Issue 16123: US PAS Ballot Comment 3 (ocl2-rtf) paragraph 1 (ocl2-rtf) Source: (Mr. Tom Rutt, nobody) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: The nature of the relationship between this specification and the OCL in UML 1.4 should be clarified in an informative manner. UML 1.4.1 needs to remain in force, because many UML models in many standards throughout the world are specified using UML 1.x notation, which is not backwards compatible with the notation in UML 2.x. Replace: “ This specification replaces the specification of OCL given in UML 1.4.1 and UML 1.5. “ With: “ This specification replaces the specification of OCL given in OCL 2.0. The version of OCL specified in ISO/IEC 19501:2005 is intended for use in models based on UML 1.4.1 and UML 1.5. However, use of the OCL specified by ISO/IEC 19501:2005 is not prescribed by this specification. The version of OCL specified in this International Standard is not directly applicable to models based on ISO/IEC 19501:2005. ” Resolution: Revised Text: In Section 6.1 replace: “ This specification replaces the specification of OCL given in OCL 2.2. “ With: “ This specification replaces the specification of OCL given in OCL 2.2. The version of OCL specified in ISO/IEC 19501:2005 is intended for use in models based on UML 1.4.2 and UML 1.5. However, use of the OCL specified by ISO/IEC 19501:2005 is not prescribed by this specification. The version of OCL specified in this International Standard is not directly applicable to models based on ISO/IEC 19501:2005. ” Actions taken: April 20, 2011: received issue January 11, 2012: closed issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== s is issue # 16123 Issue 16123: US PAS Ballot Comment 3 (ocl2-rtf) Click here for this issue's archive. Nature: Issue from PAS Ballot comment for ISO/IEC DIS 19507 Severity: Summary: See comment US 3 in .._ANSI.doc. file in http://www.omg.org/members/cgi-bin/doc?pas/11-03-03.zip Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: