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

UML 2.0 Superstructure FTF 2 — All Issues

  • Key: UML2
  • Issues Count: 4
Open Closed All
All Issues

Issues Descriptions

section 8.3.2, a "Connector"

  • Key: UML2-4
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7851
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MargullSoft ( Dr. Ulrich Margull)
  • Summary:

    In section 8.3.2, a "Connector" is defined as either a "delegate" or an "assembly" connector. The definition is based on "required port" resp. "provided port". However, these terms are not defined in the document; furthermore, they do not make sense at all. In section 9.3.11, a port is defined to have "provided" and/or "required" interfaces, which are well-defined. However, in the whole document is no definition for a "provided port" or "required port". From my understanding, such a thing does not make sense at all. A port is a point of interaction, and the terms "provided/required port" are non-sense. Please, provide a definition of "provided port" and "required port", or remove the corresponding sections. I hope I could help You with Your great work, Yours, Dr. Uli Margull PS: I came across this topic when working for the AutoSAR standard (car manufacturer and OEMs). They have the same unclear usage of "provided port" and "required port", and looking into the UML standard 2.0 did not help me to resolve this issue.

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Wed, 13 Oct 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.0
  • 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: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 15:13 GMT


  • Key: UML2-3
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7642
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NIST ( Mr. Conrad Bock)
  • Summary:

    Figure 12 of the 040814 rev has the association from Property to
    Association as derived:

    memberEnd /association
    Property ----------------------------------> Association

    and it wasn't derived in the FAS. The issues cited are: 6243 and 7365,
    but neither mentions the change. The derivation is not explained in the
    association entry on Property. Is this a metamodel typo?

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Thu, 19 Aug 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

Activity Diagrams: Relax Traverse-to-Completion semantics

  • Key: UML2-2
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7222
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

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

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

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

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

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

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Mon, 5 Apr 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    This is a duplicate of issue 7221

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

super AND infra / Section 11.8.3 of Infra, 7.13.2 of Super / PackageMerge

  • Key: UML2-1
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6308
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Page 155 of the Infra Adopted Spec ptc/03-09-15 [sic] I think the date order got changed from Euro to US on this
    Page 101 of the Super "Final" Adopted Spec ptc /03-08-02 [sic] The date says August 2003

  • Reported: UML 1.5 — Fri, 10 Oct 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — UML 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    withdrawn by submitter

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:52 GMT