Issue 16487: OCL 2.3 A.2.6 Collection conforms to OclAny contradiction (ocl2-rtf)
Source: Model Driven Solutions (Dr. Edward Willink, ed(at)willink.me.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary: Issue 12948 "Making OclAny denote any object" was resolved to allow Collection to conform to OclAny.


A.2.6 still states "A simple set inclusion semantics for subtype relationships as described in the next sub section would not be possible due to cyclic domain definitions if OclAny
were the supertype of Set(OclAny)."


A premise for Annex A has therefore been violated requiring rework to consider at least a less simple set inclusion semantics.


Resolution: 
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
August 6, 2011: received issue
Discussion: 

End of Annotations:=====
ronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhkHAFrJPE5UXeb0/2dsb2JhbABCmGOPCHeBfzoGPRQCGAMCAQIBWAgBAYdrnmefXoZGBJgKi2E
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 05:59:40 +0100
From: Ed Willink <ed@willink.me.uk>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
To: issues@omg.org
Subject: OCL 2.3 A.2.6 Collection conforms to OclAny contradiction


Hi


Issue 12948 "Making OclAny denote any object" was resolved to allow Collection to conform to OclAny.


A.2.6 still states "A simple set inclusion semantics for subtype relationships as described in the next sub section would not be possible due to cyclic domain definitions if OclAny
were the supertype of Set(OclAny)."


A premise for Annex A has therefore been violated requiring rework to consider at least a less simple set inclusion semantics.


    Regards


        Ed Willink