies that it should be possible to draw a connector from an Interface to a Port. This constraint needs to be clarified and made more precise.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 8 Mar 2006 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    This is a duplicate of 7251

    Revised Text:
    None.

    Disposition: Duplicate of 7251

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

Section: 15.3.12

  • Key: UML22-132
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8890
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: IBM ( Jaroslav Gergic)
  • Summary:

    The UML 2.0 Specification states at 15.1 that "The state machine formalism described in this section is an object-based variant of Harel statecharts." However, there is a big semantical discrepancy between the Harel statecharts as described in D. Harel and M. Politi, Modeling Reactive Systems with Statecharts: The STATEMATE Approach, (with M. Politi), McGraw-Hill, 1998 and the UML 2.0 specification. The major difference is in the priority of transitions when multiple transitions are enabled in case of a nested (hierarchical) state machine. Harel states (6.3.1 (pages 99-100)): "The criterion for priority of transitions prefers the transition whose source and target have a higher common ancestor state, if possible. If the common ancestors of both transitions are identical, then non-determinism indeed occurs." (i.e. it prefers global, higher-level transitions over local ones) UML 2.0 (15.3.12 page 618) imposes almost a reveres-ed order on the priority of the transitions, by looking up from the current nested leaf state and taking the first enabled transition. The impact of the UML definition is that the author can not only "refine" a high-level state in its descendants, he/she can override the global transitions thus violating the global (high-level) contract of the state machine. This becomes even more dangerous when using submachine state, i.e. the nested state is actually drawn in a separate diagram. Example: imagine an electrical device, which can be in one of 2 top-level states: ON, OFF and having two transitions power_on, power_off. The ON state can have multiple sub-states describing a particular state of the operation. Using the UML 2.0 semantics, one can effectively override the global power_off transition locally in on of the ON's children, forcing the electrical device to keep working, even if the power has been shut down - ignoring the signal using e.g. a self-transition.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 29 Jun 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    To avoid confusion, add a clarification

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

Section: 11.5.1 DataType (as specialized)

  • Key: UML22-131
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8889
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: University of Kassel, Germany ( Thomas Weise)
  • Summary:

    In section 11.5.1 DataType (as specialized) you write "• ownedAttribute: Attribute[*] The Attributes owned by the DataType. Subsets Classifier::attribute and Element::ownedMember." The type "Attribute" does not exist. You mean Property, which is also shown correctly in the diagramm at page 133

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 29 Jun 2005 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

event parameters

  • Key: UML22-141
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8936
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    Event was able to own set of parameters in UML 1.4 .

    "Any parameter values associated with the current event are available to all actions directly caused by that event
    (transition actions, entry actions, etc.)."

    In UML 2.0 Parameters are removed from Event metaclass, but in chapter "Changes from UML 1.x" there is no comment about that ("None").

    Could you please comment how Parameters from UML 1.4 Event should be mapped into UML 2.0 model?

    I see a big problem, because some MDA tools (like AndroMDA) are based on information stored in Event parameters, hundreds of users have lot of projects, they can't be lost on migration.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 21 Jul 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion
    This issue is obsolete. Tools have long since adapted to this change in UML 2.0 and the UML 2.5 specification no
    longer lists “changes from UML 1.x”.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

Meaning of navigability

  • Key: UML22-140
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8921
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Mr. Jim Amsden)
  • Summary:

    The resolution to issue 6460 in the InfrastructureLibrary specification indicates "Implementation can support traversal across non-navigable ends, but it is not required. Once an object is found by traversal, messages can be sent to it like any other object." This statement may lead to interoperability problems between implementations, is not included in the adopted Superstructure specification, and contradicts constraint [4] for ReadLinkAction which states the end must be navigable. Infrastructure also does not define what it means to send messages to an object so it is not clear what these statements actually mean.

    It is possible that the resolution to issue 6243 traded coupling between navigability and property ownership for coupling between navigability and tool implementations. Navigability no longer has any well-defined semantics and becomes simply a hint to tool implementors that the traversal should be efficient.

    I believe this is quite unfortunate and can be avoided by decoupling tool implementations that manipulate models from the meaning of the models themselves. Navigability should continue to mean semantically traversable as specified by ReadLinkAction. This will establish an interoperable meaning across all tools and preserve an important and commonly used semantic. If tools wish to support efficient traversal to non-navigable ends for their purposes, they should feel free to do so. This can be done by maintaining additional information in associations for the non-navigable ends for the tools purpose, or by using crawlers that examine the model and cache information for specific tool purposes. This is manipulating the model for very different purposes than the meaning of the model itself. If it is desired to have some standard means of indicating to tool vendors where non-navigable association ends should be efficiently traversable, this should be done by a separate property perhaps available through the standard profile. It should not be coupled with the semantic meaning of navigability.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Fri, 1 Jul 2005 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: 11.3.13 TypedElement (as specialized)

  • Key: UML22-130
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8888
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: University of Kassel, Germany ( Thomas Weise)
  • Summary:

    In section 11.3.13 TypedElement (as specialized) you write: Attributes • type: Classifier[1] Redefines the corresponding attributes in both Basic and Abstractions. Neither has InfrastructureLibrary::Core::Abstractions::TypedElements::TypedElement such a property, nor does InfrastructureLibrary::Core::Basic::Type::TypedElement, even through inheritance.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 29 Jun 2005 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: 11.3.6 Classifiers diagram

  • Key: UML22-129
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8887
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: University of Kassel, Germany ( Thomas Weise)
  • Summary:

    Issue for: UML 2.0 Infrastructure Specification Section: 11.3.6 Classifiers diagram Document: ptc/03-09-15 URL: http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ptc/2003-09-15 Pages: 90,91,95,96,127,130 With this submission I report an serious error in your specification. On Page 127, Section 11.3.6 Classifiers diagram, you show that the type InfrastructureLibrary::Core::Constructs::TypedElement is a generalization of both, InfrastructureLibrary::Core::Abstractions::TypedElements::TypedElement (section 9.19.2, page 91) and InfrastructureLibrary::Core::Basic::TypedElement (section 10.1.3, page 96). This leads to a collission of properties, since both of these defined a property called "type", where the one is of the sort InfrastructureLibrary::Core::Abstractions::TypedElements::Type (section 9.19.1, page 90) and the other is of the sort InfrastructureLibrary::Core::Basic::Type (section 10.1.1, page 95). Both Type-types are incompatible, since none is a generalization of the other. Please help and clarify, because I want to implement your standard for a project and cannot proceed correctly. Thanks, Thomas Weise. tweise@gmx.de University of Kassel Germany

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 29 Jun 2005 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

Page: 62

  • Key: UML22-139
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8920
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. James J. Odell)
  • Summary:

    Description

    Figure 36 was not changed to conform to example description. Here, the example indicates that “the dependency is an instantiate dependency, where the Car class is an instance of the Vehicle Type class. However, Fig. 36 illustrates that Car class is an instance of the CarFactory class

    The page indicates issue 6159 addressed this same problem, but apparently it went unchanged.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 5 Jul 2005 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

page 134, Chapter 11.4.1

  • Key: UML22-138
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8904
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    on page 134, Chapter 11.4.1, you write:

    "Constructs::Classifier merges the definitions of Classifier from Basic and
    Abstractions. It adds specializations from Constructs::Namespace and
    Constructs::Type."

    In Basic there is no definition for "Classifier".

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Thu, 30 Jun 2005 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

page 97, Chapter 10.2.2. MultiplicityElement

  • Key: UML22-137
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8903
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    On page 97, Chapter 10.2.2. MultiplicityElement, you write

    "Constructs::Relationship reuses the definition of Relationship from
    Abstractions::Relationships. It adds a specialization to
    Constructs::Element."

    which seems to be a little mislead copy-paste-action.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Thu, 30 Jun 2005 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

Page: 129

  • Key: UML22-125
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8877
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    BNF for property notation states that the name of the property is mandatory. There is no appropriate constraint for that. If it is mandatory there are some wrong diagrams in the specification, e.g. Fig 334.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Not exactly. The BNF states that the <name> terminal is mandatory. Clarify in the text that where there is
    no property, <name> is empty.

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

Page: 369/370

  • Key: UML22-124
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8876
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    The notation for activity partition allows to notate the specification of the dimension next to the appropriate dimension set. Dimension is a boolean property of an ActivityPartition. It is not clear where the specification of a dimension is stored in the model.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    An ActivityPartition with isDimension = true is the specification of the dimension, and the partions contained within it are the partitions in that dimension. The dimension name in the notation is the name of an ActivityPartition with isDimension = true. This can be clarified in the text.

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

Page: 157,162,163

  • Key: UML22-136
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8900
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    Fig. 87, fig. 92, and fig.93 show composite structure diagrams with interfaces. For example fig 87; delegation connector from port to interface OrderEntry. How can a connector be linked to an interface?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 30 Jun 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Figure 87 is now 8.12. Figure 92 is now 8.17. Figure 93 is now 8.18. I include figure 8.15 in this resolution to get a consistent overall picture.
    The solution is to allow connector lines to connect lollipops and sockets, and ball and socket notation, only when the interfaces are on a simple port. Then the connectors become a notational shorthand for actually connecting to the ports.

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

ObjectNode

  • Key: UML22-135
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8895
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    ObjectNode is abstract, so CentralBuffer or DataStore should be always used in Activity diagram. It is normal?
    CentralBuffer and DataStore are described as "special cases of ObjectNodes", but simple ObjectNode can't exist.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Mon, 20 Jun 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Yes, this is correct. ObjectNode is a general abstraction. Only its subclasses (which include ActivityParameterNode, InputPin and OutputPin, in addition to CentralBufferNode and DataStore) have concrete syntax and semantics.
    Revised Text:
    None
    Disposition: Close, no change

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

9.1 BehavioralFeature package

  • Key: UML22-127
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8880
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: University of Kassel, Germany ( Thomas Weise)
  • Summary:

    The element "Parameter" is shown to generalize both, TypedElement and NamedElement. However, TypedElement is already a generalization of NamedElement (see chapter 9.19). Thus, the second generalization is redundant and can be removed.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 27 Jun 2005 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

Page: 532

  • Key: UML22-126
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8878
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    Associations section: Type of argument is InputPin. In fig. 333 the type is Action

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This seems to refer to the argument association of InteractionUse, as of the UML 2.0 Draft Adopted Specification (ptc-04-10-02). It was corrected as an editorial change in UML 2.1.
    Revised Text:
    None
    Disposition: Closed, no change

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

UseCase and Actors

  • Key: UML22-134
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8893
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    UseCase can be connected with Actors using Association, but neither UseCase nor Actor can't own Properties (there are no subsets), so Association is always non-navigable, properties are owned by Association.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Mon, 20 Jun 2005 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

Page: 423

  • Key: UML22-133
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8891
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    Second constraint of ObjectNode refers to property isUnique. ObjectNode has no such property. It's not a specialized MultiplicityElement

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 29 Jun 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    this is correct

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

Section: 10.1 Types Diagram

  • Key: UML22-128
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8882
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: University of Kassel, Germany ( Thomas Weise)
  • Summary:

    The Elements Type, NamedElement and TypedElement of the package Core::Basic are (ambiguous and redundant) redefinitions of the types Type, TypedElement (Core::Abstractions::TypedElements), and NamedElement (Core::Abstractions::Namespaces). Why is that?

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Tue, 28 Jun 2005 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

Figure 179 (Control nodes)

  • Key: UML22-93
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8673
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: FUNDP ( Pierre Yves Schobbens)
  • Summary:

    Figure 179 (Control nodes) is not a complete partition of ControlNode: ForkNode, JoinNode, etc. are missing.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Tue, 5 Apr 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    This was resolved by the resolution to issue 7319 (during the UML 2.0 FTF), which added the FundamentalActivities package and resulted in changes to related diagrams.
    Revised Text:
    None
    Disposition: Duplicate

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

Section: D.4

  • Key: UML22-92
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8616
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    In Description for CCMService, either add the ending or remove the opening quotation mark for the last word. The stereotype name for CCMProcess is not the same as that within the guillemets. Complete the Tag cell in CCMHome. Complete the Tag cell in CCMManages. Capitalize and correct spelling of "Always in the Constraints cell of CCMManages. The Description for CCMFactory really doesn't make a lot of sense to me but I'm not at all familiar with CCM Components. However the stereotype name doesn't relate to a create function for me.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 21 Mar 2005 05:00 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: 15.3.8 (second issue)

  • Key: UML22-91
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8612
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    "Entry actions of states entered on the path to the state represented by a deep history are performed." It's open which path is taken if there are more than one paths to the state.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sat, 19 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • 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 innermost active states being reactivated (almost as though a transition is drawn directly from H* to the last active state). It in no way implies a state-by-state approach. (e.g. a path from the initial state to the last active state)

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

Section: 18.3.6

  • Key: UML22-90
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8601
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    ypos - Opening "(" dont agree with ")" for either constraint. Clarify the illustration of the first approach (examples in Fig. 450 and 451). It is still confusing. Typo - Under "Using XMI to exchange Profiles" last sentence of first para on pg 724, change "purpose" to "purposes." Last sentence on pg 726, change "and need to be...." to "and these constraints need to be..."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 18 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    It is unclear what approaches are being referred to in the second sentence. There are no figures 450 and 451.

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

Section: 17

  • Key: UML22-89
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8594
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add OCL notation to constraints or a note that OCL notation is not available for this constraint. In the figures show all sub-package names or ellipses associated with the direct generalizations. Use of the words subclass and subclasses is often confusing and inappropriate as these are not shown in associated figures or mentioned in text. Whenever subclasses are mentioned, please clarify by giving examples as was done on page 690. Orgainzation of this Part is confusing after becomming accustomed to the organization used in parts I and II. Placement of all abstract syntax figures in one place helps clarify relationships of figures to each other and makes it easier to see/verify consistency. Names of classifiers and packages in the text often don't agree with the names shown on associated figure.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 8.3.1

  • Key: UML22-102
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8705
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    Notation section of component states that the relationship between realizing classifiers and the component is displayed by general dependencies. The specialized Realization states that it's notation is similar to the realization dependency. Change fig. 85: Replace dependency arrows by realization arrows (with triangular arrowhead).

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see page 50 of ptc/2009-09-07 for details

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

Section: Actions

  • Key: UML22-101
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8702
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Add OCL to constraints in Actions chapter

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Tue, 26 Apr 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion
    This issue is obsolete. All constraints that can be specified in OCL have been in UML 2.5.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

CombinedFragment Loop notation

  • Key: UML22-100
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8698
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: TMNA Services ( Jim Schardt)
  • Summary:

    There seems to be some confusion about how to show the notation for the loop combinedFragment. Some tools show only the minint and maxint for the loop InteractionOperator but do not allow you to show the full specification in the InteractionOperand. This is a limitation that allows for the modeling of simple for loops without an additional guard to model do while and do until types of loop constructs. I would suggest the UML Superstructure 2.0 be updated with the following:

    In Section 14.3.3 in Notation with header Loop:
    Place a simple example of a loop combined fragment with a InteractionOperand guard as well as a minint and maxint
    Add a paragraph that says something like, "In those cases where more control over the number of passes through the CombinedFragment is necessary use a separate InteractionConstraint. This InteractionConstraint is shown in square brackets covering the lifeline where the first event occurrence will occur, positioned above that event, in the containing Loop InteractionOperand. If this separate InteractionConstraint is true, the loop continues, otherwise the loop terminates."

