Issue 19438: ExpansionNodes owned by ExpansionRegions? (uml2-rtf) Source: NIST (Dr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov) Nature: Revision Severity: Significant Summary: Are ExpansionNodes owned by their ExpansionRegions? ENs are pin-like, so it seems like they should be, but then I would have expected ER::in/outputElement and EN::regionAsIn/Output to be subsetted from StructuredActivityNode::node and ActivityNode::inStructuredNode, respectively. ENs could still be owned by ERs as SANs without the subsetting, but I couldn't find what the spec says about it. Is there a MIWG test for this case? Ed S's response:http://www.omg.org/archives/model-interchange/msg02614.html Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: May 30, 2014: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 30 May 2014 10:04:15 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report ******************************************************************************* Name: Conrad Bock Employer: NIST mailFrom: conrad.bock@nist.gov Terms_Agreement: I agree Specification: Unified Modeling Language Section: 16.2 FormalNumber: ptc/2013-09-05 Version: 2.5 Beta 2 Doc_Year: 2013 Doc_Month: September Doc_Day: 01 Page: Title: ExpansionNodes owned by ExpansionRegions? Nature: Revision Severity: Significant CODE: 3TMw8 B1: Report Issue Remote Name: 129.6.32.106 Remote User: HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:29.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/29.0 Time: 10:04 AM Description: Are ExpansionNodes owned by their ExpansionRegions? ENs are pin-like, so it seems like they should be, but then I would have expected ER::in/outputElement and EN::regionAsIn/Output to be subsetted from StructuredActivityNode::node and ActivityNode::inStructuredNode, respectively. ENs could still be owned by ERs as SANs without the subsetting, but I couldn't find what the spec says about it. Is there a MIWG test for this case? Ed S's response:http://www.omg.org/archives/model-interchange/msg02614.html