Issue 15237: issue10087 and association-like notation (uml2-rtf) Source: EADS (Mr. Yves Bernard, yves.bernard(at)airbus.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: No problem with the issue itself or the proposed resolution. I’m just wondering about the principle of the “association-like notation”. My concerns: The specification says that “An attribute may also be shown using association notation”. Nevertheless, defining an attribute or using an association as described in figure 7.31 is not the same thing. The definition of one attribute generates only one property while the definition of a binary association generates two properties plus a classifier for the association itself. If it’s only a matter of notation, how to distinguish in a diagram between: a) an attribute with an association-like notation and b) a “true” association? Yves Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: March 23, 2010: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: Steve Cook To: "juergen@omg.org" Subject: FW: About #100087 and association-like notation Thread-Topic: About #100087 and association-like notation Thread-Index: AcrE/4Yd5lzAkldGSAmXBbasMLHO4gAtQR3wAUHX4aA= Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 19:07:12 +0000 Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Juergen Can you log the issue below please? Thanks -- Steve From: Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] Sent: 17 March 2010 09:32 To: BERNARD, Yves; issues@omg.org Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: About #100087 and association-like notation Yves Copying to issues@omg.org . this is a new issue. -- Steve From: BERNARD, Yves [mailto:Yves.Bernard@airbus.com] Sent: 16 March 2010 11:55 To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: About #100087 and association-like notation No problem with the issue itself or the proposed resolution. I.m just wondering about the principle of the .association-like notation.. My concerns: The specification says that .An attribute may also be shown using association notation.. Nevertheless, defining an attribute or using an association as described in figure 7.31 is not the same thing. The definition of one attribute generates only one property while the definition of a binary association generates two properties plus a classifier for the association itself. If it.s only a matter of notation, how to distinguish in a diagram between: a) an attribute with an association-like notation and b) a .true. association? Yves The information in this e-mail is confidential. The contents may not be disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Airbus immediately and delete this e-mail. Airbus cannot accept any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this e-mail as it has been sent over public networks. If you have any concerns over the content of this message or its Accuracy or Integrity, please contact Airbus immediately. All outgoing e-mails from Airbus are checked using regularly updated virus scanning software but you should take whatever measures you deem to be appropriate to ensure that this message and any attachments are virus free. Subject: About #100087 and association-like notation Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:55:08 +0100 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: About #100087 and association-like notation Thread-Index: AcrE/4Yd5lzAkldGSAmXBbasMLHO4g== From: "BERNARD, Yves" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Mar 2010 11:55:08.0426 (UTC) FILETIME=[8669B6A0:01CAC4FF] No problem with the issue itself or the proposed resolution. I.m just wondering about the principle of the .association-like notation.. My concerns: The specification says that .An attribute may also be shown using association notation.. Nevertheless, defining an attribute or using an association as described in figure 7.31 is not the same thing. The definition of one attribute generates only one property while the definition of a binary association generates two properties plus a classifier for the association itself. If it.s only a matter of notation, how to distinguish in a diagram between: a) an attribute with an association-like notation and b) a .true. association? Yves The information in this e-mail is confidential. The contents may not be disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Airbus immediately and delete this e-mail. Airbus cannot accept any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this e-mail as it has been sent over public networks. If you have any concerns over the content of this message or its Accuracy or Integrity, please contact Airbus immediately. All outgoing e-mails from Airbus are checked using regularly updated virus scanning software but you should take whatever measures you deem to be appropriate to ensure that this message and any attachments are virus free. Subject: FW: About #100087 and association-like notation Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 16:12:37 -0700 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: About #100087 and association-like notation Thread-Index: AcrE/4Yd5lzAkldGSAmXBbasMLHO4gAtQR3wAeDa6+A= From: "Pete Rivett" To: "Juergen Boldt" , "Steve Cook" I cannot trace this issue under UML . was it ever filed by you, Juergen? For completeness it should be added that it applies to section 7.3.8 Classifier . which seems a bit surprising (why not under Property?). Maybe at UML 2.5 we.ll rationalize where we place notation descriptions. A potential answer to the question is that if the Property::type is a kind of DataType then there is no Association (or opposite Property) otherwise there is. In addition to the point raised, the illustrated notation uses a navigability arrow which I think should be replaced by the .dot. notation. I think this is an important issue to address in UML 2.4. Pete From: Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 2:32 AM To: BERNARD, Yves; issues@omg.org Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: About #100087 and association-like notation Yves Copying to issues@omg.org . this is a new issue. -- Steve From: BERNARD, Yves [mailto:Yves.Bernard@airbus.com] Sent: 16 March 2010 11:55 To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: About #100087 and association-like notation No problem with the issue itself or the proposed resolution. I.m just wondering about the principle of the .association-like notation.. My concerns: The specification says that .An attribute may also be shown using association notation.. Nevertheless, defining an attribute or using an association as described in figure 7.31 is not the same thing. The definition of one attribute generates only one property while the definition of a binary association generates two properties plus a classifier for the association itself. If it.s only a matter of notation, how to distinguish in a diagram between: a) an attribute with an association-like notation and b) a .true. association? Yves The information in this e-mail is confidential. The contents may not be disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Airbus immediately and delete this e-mail. Airbus cannot accept any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this e-mail as it has been sent over public networks. If you have any concerns over the content of this message or its Accuracy or Integrity, please contact Airbus immediately. All outgoing e-mails from Airbus are checked using regularly updated virus scanning software but you should take whatever measures you deem to be appropriate to ensure that this message and any attachments are virus free.