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Thu, 21 Apr 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: 7.3.36

  • Key: UML22-99
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8692
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    According to fig. 13 an operation is associated with a Datatype. That's not shown in the association section of the class description.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 10 Apr 2005 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

editorial in section 12

  • Key: UML22-98
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8689
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: FUNDP ( Pierre Yves Schobbens)
  • Summary:

    "... is eligible for execution when it receives control tokens from each of its predecessor clauses. " Should read ``a control token''

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Tue, 5 Apr 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

UML 2 Different constraints for Property in Super and Infra

  • Key: UML22-97
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8688
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    The Infrastructure has an additional constraint on Constructs::Property (pg. 128):

    [2] A specialization of a composite aggregation is also a composite aggregation.

    that does not exist in the Superstructure. These two should be made consistent; either the constraint appears in both places or in neither.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Tue, 5 Apr 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    It appears a sentence was removed from superstructure but not InfrastructureLibarary.
    Revised Text:
    In section 11.3.5, subsection Constraints, change:
    [2] A specialization of a composite aggregation is also a composite aggregation.A multiplicity of a composite aggregation must not have an upper bound greater than 1.
    To:
    [2] A multiplicity of a composite aggregation must not have an upper bound greater than 1.

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

Activities

  • Key: UML22-107
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8731
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    In LoopNode, SetupPart/bodyPart should be setup/body to be consistent with Clause

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 1 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Revised Text:
    This is covered in the resolution to Issue 8686.
    Disposition: Merged

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

Clarify multiple inputs to expansion regions

  • Key: UML22-106
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8725
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Clarify multiple inputs to expansion regions. Clarify whether expansion regions with multiple input expansion nodes require all values to be present to start execution. If not, how is it indicated which are optional? ExpansionNodes do not have multiplicity.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 1 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion
    This issue is obsolete. The requested semantics for ExpansionRegions are now covered in UML 2.5 in Subclause
    16.12.3.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

DataStoreNode has uniqueness, reverse constraint inherited from ObjectNode

  • Key: UML22-105
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8724
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    DataStoreNode has uniqueness, reverse constraint inherited from ObjectNode

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 1 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    An ObjectNode is not a MultiplicityElement, and, therefore, it can have no uniqueness constraint to reverse. (There actually is such a constraint given for ObjectNode, but this is an error that should be corrected. See Issue 8891.)
    Revised Text:
    None
    Disposition: Close, no change

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

Add constraints on conditional, loop, sequence to rule out node contents

  • Key: UML22-87
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8494
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Add constraints on conditional, loop, sequence to rule out node contents that are not in the sequence, or clause, setup/body part

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 6 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Section: Activities, LoopNode

  • Key: UML22-86
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8492
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    In LoopNode, setup, test, and body parts should be owned by the loop node (they were owned by clauses of loop node, which were owned by the loop node).

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 6 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The setup, test and body parts of a loop node should all identify nodes that are contained within the loop node. Such nodes are already owned by the loop node via the node association inherited from StructuredActivityNode. However, a constraint needs to be added to ensure this containment, and to ensure that any all executable nodes contained in the loop node are, indeed, in the setup, test or body parts.

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

rewording isuse?

  • Key: UML22-96
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8687
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: FUNDP ( Pierre Yves Schobbens)
  • Summary:

    "When an execution of an activity makes a token available to the input of an expansion region, the expansion region consumes the token and begins execution." ``the input'' is ill-defined, since an expansion region has several inputs, see Examples in the same subsection. It should read: "When an execution of an activity makes a token available to each of the inputs of an expansion region (implicit join), the expansion region consumes these tokens and begins execution."

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Tue, 5 Apr 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    This should be merged with Issue 8725.
    Revised Text:
    None
    Disposition: Duplicate/merged

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

reword sentence

  • Key: UML22-95
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8686
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: FUNDP ( Pierre Yves Schobbens)
  • Summary:

    " Any test section with a predecessorClause " Should be: " Any test section whose parent clause has a predecessorClause "

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Tue, 5 Apr 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    agreed

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

A test cannot be empty

  • Key: UML22-94
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8682
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: FUNDP ( Pierre Yves Schobbens)
  • Summary:

    A test cannot be empty since it has at least a decider: 0..* should be changed to 1..*.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Tue, 5 Apr 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    agreed

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

Misleading statement about multiplicity in AssociationClass

  • Key: UML22-104
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8722
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Misleading statement about multiplicity in AssociationClass. In the semantics of AssociationClass, the following is misleading: " Note: It should be noted that in an instance of an association class, there is only one instance of the associated classifiers at each end, i.e. from the instance point of view, the multiplicity of the associations ends are 1." The part after "i,e." is confusing, since it refers to multiplicity of association ends, which has a different meaning that intended above. I'd say just delete it.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 1 May 2005 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

Client/supplier on dependencies

  • Key: UML22-103
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8721
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Client/supplier on dependencies should specialize source/target inherited from directed relationship

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 1 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    Duplicate of 6405.
    Revised Text:
    None.
    Disposition: Duplicate

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

Constrain conditional node to have body pins if there is a result pin.

  • Key: UML22-88
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8498
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Constrain conditional node to have body pins if there is a result pin. Constrain to be of the same number and compatible types

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 6 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    agreed

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

Starting state machine

  • Key: UML22-2
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4932
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Stephen Mellor)
  • Summary:

    [Steve Mellor] The action semantics has an action that starts a state
    machine. The state machine starts in some known initial (pseudo-)state.

    There are many cases where one wants to initialize a state
    machine so that starts in a specified (non-initial) state.

    Therefore the StartStateMachineAction needs to accept a state
    (possibly multi-leveled) as an input. The state machine will
    not execute any procedures or actions until after the state
    machine is in the target state and then detects an event.

  • Reported: UML 1.4 — Tue, 5 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Disposition: Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF

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

Starting a state machine

  • Key: UML22-3
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5107
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Mr. Ed Seidewitz)
  • Summary:

    Description:
    The State Machines chapter (Section 2.12) does not provide a clear description of what it means to "start" a state machine.

    Syntactically, we have the following:

    o Well-formedness rule [1] for Pseudostate (p. 2-157) says "An initial vertex [i.e., a initial pseudostate] can have at most one outgoing transition and no incoming transitions". Presumably, it is the single transition from the initial pseudostate at the top level that is taken when the state machine starts.

    o Well-formedness rule [6] for Transition (p. 2-160) says "An initial transition at the topmost level either has no trigger [i.e., event] or it has a trigger with the stereotype 'create'." Thus, the ONLY kind of event allowed on an initial transition is a "creation event".

    o The definition of the stereotype <<create>> is (p. 2-149):

    "Create is a stereotyped call event denoting that the instance receiving
    that event has just been created. For state machines, it triggers the
    initial transition at the topmost level of the state machine (and is the
    only kind of trigger that may be applied to an initial transition)."

    Thus, a "creation event" MUST be a call event.

    o However, well-formedness rule [5] for Transition (p. 2-160) states without qualification, that "Transitions outgoing pseudostates may not have a trigger"! This prohibits all together the "creation events" allowed by rule [6].

    Semantically, there is no specific discussion of how a state machine "starts". Section 2.12.4.3 describes "Entering a non-concurrent composite state" on p. 2-162 and "Entering a concurrent composite state" on p. 2-163. Since the top state of a state machine must be a composite state, one could assume that "starting" a state machine has the semantics of entering the composite top state. However, this does not provide an explanation of the "creation events" allowed (or at least seem intended to be allowed) in the special case of the initial transition at the top level.

    Now, well-formedness rule [5] of StateMachine says "If a StateMachine describes a behavioral feature, it contains no triggers of type CallEvent, apart from the trigger on the initial transition (see OCL for Transition [8])" (this is probably intended to refer to Transition rule [6]). Presumably, then, the call event on the initial transition is suppose to be the call event for the behavioral feature described by the state machine, at least in this case, but this is not described in the semantics (and it doesn't make sense for this event to be a "creation" event, anyway).

    This issue came out during the finalization of the Action Semantics. In the Action Semantics, when an object is created, any state machine associated with the object (via its classifiers) are NOT started automatically. Instead, there is an explicit "StartStateMachineAction" which is supposed to "start the execution of the state machines." However, it is not clear from the current state machine semantics what it really means to do this.

    Recommendation:

    1. Describe the "start" of the execution of a state machine as an RTC step from an implicit "not started" state (that is, not explicitly modeled in the state machine) to the target of the initial transition of the state machine (that is, the single transition with the top-level initial pseudo-state as its source). This RTC step includes the execution of any relevant transition actions and entry actions, per the usual state machine semantics.

    2. Define that, if no other explicit specification is given in a model, a state machine associated with a classifier is assumed to start when an instance of the classifier is created and a state machine associated with a behavioral feature is assumed to start when that feature is invoked. (When the action semantics is included, a formal specification of the start of a state machine can be given with the StartStateMachineAction.)

    3. Change well-formedness rule [5] to exclude the top initial pseudo-state.

    4. Change well-formedness rule [6] to allow, if the state machine describes a behavioral feature, a trigger (call event or signal event) on the initial transition that corresponds to that behavioral feature.

    5. If the state machine describes a classifier, then, in the absence of the action semantics, it is unclear whether a "creation event" is really useful at all (particularly since it would only allow for a single creation operation). With the action semantics, such an event is probably unnecessary, since the procedure for a creation operation will then be able to explicitly create an instance (using CreateObjectAction), start the state machine of that instance (using a StartStateMachineAction), which will get the state machine into a "real" state, and then send the instance a message (using an ExplicitInvocationAction), which can be handled by an event on the state machine, with any additional data required for initialization.

  • Reported: UML 1.4 — Thu, 4 Apr 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Disposition: Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF

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

saying {nonunique} on one end of a binary association is meaningless

  • Key: UML22-5
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5977
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Google ( Don Baisley)
  • Summary:

    Also, saying

    {nonunique}

    on one end of a binary association is
    meaningless by the current rules, because the other end remains

    {unique}

    by
    default, so no duplicate links would be allowed

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Thu, 19 Jun 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Also, saying

    {nonunique}

    on one end of a binary association is meaningless by the current rules, because the other
    end remains

    {unique}

    by default, so no duplicate links would be allowed
    Disposition: Merged with 6464

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

behaviour of the shallow history state and deep history state

  • Key: UML22-4
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5886
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Remedy IT ( Johnny Willemsen)
  • Summary:

    In the UML specification the behaviour of the shallow history state and deep history state are described (added below). The final state is seen as a real state in UML which can have entry actions and in which can be stayed. When a child composite state is in its final state and at a higher level a transition is taken to an other state and then to the deep history state we expect that the final state is set active again, instead that then default history state is made active. For example we have a composite state that does the setup of a piece of hardware and it is in the final state, but it doesn't leave the composite state because another condition is not true yet. When now the composite state is left at a higher level (for example emergency), then we go back according to the spec to the default history state, so we do the complete setup again, but we expect to return in the final state.

    Shallow history entry: If the transition terminates on a shallow history pseudostate, the active substate becomes the most recently active substate prior to this entry, unless the most recently active substate is the final state or if this is the first entry into this state. In the latter two cases, the default history state is entered. This is the substate that is target of the transition originating from the history pseudostate. (If no such transition is specified, the situation is illegal and its handling is not defined.) If the active substate determined by history is a composite state, then it proceeds with its default entry. • Deep history entry: The rule here is the same as for shallow history except that the rule is applied recursively to all levels in the active state configuration below this one.

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Fri, 21 Mar 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Disposition: Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF

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

On page 26, Figure 7.9

  • Key: UML22-173
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9233
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: LIANTIS GmbH ( Constantin Szallies)
  • Summary:

    On page 26, Figure 7.9 there an association between 'Property' and 'Classifier'. The end 'classifier' is non-navigable. 'classifier' subsets 'redefinitionContext'. This means the following constraint of 'Property' is violated: subsettedProperty->exists(sp | sp.isNavigable()) implies isNavigable())

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The noted Property constraint is no longer present in the UML 2.2 specification.
    Revised Text:
    None.
    Disposition: Closed No Change

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

choice of terminolgy for TransitionKind is non-intuitive

  • Key: UML22-172
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9230
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Parata Systems ( Mark Uebel)
  • Summary:

    The choice of terminolgy for TransitionKind is non-intuitive for many of us, and therefore leads to misuse. Specifically, one would expect the antonym pair "Internal" and "External" be applied to a conceptual pair such as "Exits the composite state" and "Does not exit the composite state". Instead the terms "External" and "Local" refer to these behaviors, respectively. Further, the term "Internal" is then used to describe a concept that has nothing to do with state transitions, but rather, is a reaction to a trigger. It appears to us that the transition and reaction concepts were generalized based on their members (trigger, guard, effect) and not on their behavior. We have found this approach to be a bad practice. Behavioral generalization is more intuitive, and therefore more appropriate. We suggest the following changes: "Internal implies that the transition, if triggered, will not exit the composite (source) state, but it will apply to any state within the composite state, and these will be exited and entered." "External implies that the transition, if triggered, will exit the composite (source) state." Move what is currently described as an "Internal Transition" to a separate concept named "Reaction".

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 8 Dec 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion
    Although terminology is almost always contentious and a matter of taste, the submitter has a solid point that this
    particular case can be particularly confusing. However, it has been around since UML 2.0, and changing it at this
    point would likely lead to more confusion and have an impact existing implementations and texts. It seems better to
    leave it unchanged at this point.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

Section: 15.3.15

  • Key: UML22-171
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9172
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Paranor AG ( Knut Wannheden)
  • Summary:

    Given the current wording in the Constraints, Semantics, and Notation sections the "external" and "local" transition kind only applies to transitions with composite states as the source. This does then not leave any transition kind, except "internal", over for transitions with simple states or pseudostates as the source. As I understand it the "external" transition kind should also be available for transitions with simple states and pseudostates as the source. Thus, I think the constraint [2] should be removed and the wording in the Semantics and Notation sections should be changed to make it clear that the "external" transition kind is not reserved for transitions with composite states as the source.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 15 Nov 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    External transitions should be available for all vertices except entry points. Local transitions should be allowed for either composite states or entry points. Internal transitions must source/target a composite state, where source=target.

    The semantics and notation will need to be updated to slightly to reflect this change.

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

Section 8.3.2 sub-section "Notation" starting on page 149

  • Key: UML22-170
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9141
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Cutter Information ( Oliver Sims)
  • Summary:

    Issue:
    The use of the keyword <<component>> on all diagrams in this section is inconsistent with standards used elsewhere in the spec (for example the notation shown in the Interfaces package). When a shape has the small component icon showing, the keyword is not required and arguably should not be shown.

    Rationale:
    The diagrams imply that both the icon and the keyword should always be shown. This is of course not the case. As it is, some tools vendors not only accept this incorrect implication but some have also mistaken the keyword for a stereotype. It would be much clearer if the keyword were only shown on component boxes that did NOT have the plug icon in them.

    Note that the notation shown on Page 152 (first page of section 8.4) is "correct" - i.e. much more appropriate, and less likely to mislead. On the other hand that shown on page 153 is "incorrect".

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sat, 10 Sep 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The classifier notation of a component is defined showing the keyword "component" and optionally the component icon in the upper right corner. All examples in the component chapter of the UML 2.2. (ptc/2008-05-05) show the component with keyword and icon. However table 8.1 shows a component with an icon and without the keyword. This presentation option must be added to the component definition.

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

inconsistency wrt UML2 classifier behavior

  • Key: UML22-169
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9138
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Capability Measurement ( Karl Frank)
  • Summary:

    Figure 13.6 - Common Behavior (page 412 of formal/05-07-04) shows BehavioredClassifier's ownedBehavior as a composition (black diamond) and it shows classifierBehavior as a directed association (no diamond).

    no problem so far.

    But then the figure also shows classifierBehavior subsets ownedBehavior, and the text says (page 420, section 13.3.4 BehavioredClassifer|Associations) that classifierBehavior specializes BehavioredClassifier.ownedBehavior).

    If classifierBehavior is a specialization and the set of its instances is a subset, then the metaassociation denoting classifierBehavior should have the same association type as the superset, in other words for conssitency, both or neither should be black diamond.

    My assumption here is a form of the covariance thesis, a subset and specialization of a composition must also be a composition.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 2 Nov 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    In the UML 2.2 Specification, Behaviored::classifierBehavior is no longer specified in the text as "specializes BehavioredClassifier.ownedBehavior". Instead, it simply notes "subsets BehavioredClassifier::ownedBehavior", which is consistent with the diagram.
    The subset classifierBehavior association doesn't need to be composite, because it implies the superset ownedBehavior one (for the same behavior instance), which is composite, so composite semantics will apply anyway. Deleting an M1 classifier instance will delete the M1 behavior instance linked by the subset association, because that M1 classifier is also linked by the superset composite association.
    Revised Text:
    None.
    Disposition: Closed No Change

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

keyword, "buildcomponent", and a stereotype, "buildComponent"

  • Key: UML22-168
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9125
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Profound Rational Organization ( Pae Choi)
  • Summary:

    A keyword, "buildcomponent", and a stereotype, "buildComponent", are
    listed in Annex B, "UML Keywords" and Annex C, "Standard Stereotypes",
    but not consistent. The letters, 'c' of the "buildcomponent" keyword and
    'C' of the "buildComponent."

    Also, there are stereotypes mentioned throughout the document such as:

    o decisionInput
    o multireceive
    o parallel
    o iterative
    o stream

    but not listed in the Annex C, Standard Stereotypes. The stereotypes
    mentioned above may not reflect the entire document.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merged with 18454

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

Element and Comment in Basic

  • Key: UML22-182
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9246
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Capgemini ( Anneke Kleppe)
  • Summary:

    The definition of the classes Element and Comment in the Basic package is ambiguous. The Basic package
    imports Abstractions::Elements::Element and Abstractions::Comments::Comment. An inheritance
    relationship and an Association called ownedComment is introduced between Element and Comment in the
    package Basic. However, these relationships were already defined for these classes in the package
    Abstractions (see the top two diagrams in Figure 4). Therefore, the complete model of Element and
    Comment in the Basic package is the model shown in Figure 4, clearly showing a redundant association
    called ownedComment, and a redundant inheritance relationship between Abstractions::Elements::Element
    and Comment.
    Abstractions
    Element
    (from Elements)
    Element
    (from Comments)
    Comment
    (from Comments)
    Element
    (from Ownerships)
    +owningElement
    0..1

    {subsets owner}
    ownedComment
    * {subsets ownedElement}
    annotatedElement
    *
    Basic (after import abstractions)
    Element
    (from Comments)
    Element
    (from Ownerships)
    Element
    (from Elements)
    Comment
    (from Comments)
    +owningElement
    0..1{subsets owner}

    annotatedElement
    *
    0..1
    ownedComment
    *

    {subsets ownedElement}

    +ownedComment
    0..n
    Basic
    Comment
    (from Comments)
    Element
    (from Elements)
    +ownedComment
    0..n
    0..1
    <<import>>
    <<import>>
    Figure 4

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 05:00 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

Description of Element

  • Key: UML22-181
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9245
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Capgemini ( Anneke Kleppe)
  • Summary:

    The infrastructure specification [1] described the metaclass Element as followes:
    “Element is an abstract metaclass with no superclass. It is used as the common superclass for all
    metaclasses in the infrastructure library.” [1, page 45 and page 93]
    Both packages, Abstraction and Basic, are using the same definition for Element. Therefore, it is logical to
    assume that both packages will contain their own class Element, as shown in Figure 2.
    InfrastructureLibrary
    Abstractions Basic
    Element Element
    Figure 2
    The Rose Model [2] specifies one single class Element, a metaclass that is part of Abstractions. The exact
    name is Abstractions::Elements::Element. The Basic package imports this metaclass. (see Figure 3). We
    assume this is the correct interpretation, therefore the text on page 93 should be changed accordingly.
    InfrastructureLibrary
    Basic
    Abstractions
    Element
    (from Elements)
    <<import>>
    Figure 3

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 05:00 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

Unclear relationship between the Basic and Abstractions packages

  • Key: UML22-180
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9244
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Capgemini ( Anneke Kleppe)
  • Summary:

    1) According to the infrastructure specification [1] the Basic package is using metaclasses from the
    Abstractions package, as indicated by the following text.
    “Basic also contains metaclasses derived from shared metaclasses defined in packages contained in
    Abstractions. These shared metaclasses are included in Basic by copy.”[1 page 91]
    First, the mentioned copy construction is not defined in the infrastructure. Second, in contrary to the copy
    definition, the Rose Model [2] of the infrastructure defines the deriving of metaclasses as import on the
    package Abstractions::Elements and Abstractions::Multiplicity. (see Figure 1)
    2) Furthermore, the infrastructure specification described the reuse of the package Abstractions::Comments
    as followes.
    “Basic::Comment reuses the definition of Comment from Abstractions::Comments.” [1 page 92]
    The Rose Model [2] does not contain this import.
    Abstractions
    Elements
    Comments
    Ownerships
    <<import>>
    <<import>>
    Multiplicities
    <<import>>
    Basic
    <<import>>
    <<import>>
    Figure 1
    3) The infrastructure specification described the Basic::MultiplicityElement as the reuse of
    Abstractions::MultiplicityElement:
    “Basic::MultiplicityElement reuses the definition from Abstractions::MultiplicityElement”[1 page 97]
    The Abstractions package does not contain an Abstractions::MultiplicityElement. Instead of, the
    Abstractions package does contain an Abstractions::Multiplicities::MultiplicityElement and an
    Abstractions::MultiplicityExpressions::MultiplicityElement. Owing to the import of
    Abstractions::Multiplicities the Abstractions::MultiplicityElement

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 05:00 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

XMI file: Core::Constructs::Operation::bodyCondition should have upper boun

  • Key: UML22-179
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9243
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fulcrum Analytics, Inc. ( Richard Vermillion)
  • Summary:

    In the XMI file sent out with Ballot 12, the bodyCondition attribute
    of Core::Constructs::Operation has upper="*" when it should be
    upper="1".

    See line 3009 of Infrastructure.cmof:

    <ownedAttribute xmi:type="cmof:Property" xmi:id="Core- Constructs-Operation-bodyCondition" name="bodyCondition" lower="0"
    upper="*" type="Core-Constructs-Constraint" association="Core- Constructs-A_bodyCondition_bodyContext" subsettedProperty="Core- Constructs-Namespace-ownedRule" isComposite="true"/>

    In Superstructure, Classes::Kernel::Operation seems to correctly have
    an upper bound of 1 for bodyCondition.

    Again, apologies for the late notice on this issues. If there is a
    better way to report these, please let me know. I'm sending them to
    the list because I assume some can be made as editorial changes by
    Bran, while others should be opened as new issues for UML 2.2.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Infra::Core::Constructs::Operation::bodyCondition : Constraint[0..1] in UML 2.2 CMOF.
    Revised Text:
    None.
    Disposition: Closed No Change

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

/qualifiedName attribute missing on Core::Constructs::NamedElement

  • Key: UML22-178
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9242
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fulcrum Analytics, Inc. ( Richard Vermillion)
  • Summary:

    In the Infrastructure.cmof file distributed as part of ballot 12, the
    Core::Constructs::NamedElement class is missing the qualifiedName
    derived property. The operation qualifiedName() exists, but the
    corresponding derived attribute is missing.

    Core::Abstractions::Namespaces::NamedElement does correctly include
    the qualifiedName derived property and all of the OCL constraints in
    Constructs correctly references a qualifiedName attribute (rather
    than the operation).

    Presumably this is an error in the metamodel.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 05:00 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

Operation::ownedParameter should be ordered in XMI?

  • Key: UML22-177
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9241
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fulcrum Analytics, Inc. ( Richard Vermillion)
  • Summary:

    In the latest XMI file (included as part of Ballot 12) the
    ownedParameter attribute of Core::Constructs::Operation redefines
    Core::Constructs::BehavioralFeature::ownedParameter – I'm assuming
    that this redefinition is a result of the merge of Basic.

    However, in Operation, the ownedParameter attribute is not ordered.

    Since both BehavioralFeature::ownedParameter and
    Core::Basic::Operation::ownedParameter are ordered, it seems strange
    for Core::Constructs::Operation's not to be ordered. A check of the
    drafts and ballots does not seem to address this issue or explain why
    it would be the case. Is it a mistake?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 15 Jan 2006 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Infra::Core::

    {Basic,Constructs}

    ::Operation::ownedParameter

    {isOrdered=true}

    in UML 2.2 CMOF.
    Revised Text:
    None.
    Disposition: Closed No Change

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

Section: Classes

  • Key: UML22-176
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9237
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Can an instance specification for a classifier specify instances of subtypes of the classifier? For example, if Fido is an instance specification for Class Dog, can the runtime object it specifies be an instance of Terrier?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 2 Jan 2006 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    An InstanceSpecification can be partial. The spec is quite clear about this. It is also clear that every slot
    must correspond to a feature of one of the classifiers. If the InstanceSpecification is classified as a Dog, it
    might be a Terrier at runtime but you have no way to know that. Insert some text to make this clear.

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

constraints owned by these properties have no context

  • Key: UML22-175
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9236
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    A similar issue exists with ParameterSet::condition, State::stateInvariant, Extend::condition, Action::localPrecondition, Action::localPostcondition, StateInvariant::invariant, i.e. constraints owned by these properties have no context. This raises the question of whether a constraint must always have a context (note that some of these owners are not namespaces)...

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 22 Dec 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion
    As shown in Figure 7.13 in the UML 2.5 specification, the context of a Constraint is optional. Constraints that are
    required to be owned in some way other than using the context/ownedRule association do not have a context.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

Operation should be a specialization of TypedElement and MultiplicityElemen

  • Key: UML22-174
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9234
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    Operation should be a specialization of TypedElement and MultiplicityElement. Currently it is in InfrastructureLibrary::Core::Basic (L0), but isn't in other packages (LM - L3).

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 05:00 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, 12.3.27 ExpansionRegion(from ExtarStructureActivities

  • Key: UML22-167
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9120
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Profound Rational Organization ( Pae Choi)
  • Summary:

    Under the section, "12.3.27 ExpansionRegion(from ExtarStructureActivities)", it states as

    Attributes

    • mode : ExpansionKind - The way in which the executions interact:

    parallel - all interactions are independent.

    iterative - the interactions occur in order of the elements.

    stream - a stream of values flows into a single execution.

    Notation

    An expansion region is shown as a dashed rounded box with one of the keywords parallel, iterative, or streaming in the

    upper left corner.

    However, in "Figure 12.87 Expansion region" the keyword used is <<concurrent>>. Could you
    please verify this and let me know. Thank you.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 11 Oct 2005 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

(merged) compliance levels L2 and L3

  • Key: UML22-166
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9102
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    In (merged) compliance levels L2 and L3, derived union property ActivityGroup::subgroup has no subsets.

    -> Rename ActivityPartition::subgroup to subpartition, replace

    {redefines subgroup}

    with

    {subsets subgroup}

    . Also add properties to StructuredActivityNode and InterruptibleActivityRegion that subset ActivityGroup::subgroup?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion
    This issue is obsolete. UML 2.5 no longer defines compliance levels using a merged package structure. Further,
    the suggested change to ActivityPartition::subgroup has already been made. StructuredActivityNodes and InterruptibleAtivityRegions
    do not have subgroups.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

(merged) compliance level L1

  • Key: UML22-165
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9101
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Eclipse Foundation ( Mr. Kenneth Hussey)
  • Summary:

    In (merged) compliance level L1, derived union properties ActivityNode::inGroup, ActivityEdge::inGroup, ActivityGroup::subgroup, ActivityGroup::superGroup and have no subsets. Note that ActivityGroup, an abstract metaclass, has no concrete subclasses.

    -> Should ActivityGroup not be originally defined in BasicActivities (nor in Fundamental Activities), but perhaps in IntermediateActivities?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion
    This issue is obsolete. UML 2.5 no longer defines compliance levels using a merged package structure.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

Section: 14.3.20 Message (from BasicInteractions)

  • Key: UML22-164
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9081
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Edin Pezerovic ( Edin Pezerovic)
  • Summary:

    in 14.3.20 Message (from BasicInteractions) is described: "Object creation Message has a dashed line with an open arrow." the referenced example 14.11 on page 458 shows an object creation Message with a solid line and an open arrow.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 17 Oct 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion:
    The figure is all right, but dashed lines are sometimes printed as solid lines. The illustrations use Visio and sometimes the dashed lines are not easily distinguished.
    Disposition: ClosedNoChange

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

Section: Activities

  • Key: UML22-163
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9078
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: juno.com ( Pae Choi)
  • Summary:

    In Activities, ExpansionRegion, Notation, first sentence, replace "stream" with "streaming".

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The sentence already has "streaming" (and has since UML 2.0). However, the literal in ExpansionKind is "stream", so perhaps the submitter intended to suggest replacing "streaming" by "stream". This would be consistent with using the literals from EnumerationKind for "parallel" and "iterative".

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

UML 2 Issue: Qualified pathnames

  • Key: UML22-22
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6466
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    PROBLEM STATEMENT
    The notation for qualified names is double-colon ('::'). However, the Spec
    always and everywhere uses a different notation: instead of
    "Kernel::Comment", "Comment (from Kernel)".

    PROPOSED SOLUTION
    Use the standard notation for qualified names.

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Fri, 7 Nov 2003 05:00 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

show object flow or interactions

  • Key: UML22-35
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7166
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Boeing ( David Hickerson)
  • Summary:

    There needs to be a way to show object flow or interactions between multiply concurrent threads or processes in Activity Diagrams. Example: In TCP sockets, the interaction between a client and server should be able to be shown with two separate start points, one for the client and one for the server. The connection sequence and packet flow should be able to be shown. With a single start point, the diagrams imply that one action starts both processes. I would like to illustrate multiple concurrent threads or processes and their interactions in an Activity Diagram and be able to distinguish between the flowing threads. I would also like to show access to objects shared by the threads or processes.

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Fri, 19 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue has already been discussed in previous F/RTFs and considered out of scope:
    FTF: Activity diagrams only show task dependency, which can be achieved by multiple implemented processes. An activity can have more than one initial node. These are all started when the activity is. The initial nodes can be used in separate partitions to indicate which actions are taken on the client and server. If the two processes are completely independent, then this is a request is for a hybrid diagram, especially when trying to show shared objects. This is too much for an FTF to address.
    RTF: Hybrid diagrams are too complicated a topic for an RTF to address. There are many combinations and not enough experience to choose among them.
    Revised Text:
    None
    Disposition: Closed Out of Scope

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

UML 2 Super/Interactions/Need constraints that cover multiple Lifelines

  • Key: UML22-34
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7161
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: KDM Analytics ( Dr. Nikolai Mansourov)
  • Summary:

    Consider an Interaction that describes collaboration of several parts of a classifier that owns some attributes.
    None of the parts own this attribute. I need to be able to describe a constraint, involving these attributes.

    Or when the overall classifier has a State Machine describing its overall behavior, and we want to refer to these states in an Interaction.

    In order to achieve this, it would be desirable to use:
    1. A guard that covers more than one lifeline (represents a guard involving the attributes, "global" to the set of Lifelines)
    2. A state symbol that covers more than one lifeline (represents a state invariant refering to the state of some state machine "global" to the set of Lifelines)
    3. A state invariant covering more than one lifeline (represents an invariant involving the attributes, "global" to the set of Lifelines)

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Mon, 15 Mar 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion:
    Although this is a reasonable feature to request, it is an enhancement that exceeds the scope of the RTF. One of the main issues with it is that the semantics of defining such constraints in a distributed environment are not simple and require some serious consideration. The issue here is that Interactions consider all lifelines as potentially concurrent, and the restrictions on guards reflect this to prevent specifying distributed decisions that would imply implicit synchronization. The fact is, however, that many systems are such that it is known that the lifelines are not concurrent and checking remotely or on enclosing objects is not really hazardous. The problem is that we do not have a good way to define this in the specification. This is of course not dependent upon Interactions, but is a feature of all of UML. There seems to be a need to define object groups that share the same "thread" and are only pseudo-concurrent. If we had had such a construct, the guard could cover any subset of such a "same-thread-set-of-objects".
    Disposition: Closed Out Of Scope

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

ptc-03-09-15/Separate classification and generalization in Core::Basic

  • Key: UML22-24
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6495
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: David Frankel Consulting ( David Frankel)
  • Summary:

    Issue: One of the main requirements for a core that can be reused by CWM
    hinges on whether it is possible to reuse the abstract syntax that supports
    classification and supports having properties (or features), without pulling
    in generalization constructs. U2P’s Core::Basic package, upon which EMOF is
    based, does not appear to adequately separate these concerns.

    The most abstract level of Core::Basic's inheritance hierarchy at which the
    ability to have properties appears is in the Class metaclass. But Class
    also carries the “baggage” of a definition of superclass.

    The Core::Abstractions package does appear to adequately separate these
    concerns. It does so by defining a simple Classifier in the
    Core::Abstractions::Classifiers package that supports features but not
    generalization. The Core::Abstractions::Super package defines another
    Classifier metaclass that subclasses
    Core::Abstractions::Classifiers::Classifier and adds support for
    generalization.

    Presumably, then, the intent is that CWM metamodels that support
    classification and properties but not generalization can reuse
    Core::Abstractions::Classifiers::Classifier. However, Core::Basic does not
    reuse either of these basic definitions of Classifier from
    Core::Abstractions, and EMOF is based on Core::Basic. Thus, if a CWM
    metamodel reuses Core::Abstractions::Classifiers::Classifier, it will not
    share a common definition of Classifier with EMOF. That could mean that a
    metamodel expressed solely via EMOF will not be able to be the source or
    target in a unified approach to transformations. This is not a problem for
    CMOF, though, because CMOF is based on Core::Constructs, whose Classifiers
    are based on Core::Abstractions.

    Recommendation: Solving the problem for EMOF would require some refactoring
    of Core::Basic to separate concerns between classification and
    generalization.

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Fri, 7 Nov 2003 05:00 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

Ports in Protocol State Machines

  • Key: UML22-23
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6489
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Protocol machines should not have ports in them. It should be an
    extension in the ports package. Otherwise there is a backwards
    dependency onto composite structure.

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Fri, 7 Nov 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion
    Statemachines already depend on ports via triggers, so the proposed change will not remove the dependency.
    Furthermore, creating a dependency from composite structures to statemachines would create a more serious
    layering problem. Therefore, resolving this dependency requires a non-trivial restructuring that shall be done
    by an RTF at this point.
    UML 2.5 has a different modular structure than UML 2.4 and earlier versions, with a single-level “flat”
    structure in which inter-module dependency concerns, which are at the core of this issue, are no longer
    relevant.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

StateMachine - Constraints

  • Key: UML22-33
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7051
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    "[1] The classifier context of a state machine cannot be an interface"

    should be:

    [1] The context classifier of a state machine cannot be an interface. not redefinitionContext.oclIsKindOf(Interface)

    "[2] The context classifier of the method state machine of a behavioral feature must be the classifier that owns the behavioral feature."

    should be:

    [2] The context classifier of the method state machine of a behavioral feature must be one of the classifier that features the behavioral feature

    – note that a behavorial feature can be associated with 1..* – classifiers if self.specification->notEmpty() then self.specification.featuringClassifier->includes(redefinitionContext) endif

    "[3] The connection points of a state machine are pseudostates of kind entry point or exit point."

    should be:

    [3] The connection points of a state machine are pseudostates of kind entry point or exit point. connectionPoint->forAll(cp | cp.kind = #entryPoint or cp.kind = #exitPoint )

    "[4] A state machine as the method for a behavioral feature cannot have entry/exit connection points."

    should be:

    [4] A state machine as the method for a behavioral feature cannot have entry/exit connection points. self.specification->notEmpty() implies ( self.connectionPoint->forAll(cp | not (cp.kind = #entryPoint or cp.kind = #exitPoint) ) )

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 29 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion
    In UML 2.5, all of the above have been rewritten and corresponding OCL inserted.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

transtion

  • Key: UML22-32
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6991
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Dr. Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    Issue 2: In the same spirit, we would like also to specifiy that a transtion is fired

    only if an event is not available at a given instant. We need the concepts of instant

    and event absence. Note that the absence combined with "and" and "or" can express kinds of

    priorities (e.g., "a and not b").

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 17 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Triggering a transition with the absence of an event seems to make sense only under a synchronous semantics which defines slices of time where that event might occur or not. It require a major modification or enhancement to the current, asynchronous Run-To-Completion semantics, where events are handled one by one in a timeless sequence. 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

UML2 Super/Kernel Classes

  • Key: UML22-27
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6681
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Mr. Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    section 7.11 Does Property.aggregation have meaning for properties typed by
    value types, (Data Type and subtypes)?

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Mon, 8 Dec 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion
    The spec now says under the semantics of Property “The semantics of composite aggregation when the
    container or part is typed by a DataType are intentionally not specified.”
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

UML Superstructure FTF : isRoot property disappeared

  • Key: UML22-26
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6616
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: gmail.com ( Guus Ramackers)
  • Summary:

    The property isRoot has disappeared from Classifier. INtention was to move it to RedefinableElement but it seems to have dropped through the cracks.

    On page 399 FAS: section 13.3.4

    The metaattributes isLeaf and isRoot have been replaced by properties inherited from RedefinableElement.

    On page 86 FAS section 7.8.3 RedefinableElement:

    isLeaf: Boolean Indicates whether it is possible to further specialize a RedefinableElement. If the value is
    true, then it is not possible to further specialize the RedefinableElement. Default value is
    false.

    But no mention of isRoot....

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Fri, 14 Nov 2003 05:00 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

Inheritance of 'Enumerations' is not detailed

  • Key: UML22-30
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6921
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fraunhofer FOKUS, Germany ( Michael Soden)
  • Summary:

    Inheritance of 'Enumerations' is not detailed with repsect to their (ordered) owned 'EnumerationLiteral's.

    Proposed resolution: Add a constraint to restrict Enumerations to be unable to inherit from each other (at least favored in MOF) or specify how Literals are ordered.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 19 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion
    The issue is obsolete. The spec defines what generalization means for Enumerations.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

Part subtype

  • Key: UML22-29
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6866
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Would be useful to be able to assign a subtype for objects that fill a
    part, to add additional characteristics. For example, a person fills
    the Employee part of a company, and is reclassified under a subtype of
    person that has an office. It is not sufficient to use the subtype as
    the type of the part, because the model wouldn't record what objects are
    allowed to fill the parts. The object is reclassified under the subtype
    after filling the part.

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Wed, 5 Nov 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The issue suggests a new feature of UML. This is strategic and outside the scope of the RTF.

    Revised Text:
    None.

    Disposition: Closed, out of scope

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

manage simultaneity of events

  • Key: UML22-31
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6990
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Dr. Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    Issue 1: to have the possibility to manage simultaneity of events, and be able to

    trigger a transition by a condition on several events. By this way, the triggering

    condition of a transition may be specified through an event formula such as: (e1 and e2) or e3

    This point we then involve to relax a constraint on the semantics of RTC and to introduce then

    the possiblity to dequeue several events of the queue at the same time. May it be just an

    additional open variation semantics point?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 17 Feb 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Simultaneous events and transitions triggered by a logical combination of events require a major modification or enhancement to the current Run-To-Completion semantics, where events are handled one at a time. 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

Federated models - UML2 issue

  • Key: UML22-25
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6500
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Pivot Point ( Cris Kobryn)
  • Summary:

    When creating a complete environment for agreements and BCF we need
    to
    work with ModelElements, classes, package, models etc created and
    managed by many unrelated person and organisations. This means that
    we
    need to support loosely coupled models (federated models) where an
    association starts in one model (stored in doc A) and ends in another
    model (stored in document B).

    This may mean that we need to add references to an external
    modelelement
    so the assoication that references "out" to external ME need to be
    annotated with for example UUID of remote modelelement, name of model
    where the remote/external model , physicial location of remote model
    (URL) etc.
    We may also want to attach constraints to the remote modelement that
    restricts "incomming" associations.

    The question is how are loosely coupled model handled in UML 2 ?

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Fri, 7 Nov 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed no change

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

UML 2.0 Kernel Operations Diagram and Features Diagram and mdl

  • Key: UML22-28
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6700
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: TimeWarp Engineering Ltd. ( Steven Cramer)
  • Summary:

    The operations diagram redefines the formalParameter Property and removes the

    {ordered subsets parameter subsets ownedMember}

    .

    The mdl file has an added associtation between Operation: ownedparameter and Parameter:operation that isn’t defined in the spec.

    I believe the intent was to specialize the property Parameter:operation but I do not find the Operation:formalParameter Parameter:operation association required at all and would recommend its removal.

    This would require the ownerformalParam be made navigable. But I feel that this change is already required to sync the OCL and Superstructure specs.

    An alternative would be to add a unidirectional derived Property to the Parameter Class named operation and the derivation simply being operation=ownerFormalParam

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Tue, 16 Dec 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No longer applicable closed no chnage

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

External exceptions.

  • Key: UML22-112
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8750
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( James Rumbaugh)
  • Summary:

    External exceptions. We need an interrupt message that asynchonously causes an exception for some other process/object. In examining real-world examples at IBM, I find we need that concept. And we need interrupts that allow the target process to clean itself up, not just die. This occurs in lots of real problems

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 1 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This can already be handled, at least for an asynchronously executing activity or state machine, by sending a signal to the behavior. A concurrent part of the activity or state machine can then receive the signal and interrupt the ongoing behavior, transitioning, if necessary, to some clean up behavior before terminating. In an activity this can be done using an interruptible region. In a state machine it can be used with a orthogonal region.
    Revised Text:
    None.
    Disposition: Closed No Change

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

Clarify which classifier or operation this is referring to

  • Key: UML22-111
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8743
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    CollaborationUse, Constraint 2: Clarify which classifier or operation this is referring to.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 1 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    There are several places in chapter 9 where the text refers to the possibility of a CollaborationUse being associated with an Operation. But there is nothing in the metamodel to support this. This issue is resolved by removing these statements from the text, and by clarifying the offending constraint.
    In 9.3.3, there is a paragraph that reads as follows:
    "A collaboration may be attached to an operation or a classifier through a CollaborationUse. A collaboration used in this way describes how this operation or this classifier is realized by a set of cooperating instances. The connectors defined within the collaboration specify links between the instances when they perform the behavior specified in the classifier. The collaboration specifies the context in which behavior is performed. Such a collaboration may constrain the set of valid interactions that may occur between the instances that are connected by a link."
    The placement of this paragraph is peculiar, because it appears under Collaboration, not CollaborationUse. The first two sentences of this paragraph are false, because they talk about attaching a CollaborationUse to an operation. The remainder of the paragraph appears to add no value to what has been already stated in the semantics of Collaboration. I propose to delete this paragraph.

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

represents and occurrence keywords are switched

  • Key: UML22-110
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8742
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    CollaborationUse, Presentation Options, first paragraph, the represents and occurrence keywords are switched

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 1 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This does not appear in 2.2.

    Revised Text:
    None.

    Disposition: Closed, no change.

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

Events in Sequence diagram

  • Key: UML22-114
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8760
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    MessageEnd are MessageOccurrenceSpecification that redefines "event"
    > as MessageEvent.
    > DestructionEvent and CreationEvent are not subclasses of
    > MessageEvent, so can't be on message end, so how to map "create
    > message" and "destroy message"?

    This is an open item. The one thing that was highly contested in the FTF was that there be explicit create and destroy messages. So, they are no longer in MessageKind.

    > Also unclear how to map Reply
    > message, what kind of events should be in reply message ends?

    You should check with Oystein.

    > Events are owned by package, it's very uncomfortable (at least two
    > nesting levels from Interaction), it think they should be owned by
    > Interaction.

    No, because the whole idea of events is that they have to be shared by the sender's and reciever's behaviors. It makes little sense to define them in an Interaction.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Tue, 3 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 14629 for disposition

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

1. Deployment

  • Key: UML22-113
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8757
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    1. Deployment
    > What is client and what is supplier for this relationship?
    > Why DeploymentTARGET has word "target" in name but subsets "source"
    > for Dependency?

    The meaning of "client" and "supplier" in Dependency is pretty arbitrary and depends on one's point of view. I don't recall the reasoning behind this particular choice, but it may have to do with the direction of the arrow more than anything else. Guus probably wanted the arrow to go from the artifact to the node because it looked more natural to him. Perhaps Guus can explain – I've copied him on this reply.

    However, there is definitely a bug here since "client" and "supplier" are not derived unions, hence, they cannot be subset as shown in figure 126. This may have already been raised as an issue. I'll have to check. I suggest that you raise a formal issue in any case.

    > And why notation examples are from Artifact to Node (arrow near
    > Node, but Node is "client" in model).

    Ostensibly, this is explained by what I wrote above. However, there seems to be a deeper problem here: note that Dependency::supplier and Dependency::client are not specializations of DirectedRelationship::target and DirectedRelationship::source respectively, as I would have expected (otherwise it does not seem to make sense to subclass DirectedRelationship at all). I do not understand why this is so, it does not seem to make sense. It may have to do with the constraints that Dependency did not want to impose on supplier and client, but I am not sure. This needs further study and, likely, an issue to be raised.

    > "Location" attribute of Deployment should be DeploymentTarget, not Node.

    You are correct. Please raise an official issue on this through issues@omg.org

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Tue, 3 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Questions about the appropriateness of the use of Dependency and the directionality of theway its ends are connected
    are covered by other issues, such as 10781. In any case, such changes require modifications to the metamodel and are
    thereby out of scope for the UML 2.5 FTF.
    There no requirement that client and supplier must be, or must subset, derived unions. In Clause 19.5, the location
    attribute of Deployment is clearly identified as type DeploymentTarget.
    Disposition: Merged with 10781

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

Section: Action/Activity

  • Key: UML22-116
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8771
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    In the actions and activities chapters default values for attributes that are typed by ValueSpecifications use primitives for the default value. For example: 12.3.5 ActivityEdge, p. 352 Attribute weight has default value "1". Is that correct? What if the ValueSpecification is not computable or the value isn't typed by an Integer?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 9 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Yes, this is correct. ValueSpecifications are used in these cases, because it is often desirable for the given value to be specified in the model as computed.
    The default values are to be interpreted as the corresponding LiteralValue for the given value (e.g., a LiteralUnlimitedNatural, in the case of weight). The type of value to which such a ValueSpecification must evaluate (e.g., UnlimitedNatural for weight) is given in the semantics for the construct. If the ValueSpecification is not computable or evaluates to a value of the incorrect type, then the model is ill-formed and has no meaning.
    Revised Text:
    None.
    Disposition: Closed, no change.

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

Nested Nodes

  • Key: UML22-115
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8763
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    Node has nestedNodes collection that redefines "nestedClassifier",
    > but Node have Generalizations to Class from StructuredClasses that
    > has no Generalization to Class from Core package, so Nodes don't
    > inherits "nestedClassifier".

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Tue, 3 May 2005 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

Input tokens to LoopNodes should be destroyed when the loop is done

  • Key: UML22-119
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8780
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Input tokens to LoopNodes should be destroyed when the loop is done

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 15 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion
    This issue is obsolete. This is covered by the current semantics for loopVariableInputs, which are the only InputPins a
    LoopNode may have.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

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

Section: 8.3.1

  • Key: UML22-118
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8777
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    There is a notational conflict in the white box view of a component. If a part is typed by a component the component symbol is shown in the upper right corner of the part rectangle. The same position is used to show the multiplicity of the part.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 12 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The upper right corner of a connectable element could be used to denote the multiplicity. The same position is used to show the component symbol if the connectable element is typed by a component. It is also used by stereotype symbols. The presentation option for the multiplicity is in conflict with other standard UML notations. However it is only an option and not a mandatory presentation.

    Disposition: Closed, no change

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

Section: Classes

  • Key: UML22-123
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8866
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Figure 28 (Examples of attributes) has a read-only, derived attribute. Read only attributes can't be changed after initialization, whereas the example implies this particular one can be changed due to derivation.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 10 Jun 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    close no change

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

Section: 12.3.2 Action

  • Key: UML22-122
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8861
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Sapiens Deutschland GmbH ( Helmut Barthel)
  • Summary:

    Object token flow semantics with input pins seems to be incompletely defined. In section Semantics on page 337 you write: "... an action can only begin execution when all incoming control edges have tokens, and all input pins have object tokens." You didn't explain how and when the object tokens come to the input pins. Further, for step [2], you write: "An action consumes the input control and object tokens and removes them from the sources of control edges and from input pins." Again, you didn't explain how and when the object tokens came to the input pins, from source object nodes.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 8 Jun 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

In Figure 12, ownedAttribute is bidirectional, in Figure 95, it is unidirec

  • Key: UML22-109
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8741
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    In Figure 12, ownedAttribute is bidirectional, in Figure 95, it is unidirectional. What happens when these are merged in Figure 98?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 1 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see pages 21 - 22 of ptc/2011-01-19

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

StructuredActivityNode, Semantics, third paragraph, first sentence,

  • Key: UML22-108
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8738
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    StructuredActivityNode, Semantics, third paragraph, first sentence, clarify that "attached" means input pin, output, or expansion nodes

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 1 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    The wording of this sentence has already been changed by the resolution to Issue 9855 to refer specifically to pins on a structured activity node. Expansion nodes only apply to expansion regions and are covered in that section.
    Revised Text:
    None.
    Disposition: Duplicate

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

Section: 9.3.7

  • Key: UML22-117
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8776
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    Second constraint: "If a connector end references both a role and a partWithPort, then the role must be a port that is defined by the type of the partWithPort." Since role has multiplicity 1..1 and partWithPort 0..1 the if condition is always true if a connector has a partWithPort. It'S sufficient to say "If a connector references a partWithPort,..."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 11 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agreed, this will make it easier to read.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Return message

  • Key: UML22-120
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8785
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    How return message should be mapped into model? What kind of events are on message ends, how return values should be mapped? Should return values be arguments of message? How return message can be recognized in the model?
    How variable assignment should be mapped and related with message?

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Wed, 18 May 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    There has never been anything called a "return message", but the issue is probably about "reply message" which we had forgotten to give a messageSort, but that has been fixed. The other issues are related, but are also asking for clarification of metamodel encoding. This should eventually be picked up again if necessary during a major revision.
    Disposition: ClosedOutOfScope

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

multiplicity should not be used/shown in an communicates association

  • Key: UML22-121
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8854
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    Figure 404 - Example of the use cases and actors for an ATM system
    (The ATM example is repeated in Figure 410.)

    If you think multiplicity gives value to this diagram, please add additional text and explain the usage of multiplicity (1, 0..1, 0..*) in this diagram.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Fri, 3 Jun 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merged with 18072

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Section: 14

  • Key: UML22-76
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8353
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add Ocl notation to constraints where possible or note that OCL notation is not possible. Page numbers of odd numbered pages are not in the same place as the are for other chapters. Move them to the lower right corner. Delete sub-section headings where the sub-section contains no information or state "None." If a concept is not "(as specialized)" and there are no atttributes, associations, etc. write "None" instead of "No additional xxx." Not all of the figures contain package names for the generalized parents. Add as many of these as possible or use the ellipses as appropriate.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 24 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Section: 14.3.18

  • Key: UML22-75
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8342
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Second sentence in sub-section Description is missing a word. "...the contents of the referred Interaction xxx [from?? to??] where the InteractionUse is." Change the class name of the association argument:InputPin[*] either on fig 333 to InputPin or to Action in the text. Class name in fig. 333 is Action. This association is also shown in the figure as ordered. Association actualGate:Gate[*] subsets ownedElement. Mention specialization in definition of the association. I'm confused between the BNF use of io-argument and your use of argument. If the name of the association is "io-argument" as indicated by BNF and Issue 1751, should the name on the diagram and in the sub-section Associations be changed to io-argument? Also, para 2 on og 534 italizes argument instead of io-argument. Typo - Second sent. on pg. 534 needs a space between "explained" and "in."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 24 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

RemoveStructuralFeatureValueAction specification

  • Key: UML22-74
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8336
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Dr. Chokri Mraidha)
  • Summary:

    According to the RemoveStructuralFeatureValueAction specification we always have to specify the value to remove. It is not possible to remove an element from a multi-valued structural feature just by specifying its number in the set and without specifying its value. It would be interesting to have this option.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 24 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This is resolved by the resolution to Issue 9870.
    Disposition: Duplicate

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

inconsistent description

  • Key: UML22-73
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8332
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: none ( Rui Xu)
  • Summary:

    There is an inconsistent description about determining conflicting transitions of a internal transition. According to sector Conflicting transitions, p.492: "Two transitions are said to conflict if they both exit the same state", two internal transitions in the same configration won't be conflict, However, P.492 says "Each orthogonal region in the active state configuration that is not decomposed into orthogonal regions can fire at most one transition as a result of the current event" There are two possible explanation: 1.Internal transition is treated orthogonal to the container region: thus, any two internal transitions in different state won't be confilict. 2.Internal transition is treated as self-transition without entry/exit action: thus, internal transition will be conflict with transitions which are conflict with corresponding self-transition. And a orthogonal region fires at most one transition(either internal or non-internal) an example: A and B are two states of top state. A is superState of AA AA is superState of AAA and AAB t1 is an internal transition of A t2 is an internal transition of AA t3 is an external transition from AAA to AAB t4 is an external transition from AA to B does t1 and t2 conflict? t2 and t3? which should be chosen for firing?

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Thu, 24 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion
    An internal transition IS a self-transition. It does not exit or enter the state to which it is attached. Internal transitions
    belong to states and not to regions, as seemed to be implied by the issue summary. This is explicitly stated in the
    specification. From the point of view of firing rules, they are no different than for any other transition. If there are
    conflicts (and, there CAN be conflicts between two internal transitions), they are resolved the same way as all other
    conflicts based on the firing rules for such cases. Hence, the ambiguity discussed in the summary of the issue does not
    exist.
    (However, after reading the text, it seems that there is no explicit statement on how the issue of conflicting transitions
    of the same priority is resolved. Presumably, this is one of those “intentionally left unspecified” cases; i.e., it is an
    implementation choice. But, this is a different and more general issue that needs to be dealt with separately.)
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Decision node

  • Key: UML22-82
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8471
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: sabetta.com ( Antonino Sabetta)
  • Summary:

    Decision node should be able to take decision based on input separate from the flow being routed

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 6 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    This issue is already resolved in UML 2.2 (see Issue 10815).
    Revised Text:
    None
    Disposition: Duplicate

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Section: Actions

  • Key: UML22-81
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8470
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Eran Gery [X] (Inactive))
  • Summary:

    Add actions for reading and writing parameter values, so flows are not required in structured activities

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 25 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Duplicate of issue 9247.
    Revised Text:
    None.
    Disposition: Duplicate

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super / Kernel / invalid restriction in isConsistentWith()

  • Key: UML22-80
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8460
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Mr. Jim Amsden)
  • Summary:

    A derived union association end represents a union of all of its subsets. The leaf subsets clearly have to be non-derived. However, in operation Property::isConsistentWith(), defined on page 127 of ptc/-04-10-02, it is stated that a derived property cannot be redefined by a non-derived property. This means that all such subsets of derived unions will be incorrect. Clearly, this restriction should be removed.

    Recommendation:

    Remove the constraint:

    (prop.isDerived implies isDerived)

    from the operation Property::isConsistentWith() (on pg. 127)

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Fri, 4 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see below

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

namespace

  • Key: UML22-67
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8246
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Dr. Edward Willink)
  • Summary:

    The namespace is xmlns:Model="omg.org.mof.Model" Surely it should be xmlns:Model="org.omg.mof.Model" " The official/latest version of this file: omg.org/models/MOF1.4/XMI1.1/Model1.4/Model.xml" does not exist on the OMG web site.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Sat, 5 Feb 2005 05:00 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

Figure 89 on page 158 is incorrect

  • Key: UML22-66
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8168
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    ptc/04-10-02: Figure 89 on page 158 is incorrect: the delegation connector on the left seems to be pointing the wrong way.

    More generally, it is not clear why an arrow is required on delegation connectors, since they are automatically implied when a port is connected to a part or a port on a part. The arrow can be misleading since some may interpret incorrectly it as a restriction on the direction of data flow. Note that the table 5 on page 166 does not show the arrow notation nor does table 7.

    Finally, the title of table 5 should say: "graphic paths" instead of "graphic nodes"

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Fri, 28 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The first part refers to figure 8.12. The "more generally" part applies to figure 8.16 and the associated text.
    Delegation connectors do not need any special notation other than that defined for connectors in general in table 9.2.
    The third aspect of this issue is a duplicate of 12236, already resolved.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Section: 13.3.17

  • Key: UML22-72
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8310
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Figure 318 shows the association specification:Interfal[1] that redefines specification. Add this to sub-section Associations in the concept since the concept is not as specialized

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This has already been resolved in UML 2.2.
    Revised Text:
    None.
    Disposition: Closed No Change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Section: 13.3.11

  • Key: UML22-71
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8306
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Describe more fully that DurationInterval defines the range between the minimum and maximum duration times allowed. To be consistent with other mutliplicities, show the multiplicities of the associations on fir. 318. Add comment that the associations redefine minimum and maximum as indicated by fig. 318. Sub-section Notation mentions DurationExpression but this concept is not defined. Add this as a concept.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    In the UML 2.2 specification, the diagram is now Figure 13.13. Multiplicities for min and max are shown on both the diagram and in the text. The redefinitions should be shown in the text. In the Notation section, DurationExpression should be Duration.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML2/Infra section 11.6.2/ Enumerations should not have attributes

  • Key: UML22-70
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8274
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    11.6.2 of Infra and 7.3.16 of Super refer to the possibility of Enumerations having attributes: "A compartment listing the attributes for the enumeration is placed
    below the name compartment." This concept does not make sense to me: an enumeration inherently represents a single value-set modeled through owned EnumerationLiterals.
    The only type of attribute that might ever make sense is a derived attribute (e.g. Color.isPrimary).

    Proposed resolution:
    Add constraint to above sections on Enumeration to state that only attributes permitted are derived ones. Also that any Operation must have isQuery=true.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Mon, 14 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Enumeration literals are immutable, so writeable attributes do not make sense. But read-only attributes do
    make sense: they don’t need to be derived. The current description of equality of EnumerationLiterals needs
    improvement. Operations on enumerations are allowed.
    This also resolves 17933

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Default values for ValueSpecification are not specified properly

  • Key: UML22-79
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8450
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    There are a few cases when the default is documented as a ValueExpression, as follows:

    • JoinNode.joinSpec = {default value is" and"}
    • ActivityEdge.guard= {default value is "true"}

    These defaults are currently just plain text in the Rose Model displayed under the ValueSpecification as shown in figure 185 in the superstructure specification.

    They should be included formally in the model. However it is not clear that the UML2 notation text allows defaults for association ends, and that those defaults can include expressions that construct instances of classes such as ValueSpecification. For example, the notation for ActivityEdge::guard in figure 185 could be:

    +guard = LiteralBoolean(true)

    The default value for guard is set to a newly constructed LiteralBoolean (a ValueSpecification) with value true.

    Recommendation:

    Ensure the text notation for default values includes the ability to construct InstanceSpecifications, and that the notation supports defaults for properties on association ends.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Fri, 4 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Section 15

  • Key: UML22-78
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8447
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    General comments - Delete sub-sections tat are empty or state "None." If class is not "as specialized' do not say "No additional xxxx" but rather "None" or delete the sub-section. Add OCL notation or a note that OCL notation is not available for constraints and/or additional operations and/or derived attributes where appropriate.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 3 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Section: 14

  • Key: UML22-77
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8414
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    How to show class operation calls in interaction diagrams? A discussion in the umlforum list came to the conclusion that the name in the lifeline header should be the class name. In that case it is not possible to differentiate between "ClassName" only and "RoleName" only. Besides the notational problem I can't see how a class operation call could fit into the interaction meta-model. However it is necessary to show such a call. It's a typical part of an interaction.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 1 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merged with 18697

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Section: 12.3.40

  • Key: UML22-69
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8260
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add package names "(CompleteStructuredActivities, StructuredActivities)" Add OCL notation

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 8 Feb 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Within the Activities package, OutputPin appears under StructuredActivities and CompleteStructuredActivities. However, Figures 12.21 and 12.22 (of the UML 2.2 Specification, ptc/08-05-05), explicitly referencesUML::Actions::BasicActions::OutputPin. This is not correct, because StructuredActivities (indirectly) merges BasicActions, it does not import it - and, since it merges it, cannot reference elements from it.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Section: 12.3.33

  • Key: UML22-68
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8249
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Add OCL notation to constraint. Correct multiplicity of association interrutingEdge:ActivityEdge[0..*] so that fig. 194 and text agree. Typos - Change 2nd sent. of 2nd para in sub-section Semantics to "...and the token arrives at the target even is an interruption occurs... . " - Under sub-section Presentation Option, spell zigzag as one word, not two.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 7 Feb 2005 05:00 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: Classes

  • Key: UML22-84
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8474
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Enumeration should have a constraint that the classifier of its literals is the enumeration

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 6 Mar 2005 05:00 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: Activities

  • Key: UML22-83
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8472
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Mr. Jim Amsden)
  • Summary:

    Object node should be a multiplicity element, and use multiplicity upper for upperbound

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 6 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Though seemingly small, this would actually be a significant change to the metamodel for activities and it would fundamentally change the current semantics for multiplicity of pins, which now only effect the execution of actions. If object node in general were made a multiplicity element, one would not only have to reconcile the current semantics of object node upper bound with the semantics of the multiplicity upper bound of a pin, one would also need to consider what the general semantics are for the multiplicity lower bound of an object node.
    This issue is thus considered strategic and out of scope for an RTF.
    Revised Text:
    None
    Disposition: Closed Out of Scope

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Section: 10.3.11

  • Key: UML22-65
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8142
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Need to write the info for the Changes from previous UML section or remove it

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 26 Jan 2005 05:00 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: Interactions

  • Key: UML22-85
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8475
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Interactions: What object receives SendEvent, etc? Affects how AcceptEventAction is used

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 6 Mar 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion
    Not a problem in UML 2.5.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Section: Common Behavior

  • Key: UML22-155
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9005
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Second paragraph of Semantics section of Trigger in Common Behavior is inconsistent with the first paragraph of p 605 in semantics of State. The semantics of Trigger does not accomodate deferred events.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 25 Sep 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The noted paragraph in Trigger is not actually in conflict with deferred events. The semantics of Trigger states that once "an event is dispatched" it is "considered consumed" and is then "no longer available for processing". However, the semantics for deferred event under State says that "an event that does not trigger any transitions in the current state, will not be dispatched" if it is deferred. Therefore, there is no conflict with it being consumed only if it is actually dispatched.
    However, it would probably be helpful to clarify this under Trigger. Also, the semantic variation point on discarding an event if there is no appropriate trigger is not correct, since, for a transition even, at least, if the event is deferred it is not discarded, and if it is not deferred it is.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Section: Classes (02)

  • Key: UML22-154
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9004
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    raisedException in Figure 10, reused without specialization by Operation in Figure 11 (the entry for it in Operation says it is redefined), but redefined in Figure 315. Should it be a derived union in Figure 10?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 25 Sep 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The specialization from A_raisedException_operation to A_raisedException_behavioralFeature comes as a result of L3 package merge. Derived union would make sense if raisedException had a subsetting relationship instead of a specialization refinement.
    (Note also that the redefinition of raisedException is now noted on the diagram for Operation. Also, the resolution of Issue 12558 removed the later BasicBehaviors::BehavioralFeature::raisedException.)
    Revised Text:
    None.
    Disposition: Closed No Change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Section: Common Behavior (02)

  • Key: UML22-153
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9002
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    The semantics of TimeEvent uses undefined term "active". State machines uses the term for states, not triggers. Need definition independent of state machines in any case.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 25 Sep 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The UML 2.5 beta specification still uses the phrase “time at which the Trigger becomes active” in 13.3.3
    under “Time Events”. The intended idea seems to be what is now discussed earlier in 13.3.3 under “Even
    Dispatching”: a Behavior may come to a “wait point” at which it has a number of “outstanding Triggers”.
    For any such Triggers with a relative TimeEvent, the starting point should be the time at which the Behavior
    comes to the wait point.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Section: Common Behavior

  • Key: UML22-152
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9001
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Semantics of AnyReceiveEvent. The semantics of AnyReceiveEvent is in terms of state machines even though it is in Common Behavior. Should be defined independently of the kind of behavior using it.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 25 Sep 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    agreed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Property ownership must be consistent across association redefinitions

  • Key: UML22-151
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8977
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Mr. Jim Amsden)
  • Summary:

    When an association generalizes another association and redefines its ends, the redefined end must be accessible through the generalization. This means redefining and redefined properties must be ownedEnds of the association or ownedAttributes of the participating classes. Redefining ownership (either directly or indirectly by changing navigability with default ownership) resulting in the redefined property no longer being a member of the general class should not be allowed. UML2 needs to include a constraint capturing this rule

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 26 Aug 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion
    This is already covered by RedefinableElement::isRedefinitionContextValid() and
    RedefinableElement::redefinition_consistent.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Missing notation for association classes

  • Key: UML22-150
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8974
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    The notation for Associations allows them to be depicted as a diamond (even binary associations).
    However the Notation for AssociationClasses assumes the Association is depicted as a line only, and does not describe an option for attaching an AssociationClass to an Association shown as a diamond. This should be fairly obvious - just have the dotted line attached to the diamond instead of the Association's line.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This is an omission in the text.
    This also resolves issue 12406

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Page: 346-347

  • Key: UML22-149
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8973
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Systemvaruhuset ( Andreas Hägglund)
  • Summary:

    Figure 207 on page 346 depicts the symbol for an activity as a number of rectangle with rounded corners surrounding a number of action nodes which also are depticed as rectangles with rounded corner. The example (figure 209 on page 347) however, depicts the action nodes not as rectangles with rounded corners but more lika ovals (or rectangles with noticabely more rounded corners than previously). Which symbol is the correct one?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 22 Aug 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The referenced figure is 12.33 in Section 12.3.4 of the UML 2.2 specification (ptc/08-05-05). The graphical variation in the action shape in subsequent diagrams does not seem unreasonable and the notation of an action within an activity is clearly given in Section 12.3.2.
    Revised Text:
    None
    Disposition: Closed, no change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Page: 255

  • Key: UML22-148
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8972
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    The specification says: "If isReplaceAll is false and the variable is unordered and nonunique, then adding an existing value has no effect." This should be replaced by: "If isReplaceAll is false and the variable is unordered and UNIQUE, then adding an existing value has no effect."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 22 Aug 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    agreed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Behavior

  • Key: UML22-147
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8970
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MID GmbH ( Mr. Detlef Peters)
  • Summary:

    1) As a specialization of Class, Behavior (and its subclasses) may have properties (+ownedAttribute) and operations (+ownedOperation). Especially for operations, I can't see any use for it.
    I propose to change the Superclass of Behavior from 'Class' to 'Classifier' and to add an explicit ownership of Properties, as already done for Signals.
    2) The description and semantics of Behavior immediately refer to a context classifier. As a consequence, the composite relation to 'BehavioredClassifier' should be of multiplicity 1 instead of 0..1 so that a Behavior must always be owned by a BehavioredClassifier.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 19 Aug 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    1) The rationale for allowing attributes and operations on behaviors is actually provided in Subclause 12.3.4 for activities. In part: "An activity execution, as a reflective object, can support operations for managing execution, such as starting, stopping, aborting, and so on; attributes, such as how long the process has been executing or how much it costs; and links to objects, such as the performer of the execution, who to report completion to, or resources being used, and states of execution such as started, suspended, and so on." The submitter may not agree with the need for this capability, or desire to use it, but it was specifically included in UML because there are some who do wish to use it.
    2) A behavior may standalone without being owned by any other behaviored classifier. In this case the behavior is implicitly considered to be its own context when executed. Per the Semantics in Subclause 13.3.2: "When a behavior is instantiated as an object, it is its own context."
    Revised Text:
    None
    Disposition: Closed No Change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 - Invalid subsetting of composition ends

  • Key: UML22-144
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8952
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    In figure 3, the association end Element::owner is shown as navigable and as a union of all its subsets. According to the following convention defined in section 6.5.2, this end is owned by the class and not the composition association:

    " • An association with neither end marked by navigability arrows means that:
    • the association is navigable in both directions
    • each association end is owned by the classifier at the opposite end (i.e., neither end is owned by the association)"

    Throughout the spec, there are many places where this association end is specialized into a non-navigable association end (e.g., figures 4, 5, ...). But, according to the following additional rule in 6.5.2:

    " • An association with one end marked by a navigability arrow means that:
    • the association is navigable in the direction of that end,
    • the marked association end is owned by the classifier, and
    • the opposite (unmarked) association end is owned by the association"

    this means that such non-navigable association ends are owned by the association and not by the class.

    Consequently, such ends cannot be valid specializations of Element::owner (as stated in the spec) since they are owned by a classifier (the association) that is not related by generalization to the classifier (i.e., metaclass) that owns the original attribute.

    Recommendation:

    (1) Define Element::owner such that it is owned by the composition association and not by the Element class. This will make all the currently invalid subsettings of this type valid.

    (2) Do this for all other cases of invalid subsets of this type in the spec, if they exist.

    (3) Make it explicit in the spec that these are exceptions to the convention described in 6.5.2

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 8 Aug 2005 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

UML 2 Super / Actions / Compliance Levels of Actions

  • Key: UML22-143
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8951
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MID GmbH ( Mr. Detlef Peters)
  • Summary:

    Actions for sending events and for calling operations and behavior are part of the "BasicActions" package which is part of Compliance Level 1. Their 'partner' actions for accepting a call or an event, however, are part of the "CompleteActions" package which is part of Compliance Level 3.
    Since there is not much sense in creating events without ever accepting them later, I recommend one of the following:
    a) Accept the first item of Issue 8459 from Mr. Amsden and move "AcceptEventAction" and "AcceptCallAction", too, to a package of L1, preferrably "BasicActions"
    b) Otherwise (if "Communications" remains an L2 package) move these two Actions together with all "InvocationAction" specializations, too, to a package of L2. In this case, maybe a new L2 package like "CommunicationActions" could be created.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 4 Aug 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion
    This issue is obsolete. There are no compliance levels in UML 2.5.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Page: 53-55

  • Key: UML22-162
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9076
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: ZeT ( Jose A. Rodrigues Nt.)
  • Summary:

    In UML v. 2.0, formal/05-07-04: IF 7.3.9 Comment -> Semantics -> "A Comment adds no semantics to the annotated elements,..." AND 7.3.10 Constraint -> "A constraint is a condition or restriction expressed in natural language text or in a machine readable language for the purpose of declaring some of the semantics of an element." AND 7.3.10 Constraint -> Semantics -> "A Constraint represents additional semantic information attached to the constrained elements." AND 7.3.10 Constraint -> Presentation Options -> "The constraint string may be placed in a note symbol and attached to each of the symbols for the constrained elements by a dashed line." THEN Either the constrained element is the "note symbol", the "note symbol" represents a Comment and so a Comment adds semantics to another element or I missed something.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 6 Oct 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion
    Just because both a Comment and a Constraint can both be notated using a similar “note symbol” does not mean
    they are the same thing. A Constraint notated using a note symbol in the concrete syntax of a model still maps to a
    Constraint in the abstract syntax representation, not a Comment.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

"ownedType" is not a valid element

  • Key: UML22-161
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9024
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Gene Mutschler)
  • Summary:

    Having implemented a UML 2 L0 addin for Rational Rose, I exported a sample model to XMI. When this XMI file was imported into another UML2 tool, the tool failed, indicating that "ownedType" is not a valid element. Examination of the Infrastructure Library reveals why this is so. In the InfrastructureLibrary's Basic package (the basis for UML2 L0), the sole means by which a Package owns items is the "ownedType" reference. However, in The Constructs package (the basis for UML 2 L1 and beyond), this reference is now indicated as derived, meaning that it will not be handled by most UML 2 tools. It has been replaced by the "ownedMember" reference, which is unknown to UML 2 L0.

    This is a showstopper issue with respect to UML2 XMI interoperability, since it means that a UML2 tool operating at Level 0 cannot interchange models with UML2 tools operating at any other level.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 4 Oct 2005 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: Classes

  • Key: UML22-158
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9012
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Associations can have static ends, but this violates the semantics of static (that they are properties of the class or subclasses, not instances). If we are following programming languages, the semantics of isStatic should be that it is properties of instances, but is the same on all instances. The current semantics would be the right one if isStatic identifies "metaproperties".

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 25 Sep 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion
    This is now covered by the text that says “Where semantics are not explicitly specified for static Features, those
    semantics are undefined” in clause 9.4.3, and also “The semantics are undefined for Associations that have an end
    with isStatic = true” in 16.6.3.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Section: Classes

  • Key: UML22-157
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9011
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Figure 13, what is the classifier of EnumerationLiteral (inherited from InstanceSpecification)? Presumably it should be the enumeration, with the enumeration end of the association to Enumeration redefining the classifier end from InstanceSpecification in Figure 8. Programs accessing classifiers in the repository should find the enumeration literals as instances of their enumerations.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 14 Nov 2000 05:00 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: Activities

  • Key: UML22-156
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9009
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    In LoopNode, the frontend, backend node description is redundant with the semantics of StructuredActivityNode

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 25 Sep 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion
    This issue is obsolete. The UML 2.5 description of structured node semantics no longer uses the “frontend, backend
    node” terminology, and is no longer redundant.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML SuperStructure - Inconsistency re State Machine terms

  • Key: UML22-146
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8967
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    think there is some inconsistency in your usage of terms
    in chapter 15 State Machines.

    It isn't really clear (I think) what you mean sometimes when
    you use the terms "state machine" "behavioral state machines"
    and "protocol state machines".

    In my (humble) opinion you should never use only the term
    "state machine" when you do not mean both "behavioral state
    machine" and "protocol state machine".

    15.3.12 is a perfect example where I think there is confusion,
    or at least lack of clarity, since you talk about "state machines" executing "activities". Clearly, not all state machines do--
    more precisely--protocol state machines don't.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 16 Aug 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion
    This issue was resolved by the UML 2.5 convention of using explicit meta-class names (e.g., StateMachine and ProtocolStateMachine)
    and by isloating the two types of state machines into distinct sections of the spec.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Section: 14.3.20

  • Key: UML22-145
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8965
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: ACTL Systems ltd. ( Dani Mannes)
  • Summary:

    In the UML 1.5 you could specifiy on messages in the collaboration diagram the predesessor. This was very convenient for modeling threads. this has been removed from the UML 2.0. It should be added to the communication diagram message specification.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 15 Aug 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion
    In sequence diagram messages are not totally ordered.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Section: 16.3.3

  • Key: UML22-160
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9017
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    Fig 16.3. uses note symbol notation of the Hruby Vision template. That's not conform to UML 2.0 at this point. The end of the note anchor line doesn't have a circle in UML 2.0.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merged with 18084

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Section: Activities

  • Key: UML22-159
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9014
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Add constraint that incoming edges to input pins on structured activities must have sources outside the structured node. Add constraint that incoming edges to output pins on structured activities must have sources inside the structured node.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 25 Sep 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    agreed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Page: 420

  • Key: UML22-142
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8945
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG ( Mr. Tim Weilkiens)
  • Summary:

    In addition to the elided pins presentation add presentation option that pins can be omitted without a little box above the line.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 2 Aug 2005 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Without the little box, the object flow would look identical to a control flow between actions, which would be confusing.
    Revised Text:
    None
    Disposition: Closed, no change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Connector - "provided Port" and "required Port" not defined Constraint 1

  • Key: UML22-36
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7247
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Connector - "provided Port" and "required Port" not defined Constraint 1, "[1] A delegation connector must only be defined between used Interfaces or Ports of the same kind, e.g. between two provided Ports or between two required Ports." uses the concepts "provided Port" and "required Port". Neither of them is defined in the spec. Furthermore, a Connector is not expected to be defined between Interfaces, but an Association is. A Connector is defined between ConnectableElements whose specializations are Property, Port, Parameter, and Variable, but not Interface. I suggest to replace Constraint [1] with "[1] A delegation connector must only be defined between a ConnectableElement (i.e. a Port) of the component and a ConnectableElement (i.e. a Property or a Port) of one of its internal parts."

