Issue 10827: Consistency in description of ends owned by associations (uml2-rtf)
Source: International Business Machines (Mr. Andreas Maier, maiera(at)de.ibm.com)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
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.


Resolution: 
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
March 17, 2007: received issue
Discussion: 

End of Annotations:=====
s is issue # 10827	From: Andreas Maier <MAIERA@de.ibm.com>


Consistency in description of ends owned by associations

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.