Issue 16897: Abstraction::mapping should be of type ValueSpecification or OpaqueExpression (uml2-rtf) Source: Fraunhofer FOKUS (Mr. Marc-Florian Wendland, marc-florian.wendland(at)fokus.fraunhofer.de) Nature: Revision Severity: Minor Summary: In many cases, modeler would like to specify the mapping of an Abstraction on an informal level by just providing a LiteralString or OpaqueExpression describing the mapping in a natural language. The necessity to use an Expression is for this kind of usage of this feature cumbersome and clunky. The resolution could be to use a more common metaclass of Expression, i.e. ValueSpecification, to provide the highest level of flexibility to the modeler, how mappings can be specified. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: December 14, 2011: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 14 Dec 2011 01:29:49 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report ******************************************************************************* Name: Marc-Florian Wendland Employer: Fraunhofer FOKUS mailFrom: marc-florian.wendland@fokus.fraunhofer.de Terms_Agreement: Specification: Unified Modeling Language Superstructure Section: 7.3.1 FormalNumber: ptc/2010-11-14 Version: 2.4 Doc_Year: Year Doc_Month: Month Doc_Day: Day Page: 38 Title: Abstraction::mapping should be of type ValueSpecification or OpaqueExpression Nature: Revision Severity: Minor CODE: 3TMw8 B1: Report Issue Description: In many cases, modeler would like to specify the mapping of an Abstraction on an informal level by just providing a LiteralString or OpaqueExpression describing the mapping in a natural language. The necessity to use an Expression is for this kind of usage of this feature cumbersome and clunky. The resolution could be to use a more common metaclass of Expression, i.e. ValueSpecification, to provide the highest level of flexibility to the modeler, how mappings can be specified.