Issue 17172: Opposite ends of derived unions should be derived unions (uml2-rtf)
Source: Oracle (Mr. Dave Hawkins, dave.hawkins(at)oracle.com)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary: Action::inputPin and Action::outputPin are both derived unions. Both also have opposite association owned ends that are not derived. While I don't think the metamodel is actually incorrect, those owned ends are implicitly derived unions too. So I think it would make more sense to make that explicit.

I've just picked two examples, however I believe there are more in the specification.
Resolution: 
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
February 24, 2012: received issue
Discussion: 


End of Annotations:=====

m: webmaster@omg.org
To: <issues@omg.org>
Subject: Issue/Bug Report


*******************************************************************************
Name:            Dave Hawkins
Employer:        Oracle
mailFrom:        dave.hawkins@oracle.com
Terms_Agreement: I agree
Specification:   UML 2.4.1
Section:         11.2
FormalNumber:    formal/2011-08-13
Version:         2.4.1
Doc_Year:        2011
Doc_Month:       August
Doc_Day:         01
Page:            229
Title:           Opposite ends of derived unions should be derived unions
Nature:          Clarification
Severity:        Minor
CODE:            3TMw8
B1:              Report Issue


Description:


Action::inputPin and Action::outputPin are both derived unions. Both also have opposite association owned ends that are not derived. While I don't think the metamodel is actually incorrect, those owned ends are implicitly derived unions too. So I think it would make more sense to make that explicit.

I've just picked two examples, however I believe there are more in the specification.