Issue 15128: Association owned derived union (uml2-rtf) Source: NASA (Dr. Maged Elaasar, Maged.E.Elaasar(at)jpl.nasa.gov) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Is it really illegal to define a non-navigable association-owned property as derived union? When I try that I invalidate the following constraint in section 7.3.44 the metamodel: [6]Only a navigable property can be marked as readOnly. isReadOnly implies isNavigable() Why "efficiency of access" (as implied by navigability) restrics read-only access? One way to get around that is to make the property owned in the "navigableOwnerEnd" vs. "ownedEnd" of the association? do we have any precedence of doing that in an abstract syntax? Resolution: This constraint seems to be an old constraint from UML 1.x when navigability meant the same as ownership of property. It is not consistent with the meaning of navigability now, which is about “efficiency of access”. Revised Text: In UML Superstructure 2.3, clause 7.3.44 (Property), under Constraints: Remove: [6]Only a navigable property can be marked as readOnly. isReadOnly implies isNavigable() In UML Infrastructure 2.3, clause 11.3.5 (Property), under Constraints: Remove: [6]Only a navigable property can be marked as readOnly. isReadOnly implies isNavigable() Actions taken: March 22, 2010: received issue April 25, 2011: closed issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== ubject: Association owned derived union To: uml2-rtf@omg.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 From: Maged Elaasar Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 13:59:04 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML03/25/M/IBM(Release 8.0.1|February 07, 2008) at 03/21/2010 13:59:13 Is it really illegal to define a non-navigable association-owned property as derived union? When I try that I invalidate the following constraint in section 7.3.44 the metamodel: [6]Only a navigable property can be marked as readOnly. isReadOnly implies isNavigable() Why "efficiency of access" (as implied by navigability) restrics read-only access? One way to get around that is to make the property owned in the "navigableOwnerEnd" vs. "ownedEnd" of the association? do we have any precedence of doing that in an abstract syntax? Thanks, Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Senior Software Engineer, Rational Modeling Tools IBM Representative@OMG, CAS Research Staff Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab, +1 613 270 4651 From: Steve Cook To: Maged Elaasar , "uml2-rtf@omg.org" CC: "juergen@omg.org" , "issues@omg.org" Subject: RE: Association owned derived union Thread-Topic: Association owned derived union Thread-Index: AQHKySCjZEVYW1PDuUCcqLvw0WGufZH92qMQ Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:56:42 +0000 Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: That.s a crazy constraint: it makes no sense. Juergen, please log an issue to delete that constraint from 7.3.44. -- Steve From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: 21 March 2010 17:59 To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Association owned derived union Is it really illegal to define a non-navigable association-owned property as derived union? When I try that I invalidate the following constraint in section 7.3.44 the metamodel: [6]Only a navigable property can be marked as readOnly. isReadOnly implies isNavigable() Why "efficiency of access" (as implied by navigability) restrics read-only access? One way to get around that is to make the property owned in the "navigableOwnerEnd" vs. "ownedEnd" of the association? do we have any precedence of doing that in an abstract syntax? Thanks, Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Senior Software Engineer, Rational Modeling Tools IBM Representative@OMG, CAS Research Staff Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab, +1 613 270 4651 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc :content-type; bh=QQDnvglo3sTdWkjLMK56LBMaH5gt0PuK5jxRDSUMYkU=; b=oyCvvILWSbPo82mH1TycLoB9c6bHojPutg0DX+H7FJfK99iRdLBVHxnvACOlhA5UnK f5Ablri72QYwJTn4mG9h4FGPBtBhVJNhjMrmkdGb+x84L7Fhp9OKfqYSjaba3+v9KYGT agleX4Ud0WZX5wKUwFGbVT9SSgOHyOzVeDq+4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; b=v/rQUFGnF/W0TDzLVCF9n8geY5V5xTGntOJC9lE+ImhHix8SSQIZB20JfSK6Qid/sj qQ9xvgCLsCgVCE/d3F5FWyX30/DAPgL5iDBCxQYM6we6u5gqM9uekLr7kZNq1e56YN4Z 4uXUuSh9Way8xmm6f4Z9uyPPlo3Q4VT/hSuE4= Sender: bran.selic@gmail.com From: Bran Selic Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:36:45 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 2c0b9bef8f11bdbf Subject: Re: Association owned derived union To: Steve Cook Cc: Maged Elaasar , "uml2-rtf@omg.org" , "juergen@omg.org" , "issues@omg.org" I believe that constraint comes from the old but no longer relevant interpretation of navigability. Clearly, if I can read something, then I must be able to navigate to it. I agree that the constraint should be removed. Cheers...Bran On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Steve Cook wrote: That.s a crazy constraint: it makes no sense. Juergen, please log an issue to delete that constraint from 7.3.44. -- Steve From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: 21 March 2010 17:59 To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Association owned derived union Is it really illegal to define a non-navigable association-owned property as derived union? When I try that I invalidate the following constraint in section 7.3.44 the metamodel: [6]Only a navigable property can be marked as readOnly. isReadOnly implies isNavigable() Why "efficiency of access" (as implied by navigability) restrics read-only access? One way to get around that is to make the property owned in the "navigableOwnerEnd" vs. "ownedEnd" of the association? do we have any precedence of doing that in an abstract syntax? Thanks, Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Senior Software Engineer, Rational Modeling Tools IBM Representative@OMG, CAS Research Staff Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab, +1 613 270 4651 Subject: RE: Association owned derived union Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 09:17:18 -0700 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Association owned derived union Thread-Index: AcrJIE1977CnMMesQ6KGFyziFtWmFgAYkCsQ From: "Pete Rivett" To: "Maged Elaasar" , That constraint seems a remnant of the old days before navigability was clarified and should be deleted. Pete From: Maged Elaasar [mailto:melaasar@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2010 10:59 AM To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Association owned derived union Is it really illegal to define a non-navigable association-owned property as derived union? When I try that I invalidate the following constraint in section 7.3.44 the metamodel: [6]Only a navigable property can be marked as readOnly. isReadOnly implies isNavigable() Why "efficiency of access" (as implied by navigability) restrics read-only access? One way to get around that is to make the property owned in the "navigableOwnerEnd" vs. "ownedEnd" of the association? do we have any precedence of doing that in an abstract syntax? Thanks, Maged Elaasar, PhD Candidate Senior Software Engineer, Rational Modeling Tools IBM Representative@OMG, CAS Research Staff Member IBM Canada, Ottawa Lab, +1 613 270 4651