Issue 16517: Usage of Specializations of Claim (sacm-rtf)
Source: MITRE (Mr. Samuel Redwine, samredwine(at)verizon.net)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary: May a specialization of Claim element appear anywhere a Claim may? and vice versa? In June Day 2 diagram allows Calims in Augumentation elements but not InformationElements. However, InformationAssertions can appear both places. What is the reasoning behind this?

One might consider questions such as: For example, do restrictions exist on where an InformationAssertion may appear? Why should not a Claim element be used in place of each of the kinds or elements that inherit from it (e.g. in 2011 June Day 2)?
Resolution: 
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
August 25, 2011: received issue
Discussion: 
N/A to current ARM, Deferred to RTF
Disposition: Deferred
End of Annotations:=====

m: webmaster@omg.org
Date: 25 Aug 2011 13:26:47 -0400
To: <issues@omg.org>
Subject: Issue/Bug Report


*******************************************************************************
Name:          Samuel T. Redwine, Jr.   
Company:       Sam Redwine Consulting
mailFrom:      samredwine@ieee.org
Notification:  Yes
Specification: Argumentation Metamodel (ARM) 
Section:       June Day 2 Diagram
FormalNumber:  ptc/2010-08-36
Version:       FTF - Beta 1
RevisionDate:  August 2010
Page:          All
Title:         Usage of Specializations of Claim
Nature:        Revision
Severity:      Minor
test:          3qw8
B1:            Report Issue


Description:


May a specialization of Claim element appear anywhere a Claim may? and vice versa? In June Day 2 diagram allows Calims in Augumentation elements but not InformationElements. However, InformationAssertions can appear both places. What is the reasoning behind this?

One might consider questions such as: For example, do restrictions exist on where an InformationAssertion may appear? Why should not a Claim element be used in place of each of the kinds or elements that inherit from it (e.g. in 2011 June Day 2)?