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The proposed resolution is still incorrect because a connector in general is n-ary not binary. Also the need for such a constraint is altered because of the resolution of 7364 which makes Connector::kind derived. Instead we need a constraint that ensures that a delegation connector only delegates from one port: it would make no sense to have an n-ary connector that delegated from more than one port. Furthermore the entire Semantics section for Connector in this chapter needs rewriting because of this issue.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

isComposite inconsistency in UML 2.0 and MOF 2.0

  • Key: UML22-46
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7910
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: N/A ( Rob Grainger)
  • Summary:

    The usage of isComposite varies in these two specs as detailed below. Hope this proves useful. Rob ------- UML 2.0 ------- The UML 2.0 Infrastructure spec (03-09-15) section 10.2.4 defines Basic::Property::isComposite as follows: – isComposite : Boolean If isComposite is true, the object containing the attribute is a container for the object or value contained in the attribute. The default value is false. i.e. an attribute marked "isComposite" is the container for the value. – However, Constructs::Property (which inherits Basic::Property) has the following constraint: [3] A multiplicity of a composite aggregation must not have an upper bound greater than 1. isComposite implies (upperBound()>isEmpty() or upperBound() <= 1) This is surely intended to mean that an object can have [0..1] containers, rather than (as defined by the two definitions above) that a container can store [0..1] instances in each composite property. The difficulty seems to be one of terminology - from the perspective of a property, being composite implies the property is composite, ie. contains zero or more objects, while from the perspective of an object, the composite of an object could be viewed as a container. The problem can be fixed by redefining the constraint something like: [3] If a property has isComposite==true, than if the property has an opposite, that opposite property must have an upper bound greater than 1. isComposite implies (opposite == null) or (opposite.upperBound()>isEmpty() or opposite.upperBound() <= 1). In 11.3.1 - Association, "Composition is represented by the isComposite attribute on the part end of the association being set to true." - again this is the opposite sense. This is also indicates that there is a degree of complexity implementing MOF::Reflection::Object::container() - there is actually no property for which this is a simple test. Instead, it is necessary to find a property of the object such that the opposite property is marked isComposite, there is no guarantee such a property is accessible, hence an implementation must, in some cases, store a separate (hidden) reference to the object's container. This is an implementation property however. The other alternative I can see would be to replace isComposite on the container object with isContainer on the contained object, or even to have both (with an appropriate constraint to guarantee that the two properties are consistent). --------- MOF 2.0 --------- The same problem manifests in the definition of CMOF abstract semantics. In section 15.2, ClassInstance includes the following definition: 2. At most one Slot for an isComposite property may have a value. (this needs more work if the owner reference is not navigable) Using the current definition of isComposite, this needs to be restated to the effect that at most one slot for a property that is the opposite of an isComposite property may have a value. And again, in the specification of DataType... For all properties, isReadOnly is true, isComposite is false, isDerivedUnion is false Surely this is not correct - a data type may contain other datatypes, which by definition are stored by value, implying strong ownership, and hence a composition relationship. Indeed, any classifier containing a property whose value is a data type should always have isComposite set to true. In 15.4, Object::delete() seems to use isComposite correctly given the definition. Later, however, Object::owningProperty() uses the other approach - using isComposite() to identify the container of the current object.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Mon, 15 Nov 2004 05:00 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: 9.14.1

  • Key: UML22-48
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7969
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: N/A ( Paul Berry)
  • Summary:

    The allOwnedElements query (defined in Core::Abstractions::Ownerships) operates by recursing downward through the ownership hierarchy. Its OCL implementation looks like this: Element::allOwnedElements(): Set(Element); allOwnedElements = ownedElement->union(ownedElement->collect(e | e.allOwnedElements())) In the absence of sophisticated optimization, this query is only guaranteed to terminate if the ownership hierarchy is non-circular. The ownership hierarchy is guaranteed to be circular by constraint [1] (An element may not directly or indirectly own itself). But the OCL description of constraint [1] is written in terms of the allOwnedElements() query: not self.allOwnedElements()>includes(self) If a modeling tool were to be written based on these rules in a straightforward way, it would never be able to detect a violation of constraint [1]. Instead it would go into infinite recursion while trying to check the constraint. Proposed solution: Add the following operation to 9.14.1: [3] The query isCircularlyOwned walks the chain of direct and indirect owners of an element, checking whether the chain contains any circularities, or any of the elements in the set prohibitedElements. Element::isCircularlyOwned(prohibitedElements: Set(Element)): Boolean; isCircularlyOwned = if owner>isEmpty() then false else if prohibitedElements->including(self)>includes(owner) then true else owner.isCircularlyOwned(prohibitedElements>including(self)) And change constraint [1] to: [1] An element may not be directly or indirectly owned by itself. not self.isCircularlyOwned(Set{})

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sun, 5 Dec 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion
    It is not necessary for the OCL in the specification to be implementable in some “straightforward way”. It is only
    necessary that the OCL have the proper meaning according to OCL semantics, which the identified expressions do.
    An implementation is free to implement them in the manner that the issue author suggests. It is not necessary to
    complicate the specification by adopting a specific implementation approach.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

should retain Comment and its associations to Element

  • Key: UML22-47
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7958
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Mr. Jim Amsden)
  • Summary:

    The resolution to Issue 7782 (Move Comment from Constructs to Basic) removed Comment from Constructs. For consistency with the rest of Constructs (which included everything else reused from Basic), the resolution should not have removed Comment from Constructs, it should have just copied Comment into Basic.

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Wed, 1 Dec 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This is resolved in the UML 2.2 specification.
    Revised Text:
    None.
    Disposition: Closed No Change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Notation sections for TimeObservation and DurationObservation

  • Key: UML22-42
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7304
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology ( Thomas Weigert)
  • Summary:

    The Notation sections for TimeObservation and DurationObservation seem inadequate: 1. The syntax for TimeObservation only allows "now" as a TimeExpression, but indicates in the previous sentence that more complex expressions are possible. 2. The syntax for DurationObservation includes the unexplained non-terminal symbol "duration". 3. In the example, figure 321, there are no associations to named elements shown. I assume that these refer to the begin and end of the arrow, but that is not indicated.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Wed, 5 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue has already been considered by prior RTFs and deemed out of scope, per the following discussion previously recorded for this issue:
    A proper resolution of this issue depends on changes in progress with respect to the action and activity model. In addition, a more encompassing improvement of the "simple time model" and related concepts is required.
    Thus, the resolution of this issue is best considered to be strategic.
    Revised Text:
    None
    Disposition: Closed Out of Scope

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

completion transitions

  • Key: UML22-41
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7254
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: ISTI-CNR ( Franco Mazzanti)
  • Summary:

    Suppose that we have two composite states, nested within to two concurrent regions, which both become "complete" as part of the same "run-to-completion" step, and each of the composite states is the source for a completion transition. I.e. within this "run-to-completion" step two completion events are generated. How should these two completion events be dispatched? - Sequentially, in the same sequential order in which they have been generated. - Sequentially, but any ordering is allowed, - Concurrently. I.e. both completion transitions are considered enabled. - other ??? or any of the above Notice that completion transition may have guards, and activity, hence the firing of one of them may cause the other to become no more "enabled". Hence the above three cases may really cause different system behaviors.

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Wed, 21 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add a clarification for this case based on the above discussion

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Connector - inconsistencies in Constraint[3]

  • Key: UML22-38
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7249
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Connector - inconsistencies in Constraint[3] Constraint [3] says: "[3] If a delegation connector is defined between a source Interface or Port and a target Interface or Port, then the target Interface must support a signature compatible subset of Operations of the source Interface or Port." There are two problems with this constraint: 1. An Interface cannot be the source or the target of a connector, because Interface is not a ConnectableElement. 2. If a connector is defined between a source Port and a target Port (which is possible, because Port is a ConnectableElement) - what is the "target Interface"? One of the Interfaces port.type is implementing? Or one of the Interfaces in port.provided? - what are the Operations of the source Port? The Operations of the Classifier given by port.type? Or the union of all Operations of all Interfaces given by port.required and port.provided? - what does "signature compatible" mean for Interfaces?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    See 7248 for the discussion.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Connector - inconsistencies in Constraint [2]

  • Key: UML22-37
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7248
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Connector - inconsistencies in Constraint [2] Constraint [2] says: "[2] If a delegation connector is defined between a used Interface or Port and an internal Part Classifier, then that Classifier must have an “implements” relationship to the Interface type of that Port." There are two problems with this constraint: 1. A connector cannot be defined between a used Interface and an internal Part, because Interface is not a ConnectableElement. 2. What is "the Interface type of that Port" ? The Classifier given by port.type? This Classifier can be but does not have to be an Interface. Or one of the Interfaces given by port.required? Which one?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This constraint and the following two are currently incomprehensible (see 7249 and 7250). According to Internal Structures, "What makes connectable elements compatible is a semantic variation point." I see no particular reason to change this for components, and given that connectors are n-ary, it would be hard to do so. So I propose simply to delete the constraints. Profiles are free to restrict connectors to binary and to impose signature compatibility, based on type or contract compatibility, if they wish to.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Connector - inconsistencies in Constraint[5]

  • Key: UML22-40
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7251
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Connector - inconsistencies in Constraint[5] Constraint [5] says: "[5] An assembly connector must only be defined from a required Interface or Ports to a provided Interface or Port." There are two problems with this constraint: 1. A connector cannot be defined from or to an Interface, because Interface is not a ConnectableElement. 2. It is not clear what a "required Port" or a "provided Port" is.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    See 7248 for the discussion.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Connector - inconsistencies in Constraint[4]

  • Key: UML22-39
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7250
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: PostFinance ( Karl Guggisberg)
  • Summary:

    Connector - inconsistencies in Constraint[4] Constraint [4] says: "[4] In a complete model, if a source Port has delegation connectors to a set of delegated target Ports, then the union of the Interfaces of these target Ports must be signature compatible with the Interface that types the source Port." There are two problems with this constraint: 1. What is "the union of the Interfaces of these target Ports"? First, it is not clear, what a "union of interfaces" is. A "union of a set of interfaces" could be an anonymous Interface which specializes all the interfaces in the set of interfaces, but this should be made clear, because "union of interfaces" is not defined somewhere else in the spec. Second, it is not clear what the Interfaces of a target Ports are. All Interfaces provided by the Classifier port.type including the Classifier port.type itself, if port.type is an Interface? Union the Interfaces in port.provided? Do we have to include the Interfaces in port.required as well? 2. What does "signature compatible" mean?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    See 7248 for the discussion.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Presentation Options

  • Key: UML22-50
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7994
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SINTEF ICT ( Richard Torbjørn Sanders)
  • Summary:

    Presentation Options: Add after first sentence: "State symbols may optionally be used to describe a Constraint" "The regions represent the orthogonal regions of states" - delete this. The identifier need -> The name of the state need

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sat, 18 Dec 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The text referred in this issue does no longer exist.
    Disposition: ClosedNoChange

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Use case extension inconsistencies

  • Key: UML22-49
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7993
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    According to Figure 401, an Extend object references at least one ExtensionPoint which itself must be owned by exactly one UseCase.
    Therefore it seems that the Extend.extendedCase property is redundant and should be derived.

    Also the section for ExtensionPoint does not include the useCase property shown in Figure 401, which itself does not show the

    {subset}

    .

    Proposed resolution
    -----------------------------

    1) Update Figure 401 to replace +extendedCase by +/extendedCase

    2) Update Figure 401 to replace +useCase by +useCase

    {subsets owner}

    .

    3) Section 16.3.3 Extend: update the Associations section to replace:
    extendedCase : UseCase [1] References the use case that is being extended. (Specializes DirectedRelationship.target.)

    by

    /extendedCase : UseCase [1] References the use case that is being extended: this is derived as the Use case that owns the ExtensionPoint(s). (Specializes DirectedRelationship.target.) in OCL: extendedCase = self.extensionLocation->useCase

    4) Section 16.3.4 ExtensionPoint update the Associations section to replace:
    No additional associations

    by

    useCase: UseCase [1] References the use case that owns the ExtensionPoint. (subsets owner.)

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Mon, 20 Dec 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

AssociationClass

  • Key: UML22-45
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7400
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: X-Change Technologies ( Joaquin Miller)
  • Summary:

    The text says that a non-navigable end of an association class is an attribute of that association class. "When a property is owned by a class it represents an attribute." [7.11.4] "AssociationClass is both an Association and a Class." [7.16.1] "When a property is owned by an association it represents a non-navigable end of the association." [7.11.2] This is good, is as expected, and is consistent with both the object and the relational theories of modelling. It is said that the drawings tell a different story. If so, they should be corrected. There is no practical advantage to requiring that the non-navigable ends of an association class are not attributes of that class. On the contrary, such a requirement is unexpected and will be confusing.

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Mon, 31 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion
    The issue is obsolete. The text in 11.5.3 clearly states that the ownedEnds of an AssociationClass are not
    attributes.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

useless example on p.330, Figure 247

  • Key: UML22-44
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7375
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology ( Thomas Weigert)
  • Summary:

    p.330, Figure 247. This example is useless, as it canot be understood without much detail on the FFT computation. It would be better to use examples that readers can readily understand.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 20 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The issue is subjective. Some readers might find the example helpful. The example is useful as a depiction of a realistic computation.
    Revised Text:
    None
    Disposition: Closed, no Change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Property defines an association "datatype" which is redundant

  • Key: UML22-43
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7339
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology ( Thomas Weigert)
  • Summary:

    Property defines an association "datatype". This association is redundant for the following reasons: A DataType is a kind of classifier, so saying that a property can be owned by a DataType adds nothing new. (ii) as feature, one can navigate from the property to the featuringClassifier, and so the navigability to an owning data type is already given. Moreover, an association to a data type would be incorrect if the property would otherwise be owned by a different Classifier. Moreover, if this property is owned by a classifier, there is no guarantee that the datatype association references the same DataType. There are no consistency constraints. Anyway, this association is redundant, can possibly lead to inconsistent models, and should be deleted. The last sentence on p.92 "A property may be owned by and in the namespace of a datatype." is correct even if the association is deleted. However, this sentence adds no new information either and is best deleted also.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Sat, 15 May 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    see pages 14 - 17 of ptc/2011-01-19

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Multiple typos in ptc/04-10-02

  • Key: UML22-57
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8102
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Multiple typos (If you don't want them submitted this way, I'll complete an issue for each.) section 6.34 page 11 Delete word “to” in “The read/write actions can also be used to by one…” section 7.3.3 page 38 Delete word “If’ in the Note “If the lower multiplicity for an end of…” Section 7.3.5 page 46 Correct typo “pr” to “or” in ownedParameter:Parameter[*] Section 7.3.11 page 60 Change “has” to “have” in 2nd para 2nd sentence “Instances of a data type that “has”…” Instances is the subject of the sentence Section 7.3.11 page 61 Add word “to” to Notation sentence 6 “In this case, cone or more arrows with their tails on the clients are connected “to” the tails…” Section 7.3.20 page 71 Change “is” to are in generalizationSet “Designates a set in which instances of Generalization “are” considered members.” The verb refers to the subject of the which clause (instances). Section 7.3.21 page 83 Change “is” to “if” in last sentence of section “Or, “if” a new subclass…” Section 7.3.32 page 97 Change “These constraint” to “These constraints” Section 7.3.32 page 98 Delete word “is” in 2nd sentence of Notation “In general, the notation will include a multiplicity specification shown as…” Section 7.3.37 page 111 Change “is” to “are” in 4th paragraph of Semantics “The public contents of a package are…” Subject of the sentence is contents not package. Section 7.3.49 page 135 and page 136 (Description) Change verb “specify” to “specifies” in “A structureal feature is a typed feature of a classifier that specifies the structure…” Section 7.3.49 page 137 Change verb from “signifies” to signifying” in 1st sentence of Decsription Section 7.3.53 page 139 Delete word “of” in 1st sentence of Semantics

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 21 Jan 2005 05:00 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

Clarify the differences between redefining element and redefined element.

  • Key: UML22-56
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8101
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Clarify the differences between redefining element and redefined element.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 05:00 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

All sections

  • Key: UML22-55
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8087
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    With the new format of putting all of the diagrams at the beginning of the chapters, I am finding it very difficult to determine which diagram goes with what sub-section. Add references in the text to the diagram most applicable to the descriptions/definitions

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Fri, 14 Jan 2005 05:00 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

ClassifierInState not supported in UML2.0 ?

  • Key: UML22-54
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8071
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: GOO Tech ( Birol Berkem)
  • Summary:

    In the UML 1.x, we have the notion of ClassifierInState. We used them for representing associations and methods of classes that are valid when instances of these classes are in the corresponding states.

    Could you let me know how to do that using UML 2 ? If class-in-states are not supported in UML 2.0, I am afraid, we cannot represent these valuable information particularly for reifying business processes. For example Order[Delivery] , Order[Billing], etc.. with their operations and session attributes !

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Tue, 4 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    This is really a question of clarification of a misunderstanding of the submitter. The equivalent of ClassifierInState for activity modeling is supported in UML 2 by the ObjectNode inState association. UML 1 also allowed ClassifierInState to be used in instance and collaboration modeling. While there is no direct equivalent for this in UML 2, the same effect can be achieved by using an OCL constraint on an instance.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Section: 9.3.11

  • Key: UML22-64
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8126
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    According to fig. 97, Associations need multiplicities added to all and derived symbol to required:Interface and provided:Interface. Add OCL notation to Constraints

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Tue, 25 Jan 2005 05:00 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: 8.3.2

  • Key: UML22-63
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8119
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    "In a system context where there are multople components that provide or require a particular interface, a notation abstraction can be used that combines by joining the multiple connectors." Combines what? Client keyword missing from fig. 93.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 24 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    I cannot find any such text in section 8.3.2, or indeed anywhere in the current specification.

