Issue 15440: Issue on UML 2.4 - notation for Component::provided (uml2-rtf) Source: Adaptive (Mr. Pete Rivett, pete.rivett(at)adaptive.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: In section 8.3.1 and Table 8.4 there are several examples of nation claiming to show ‘provided interface’ for a Component. However Component::provided is a derived property – with many base properties on which it is based. Hence it seems completely un-obvious what a tool is supposed to store/export if a user draws one of these diagrams. Or is it intended that users not be allowed to draw them at all, but invoke a query (in some manner rightly not covered by the UML spec) to cause the ‘provided’ line (and possibly related elements) to be displayed? A further problem is that the ‘provided’ notation is identical to the ‘provided interface’ notation documented in section 7.3.24. And Table 8.1 makes reference to 7.3.24 for the notation although it uses the different term ‘implements’. Therefore it seems that the notation should be separated from the derived property, with the notation retained for simple realizedInterfaces – either by removing the term ‘provided’ from the description of the diagrams or renaming the property to be more descriptive Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: August 30, 2010: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== ubject: Issue on UML 2.4 - notation for Component::provided Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 13:45:00 -0700 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Issue on UML 2.4 - notation for Component::provided Thread-Index: ActIhDQ5091rr6PSRCmBupaGFhmrlA== From: "Pete Rivett" To: In section 8.3.1 and Table 8.4 there are several examples of nation claiming to show .provided interface. for a Component. However Component::provided is a derived property . with many base properties on which it is based. Hence it seems completely un-obvious what a tool is supposed to store/export if a user draws one of these diagrams. Or is it intended that users not be allowed to draw them at all, but invoke a query (in some manner rightly not covered by the UML spec) to cause the .provided. line (and possibly related elements) to be displayed? A further problem is that the .provided. notation is identical to the .provided interface. notation documented in section 7.3.24. And Table 8.1 makes reference to 7.3.24 for the notation although it uses the different term .implements.. Therefore it seems that the notation should be separated from the derived property, with the notation retained for simple realizedInterfaces . either by removing the term .provided. from the description of the diagrams or renaming the property to be more descriptive. -- Pete Rivett (pete.rivett@adaptive.com) CTO, Adaptive Inc 65 Enterprise, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 cell: +1 949 338 3794 Follow me on Twitter @rivettp or http://twitter.com/rivettp