Issue 14216: Documentation of merge increments in the superstructure (uml2-rtf)
Source: Ivar Jacobson International AB (Mr. Ed Seidewitz, eseidewitz(at)ivarjacobson.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary: Specification: UML Superstructure v2.2 (formal/09-02-02)

 

In the superstructure specification, when a class is intended primarily as an increment to be merged with some other “base” class, this is usually documented by listing the “base” class under the Generalization section, with the annotation “(merge increment)”. While such documentation of merge intent is extremely useful for the understanding of the reader, putting this documentation under the “Generalization” section is confusing, since the way package merge is now used in the superstructure abstract syntax model has nothing to do with generalization. Further, this documentation convention is not always consistently applied, especially when the class also has “real” generalizations.

 

So, the specification should retain documentation for merge increments, but the overall approach for doing this should be revised and clarified, and then this approach should be applied consistently across the specification.

 

Resolution: 
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
August 24, 2009: received issue
Discussion: 

End of Annotations:=====
ubject: Documentation of merge increments in the superstructure
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:24:35 -0400
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: Documentation of merge increments in the superstructure
thread-index: Acok+OVEmS7KCNUNSDufCRyO3rdh3Q==
From: "Ed Seidewitz" <ed-s@modeldriven.com>
To: <Issues@omg.org>


Specification: UML Superstructure v2.2 (formal/09-02-02)

 

In the superstructure specification, when a class is intended primarily as an increment to be merged with some other .base. class, this is usually documented by listing the .base. class under the Generalization section, with the annotation .(merge increment).. While such documentation of merge intent is extremely useful for the understanding of the reader, putting this documentation under the .Generalization. section is confusing, since the way package merge is now used in the superstructure abstract syntax model has nothing to do with generalization. Further, this documentation convention is not always consistently applied, especially when the class also has .real. generalizations.

 

So, the specification should retain documentation for merge increments, but the overall approach for doing this should be revised and clarified, and then this approach should be applied consistently across the specification.