Issue 18110: Location: B.6 UML ProfileDiagrams . 768 - Profile Diagram Elements (uml25-ftf)
Source: Lockheed Martin (Mr. Michael Jesse Chonoles, michael_chonoles2(at)omg.org)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary: Wouldn’t this be the «profile» Package being modeled?
Resolution: 
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
September 28, 2012: received issue
Discussion: 

End of Annotations:=====
s is issue # 18110

Problem: B.040

Severity: Minor
Type: Typo/Grammar
Location: B.6 UML ProfileDiagrams . 768
Title Profile Diagram Elements
 
Description:
Wouldn.t this be the «profile» Package being modeled?
Source: Michael Jesse Chonoles




From: "Bock, Conrad" <conrad.bock@nist.gov>
To: "uml25-ftf@omg.org" <uml25-ftf@omg.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 11:50:21 -0400
Subject: RE: Annex B issue sizings, 18110
Thread-Topic: Annex B issue sizings, 18110
Thread-Index: Ac6DzhGi2EnyXgBgSOuep2F8tuLBCw==
Accept-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
acceptlanguage: en-US
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org


Steve, (copying the list)


 > > I don't think UML says this currently (please correct me)
 >
 > I think that the implication of Annex A [snip] is that a Package
 > diagram labelled Package P can contain anything.


Thx.  If we're agreed UML doesn't restrict the contents of
package/profile diagrams, then the question is whether we think it
shouldn't (from all perspectives, including users).  If the FTF thinks
it definitely shouldn't, we can close 18110 without change, otherwise,
we can defer it.


Conrad


-----Original Message-----
From: Bock, Conrad
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 8:36 AM
To: 'Steve Cook'
Subject: RE: Annex B issue sizings


Steve,


[snip]


 > 18110. I don't understand the issue, it is so cryptic.


The filer is asking for the modelElement of UMLProfileDiagrams to be
profile packages (and presumably the modelElement of UMLPackageDiagrams
to be packages and UMLPackageDiagrams to generalize UMLProfileDiagrams).
It seems like this would only make sense if the contents of
profile/package diagrams were limited to the contents of a particular
profile/package.  I don't think UML says this currently (please correct
me), so I don't think it should be resolved the way the filer wants.


 > I don't want to reassign it without understanding it.


Given the reasonableness of the request and the complexity of the
problem, I deferred it in the resolutions.


Conrad