Issue 18054: Location: 18.1.3 Semantics Use Cases and Actors	P. 686 - Multiplicity at Use Case end (uml25-ftf)
Source: Soluta.net (Dr. Adriano Comai, acomai(at)soluta.net)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary: current text: “When an Actor has an association to a UseCase with a multiplicity that is greater than one at the UseCase end, it means that a given Actor can be involved in multiple UseCases of that type.”

[AC] This relationship between Actors and UseCases is asymmetric and in my opinion inconsistent. When a UseCase has a upper multiplicity >1 towards Actor, this means that multiple instances of Actor are involved. At the opposite end, the meaning is undetermined. This should be avoided in a metamodel definition. It would surely be less ambiguous to state that the upper multiplicity from Actor to UseCase is just 1.

Resolution: 
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
September 28, 2012: received issue
Discussion: 
Leaving the interpretation as undefined in this specification supports several methodological interpretations, none which should be enforced. I would recommend leaving this as stated. 
Michael Jesse Chonoles

End of Annotations:=====
s is issue # 18054

Problem: 18.016

Severity: Minor
Type: Ambiguity in Spec
Location: 18.1.3 Semantics             Use Cases and Actors     P. 686
Title: Multiplicity at Use Case end
 
Description:
 
current text: .When an Actor has an association to a UseCase with a multiplicity that is greater than one at the UseCase end, it means that a given Actor can be involved in multiple UseCases of that type..
 
[AC] This relationship between Actors and UseCases is asymmetric and in my opinion inconsistent. When a UseCase has a upper multiplicity >1 towards Actor, this means that multiple instances of Actor are involved. At the opposite end, the meaning is undetermined. This should be avoided in a metamodel definition. It would surely be less ambiguous to state that the upper multiplicity from Actor to UseCase is just 1.
Source: Adriano Comai
 
Discussion
Leaving the interpretation as undefined in this specification supports several methodological interpretations, none which should be enforced. I would recommend leaving this as stated. 
Michael Jesse Chonoles