Issue 18021: 17.1.5 Interaction Diagram Variants   p 607 (uml25-ftf)
Source: Lockheed Martin (Mr. Lenny Delligatti, lenny_delligatti2(at)omg.org)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary: What is the rationale for making Timing Diagrams optional for tool compliance?

Description:
This clause states, “Conformant UML 2.5 tools are not required to implement Timing Diagrams.”  UML 2.5 takes the bold step—which I favor—of eliminating the formal compliance levels, and then carves out caveats in the fine print.  What is the rationale for making Timing Diagrams part of the UML spec., but then stating that they’re optional for tool compliance?

Resolution: 
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
September 27, 2012: received issue
Discussion: 

End of Annotations:=====
s is issue # 18021

Problem: 17.001

Severity: Significant
Type: Revision
Location: 17.1.5 Interaction Diagram Variants   p 607
Title: What is the rationale for making Timing Diagrams optional for tool compliance?
 
Description:
This clause states, .Conformant UML 2.5 tools are not required to implement Timing Diagrams..  UML 2.5 takes the bold step­which I favor­of eliminating the formal compliance levels, and then carves out caveats in the fine print.  What is the rationale for making Timing Diagrams part of the UML spec., but then stating that they.re optional for tool compliance?
Source: Lenny Delligatti
Discussion
This may be out of scope for 2.5 at this time. If so, please make this an issue.
Michael Jesse Chonoles