Issue 18685: Forked association notation ill-formed (sysml-rtf) Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov) Nature: Revision Severity: Significant Summary: In Table 8.2 (Graphical paths defined by in Block Definition diagrams), rows MultibranchPart Association and MultibranchShared Association shows two association lines sharing one end (property3), implying the end is owned by two blocks (assuming the other ends are different), which isn't possible. Even if the two blocks on the opposite ends redefine property3 using the same name, the "shared" end would actually be separate elements in the model, though they would appear notationally the same. If this is the intention, redefinition of property3 should be added to the figure, and some diagram extension text should explain that the "shared" graphical elements refer to three underlying model elements. The notation isn't in 2.4.1 that I can find. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: April 24, 2013: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 24 Apr 2013 09:11:46 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAR15Qr0= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== ******************************************************************************* Name: Conrad Bock Employer: NIST mailFrom: conrad.bock@nist.gov Terms_Agreement: I agree Specification: SysML 1.3 Section: Classes FormalNumber: ptc/2011-08-10 Version: 1.3 Doc_Year: 2012 Doc_Month: June Doc_Day: 01 Page: Title: Forked association notation ill-formed Nature: Revision Severity: Significant CODE: 3TMw8 B1: Report Issue Description: In Table 8.2 (Graphical paths defined by in Block Definition diagrams), rows MultibranchPart Association and MultibranchShared Association shows two association lines sharing one end (property3), implying the end is owned by two blocks (assuming the other ends are different), which isn't possible. Even if the two blocks on the opposite ends redefine property3 using the same name, the "shared" end would actually be separate elements in the model, though they would appear notationally the same. If this is the intention, redefinition of property3 should be added to the figure, and some diagram extension text should explain that the "shared" graphical elements refer to three underlying model elements. The notation isn't in 2.4.1 that I can find.