    Revised Text:
    None.

    Disposition: Closed, no change.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

constrainedElement direction

  • Key: UML22-51
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8020
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    constrainedElement direction The association between Constraint and Element named "constrainedElement" is unidirectional from Constraint to Element. This means implementations are not required to provide efficient navigation from an element to the constraints on it. Since the constraints of a model element are part of the definition of that element, the required navigation should at least be from the element to the constraint.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 30 Dec 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion
    A Constraint can constrain multiple constrainedElements and, thus, is not necessarily owned by any one of them. In
    this sense, the Constraint is not, in general, part of the formal “definition” of the constrainedElements. Rather, if
    the Constraint has a context (which may or may not be a constrainedElement), then it is more proper to think of the
    constraint as part of the definition of that context, and the context association end is navigable.
    Further, one wants to be able to add constraints to elements of the model without having tomodify an owned property
    of the elements being constrained, but making the association from Element to Constraint would imply (by the usual
    UML abstract syntax metamodel conventions) that the “constraint” association end would become owned by Element.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Association specialization semantics

  • Key: UML22-53
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8023
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Association specialization semantics The semantics of Association addresses specialization. Some of this paragraph is applicable to Generalization and should be moved there. The discussion specific to association could be clearer, for example, what does "correlates positively" mean?

  • Reported: UML 1.4.2 — Thu, 30 Dec 2004 05:00 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

Derived union notation

  • Key: UML22-52
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8022
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Derived union notation Why is the semantics and notation for subsetting/redefinition in Association, while derived union is in Property?

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Thu, 30 Dec 2004 05:00 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: 9.3.7

  • Key: UML22-61
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8114
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Correct multiplicity of role:ConnectableElement[1] so that fig. 96 agrees with that defined in Associations. Add OCL notation for Constraints. Ports under Notation also reads to me like it could be expressed in OCL notation somewhere--like a constraint which would need to be added.

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 24 Jan 2005 05:00 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: 9.3.6

  • Key: UML22-60
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8113
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Need OCL notation for Constraints. Correct page reference number for StructuredClassifier

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 24 Jan 2005 05:00 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: 8.3.2

  • Key: UML22-62
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8118
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Reword/rewrite the last two paragraphs of Semantics. Many grammatical mistakes between sentence subject and verb plurality (because of intervening phrases), hard to understand sentences, and an incomplete sentence (last one).

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 24 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    I cannot find any such problem in section 8.3.2. However I do find the following, which has duplicated text:
    "A component's behavior may typically be realized (or implemented) by a number of Classifiers. In effect, it forms an abstraction for a collection of model elements. In that case, a component owns a set of Component Realization Dependencies to these Classifiers. In effect, it forms an abstraction for a collection of model elements. In that case, a component owns a set of Realization Dependencies to these Classifiers"

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Section: 8.3.2

  • Key: UML22-58
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8106
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    Constraints have no OCL syntax or mention that constraints are not definable in OCL. Type in constraint [5] - delete "s" from first "Ports".

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 24 Jan 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolution:
    This actually refers to 8.3.3. The constraints have been fixed or deleted by other resolutions (7247-7251).

    Revised Text:
    None.
    Disposition: Closed, no change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Section: 9.3.4

  • Key: UML22-59
  • Legacy Issue Number: 8111
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U. S. Geological Survey ( Jane Messenger)
  • Summary:

    OCL notation is missing from Constraints. Please add or add note that OCL notation is not able to express constraints

  • Reported: UML 2.0 — Mon, 24 Jan 2005 05:00 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

Reentrancy 1

  • Key: UML22-7
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6111
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    How is the effect if isReentrant achieved for actions other than call
    actions? isReentrant is only on behaviors. Perhaps it should also be
    available on actions and operations

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Sat, 30 Aug 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The current semantics of isReentrant on behaviors leads to unexpected global mutual exclusion of invocation of a behavior if isReentrant=false, the default (see Issue 9873). However, at the level of the invocation of a behavior in an activity, it is often the case that one execution of such an invocation action should complete before a second can begin (for example, if the activity is modeling a business process with the invoked behavior assigned to a single person, or a manufacturing process with the behavior carried out by a single piece of equipment). Thus, it is reasonable to have "local" non-reentrancy as the default.
    In this case, however, it makes as much sense to allow the specification of reentrancy or non-reentrancy on any action, not just on the invocation of a behavior, as requested by the issue submitter. This also allows locally non-reentrant semantics, without the unexpected consequences of global non-reentrancy.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Suspension Region

  • Key: UML22-6
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6082
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Ostfold University College ( Dr. Oystein Haugen)
  • Summary:

    “Supspension region” is a concept from MSC-2000 that occurred in earlier drafts of UML 2.0. It was removed since the metamodel had not been properly updated. A suspension region is an area of a lifeline where no events should occur since the lifeline is waiting for reply from an operation call.

    This has been flagged as a potential FTF issue before.

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Fri, 29 Aug 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion:
    This is a concept that highlights a syntactic requirement. Often users think that suspension is always the case between call and reply, but since lifelines may be decomposed into independent sub-parts, this is not necessarily the case. That is why it is useful to clarify a synchronization situation. Still it is a new concept, and cannot be considered critical for the use of Interactions. Let us bring this up again at a larger revision.
    Disposition: ClosedOutOfScope

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super / Missing OCL constraints

  • Key: UML22-18
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6452
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    In the final adopted spec, there are numerous constraints associated with the various metaclasses that do not have corresponding OCL written. This should be fixed.

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Fri, 7 Nov 2003 05:00 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

03-04-01 Chap 2 p. 112/Components: Different ways to wire components

  • Key: UML22-17
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6433
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: David Frankel Consulting ( David Frankel)
  • Summary:

    Issue: Re Chapter 2, Components, Figure 2-15, p. 112: The text of the fifth
    paragraph says: “A component has a number of provided and required
    Interfaces, that form the basis for wiring components together, either using
    Dependencies, or by using Connectors.” Is this really an either or choice?
    What is the real semantic distinction? And what is the semantic distinction
    between wiring via connectors without ports vs. wiring via connectors with
    ports?

    Recommendation: Clearly specify the semantic distinctions among the three
    ways of wiring components together:

    1) Via Dependencies
    2) Via Connectors without Ports
    3) Via Connectors with Ports.

    If there are no semantic distinctions--that is, if the distinctions are
    purely mechanical--then the specification should probably changed such that
    there is one way to wire components together.

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Tue, 4 Nov 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Dependencies are used for wiring components at the type level, and indicate some policies about how components might be wired. Connectors are used for wiring component internals and show how parts and ports are actually wired.
    We will not resolve the issue about distinguishing between the presence and absence of ports: this is fundamental to composite structures and too big a change for the RTF.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Issue: AssociationEnd

  • Key: UML22-20
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6462
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    PROBLEM STATEMENT
    In UML 1 the navigability of an association end was specified by the
    meta-attribute AssociationEnd.isNavigable. In UML 2 apparently this
    meta-attribute dissapears, and AssociationEnd is substituted by Property. We
    know whether an association end is navigable by the following rule: if the
    property is owned by a class, it represents a navigable end; if the property
    is owned by an association, it represents a non-navigable end (see
    Superstructure, p. 89). However, references to old metaclass AssociationEnd
    and old meta-attribute isNavigable still appear in the Spec in several
    places and OCL expressions (AssociationEnd appears in: Infrastructure, p.
    33; Superstructure, pp. 119, 245; isNavigable appears in: Superstructure, p.
    245).

    PROPOSED SOLUTION
    Add derived meta-attribute /isNavigable to metaclass Property.
    Eliminate references to AssociationEnd.

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Fri, 7 Nov 2003 05:00 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

instantiations of Classifiers

  • Key: UML22-19
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6455
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    7 and 14: "An instance specification is a model element that represents an instance in a modeled system." [7.7.1] There are no objects in a UML 2 model, but only models of objects, that is, instance specifications. The instantiation of a UML class is not in the model, but in the modeled system. At the same time, "an ExecutionOccurrence is an instantiation of a unit of behavior ..." [14.3.4] Suggested resolution: Abandon the idea that there are no objects in a model. Specify that an instanceSpecification with a class is an object in the model, the instiantiation of a class is an object in the model. Likewise for an association and its links, and so on.

    This brings the theory of classifiers and their instances and instantiations into alignment with the theory of behaviors and their occurrences.

    It is consistent with the existence of power types in the language.

    It is consistent with the MOF specification of meta-layers.

    It removes the conflation of the type conformance and instatiation relationships with the representation relationship. It reduces the meanings conflated into 'instance of' by one.

    Thus, the UML places instantiations of Classifiers in the modeled system (not in the UML model) and, at the same time, places instantiations of Behaviors in the UML model (not in the modeled system).

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Fri, 7 Nov 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion
    The change proposed in the issue is fundamentally different than the basic interpretation of models in UML.
    Further, the assertion that UML “places instantiations of Behaviors in the UML model (not in the modeled
    system)” is not correct. An instance of a Behavior is an execution (in the modeled system), while an
    ExecutionOccurrence is a model of such an instance. This is quite similar to the difference between an
    instance and an InstanceSpecification. The UML 2.5 specification is now clearer on this.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Section 9.3.3

  • Key: UML22-15
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6422
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Sparx Systems Pty Ltd ( Mr. J.D. Baker)
  • Summary:

    The Collaboration example on page 159 appears to be a CollaborationOccurrence rather than a Collaboration. I recommend that the Collaboration example be revised to a description of the Observer pattern (or some other collaboration) and the example be continued in the CollaborationOccurrence section. In addition to fixing the example, I believe it is important to make the Collaboration and CollaborationOccurrence examples cohesive

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Tue, 4 Nov 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Original discussion:
    The submitter is incorrect in believing that the example (Figures 104 and 105) represent a collaboration occurrence. They are indeed collaborations. However, the submitter makes a good point on having a single example between the collaboration and the collaboration occurrence section. To this effect, it would be possible to update this example by replacing Figures 104 and 105 by an updated version of the example in Figure 107 (albeit one would have to add types to the parts in that example) and make it a little more interesting. The current example in Figures 104 and 105 was adapted from UML 1.4.
    New comments (March 2009):
    This issue dates back to 2003. I propose we close it on the grounds of cost/benefit.

    Revised Text:
    None.

    Disposition: Closed, no change.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML 2 Super/Interactions/missing OCL constraints

  • Key: UML22-14
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6409
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: KDM Analytics ( Dr. Nikolai Mansourov)
  • Summary:

    Not all the constraints in the Interactions section (14.3). They should be added

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Mon, 3 Nov 2003 05:00 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

UML 2 Super/Metamodel/redefinition and substitutability

  • Key: UML22-10
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6200
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    Redefinition, as used in UML2, sometimes violates superclass substituitability rules. For example, redefining multiplicity from many to 1 breaks some OCL constraints. For example, Statemachines changed a multiplicity from many to 1. Statemachines redefines association to OwnedBehaviors to OwnedStateMachines which does not allow other types of owned behaviors.

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Sun, 7 Sep 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion
    The specific issue with state machines no longer applies, having been resolved in an earlier RTF. The general
    issue about redefinition is a complaint about a fundamental characteristic of UML semantics which are by
    now quite well understood. Changing these semantics would be very fundamental and disruptive.
    This also resolves issue 14929.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Target pin notation

  • Key: UML22-9
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6126
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    On CallOperationAction, etc, how do you tell graphically which pin is
    the target?

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Sat, 30 Aug 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Disposition: Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Notes versus curly braces

  • Key: UML22-12
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6372
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Why do decision input behaviors use the note notation and join
    specification use curly braces?

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Mon, 20 Oct 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    A decision input behavior is a behavior, and it could potentially involve a lengthy computation. A join specification is a value specification and will typically be very short, perhaps even just a single operator (the default is "and").
    Revised Text:
    None
    Disposition: Closed, no Change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Activity OCL

  • Key: UML22-11
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6346
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    Not all the constraints in the Activities section have corresponding OCL
    specifications. These should be added

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Mon, 20 Oct 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Discussion
    This issue is obsolete. All constraints related to Activities that can be given OCL now have OCL in UML
    2.5.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

UML2 super/ad-03-04-01/Derived attributes and associations

  • Key: UML22-16
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6430
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: David Frankel Consulting ( David Frankel)
  • Summary:

    Issue: There are many places where the specification indicates that an
    attribute or association is derived, but does not state how it is derived;
    that is, the specification does not state, in English or in OCL, how to
    compute the derivation.

    Recommendation: Specify, in English and OCL, how to compute the derivations
    of all derived attributes and associations.

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Tue, 4 Nov 2003 05:00 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

UML 2 super / Dependencies / improper subsetting?

  • Key: UML22-13
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6405
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Dr. Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    Should Dependency::supplier subset DirectedRelationship::target and Dependency::client subset DirectedRelationship::source? Otherwise, the source and target properties of specializations that add no additional properties (e.g. Usage) will be empty...

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Fri, 31 Oct 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

State extension

  • Key: UML22-8
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6114
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    State should be an extension of type rather than object node.

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Sat, 30 Aug 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Disposition: Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Semantics of firing compound transitions still appears to be circular

  • Key: UML22-1
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4110
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    In UML 1.4 beta R1, the semantics of firing compound transitions still appears to be circular and therefore incorrect. At any rate I am confused by the text so it may be confusing to others.

    As far as I can see the "Least Common Ancestor" is needed to determine the "main source", but actions following exit from the "main source" must be performed before the targets following a choice point are known, so without known targets there is no known LCA and therefore no specified "main source".

    On page 2-173 of 2.12:

        • The least common ancestor (LCA) state of a transition is the lowest composite state that contains all the explicit source states and explicit target states of the compound transition. In case of junction segments, only the states related to the dynamically selected path are considered explicit targets (bypassed branches are not considered).

    If the LCA is not a concurrent state, the main source is a direct substate of the least common ancestor that contains the explicit source states, and the main target is a substate of the least common ancestor that contains the explicit target states. In case where the LCA is a concurrent state, the main source and main target are the concurrent state itself. The reason is that if a concurrent region is exited, it forces exit of the entire concurrent state.

    [...]

    Once a transition is enabled and is selected to fire, the following steps are carried out in order:

    • The main source state is properly exited.

    • Actions are executed in sequence following their linear order along the segments of the transition: The closer the action to the source state, the earlier it is executed.

    • If a choice point is encountered, the guards following that choice point are evaluated dynamically and a path whose guards are true is selected.

    • The main target state is properly entered. ***

    This is certainly much better than 1.3. But I still find it difficult to follow:

    Since guards following a choice point are evaluated dynamically, the targets are still unknown when the "main source" is exited. Therefore the LCA is still unknown. How then does one determine the "main source" as a "direct substate" of the (unknown) LCA?

    The (target) "states related to the dynamically selected path" referred to above for determining the LCA cannot be determined in the case of choice points, without having first determined which branches will be taken from the choice points. That requires performing exit actions for the "main source", then additional actions along the path to the choice point, in order to determine which branch will be taken. So the "main source" must be already known in order to determine the targets.

    If one defined the "initial source" as the LCA of the source states then the "main source" might be any superstate of that "initial source".

    With different targets, there might be additional actions to "properly exit" from enclosing superstates of the "initial source" before actions along the transition to a choice point. These could affect which branch is taken and therefore which enclosing superstate of the "initial source" must be "properly exited", which would affect which actions are performed before reaching the choice, and therefore affect the branch taken from the choice.

  • Reported: UML 1.3 — Thu, 7 Dec 2000 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Remove the paragraph explaining the LCA from the “Transition execution sequence” section and add an
    explanation of LCA to the “Transition ownership” section

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT