Issue 12444: Section: A/1.1.6 Generalization - editorial issues (ocl2-rtf) Source: (, ) Nature: Revision Severity: Minor Summary: In WF-1 there is an "is an element of" sign missing just before the "ATT" in the first line. In WF-2, at a minimum, the first small omega should have a t-sub-1 a bit after it so that the sameness of arguments from t-sub-1 through t-sub-n is clear for both small omegas. Also the second colon is on the wrong side of the small omega. On the other hand, I'm not sure why you don't write it in the same form as WF-1, since it's a similar statement. I hope you can interpret my attempts to get by without sub and superscripts. Since the reader has already waded through WF-1, wouldn't it be more useful like this? ? (? : tc x t1 x …x tn ? t, ?' : tc' x t1 x …x tn ? t' ? OP*c) : (? = ?' => tc = tc' ? t = t') Resolution: Revised Text: In Section A/1.1.6 Generalization, replace the actual enumeration starting with "1. Attributes …" by: SEE page 168 of ptc/2009-05-04 Actions taken: May 13, 2008: received issue October 16, 2009: closed issue Discussion: Problems were due to a semi-automatic Latex to Framemaker conversion. Mathematical symbols were often badly converted. The correct text is in the original from annex A of ptc/03-10-14. End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 13 May 2008 14:53:17 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Garr Lystad Company: Net.Orange (i.e. Net Dot Orange) mailFrom: glystad@ndorange.com Notification: Yes Specification: Object Constraint Language Section: A/1.1.6 Generalization FormalNumber: n/a Version: 2.0 RevisionDate: 1 May 2006 Page: 182 Nature: Revision Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.14) Gecko/20080404 Firefox/2.0.0.14 Description In WF-1 there is an "is an element of" sign missing just before the "ATT" in the first line. In WF-2, at a minimum, the first small omega should have a t-sub-1 a bit after it so that the sameness of arguments from t-sub-1 through t-sub-n is clear for both small omegas. Also the second colon is on the wrong side of the small omega. On the other hand, I'm not sure why you don't write it in the same form as WF-1, since it's a similar statement. I hope you can interpret my attempts to get by without sub and superscripts. Since the reader has already waded through WF-1, wouldn't it be more useful like this? . (. : tc x t1 x .x tn . t, .. : tc. x t1 x .x tn . t. . OP*c) : (. = .. => tc = tc' . t = t')