Issue 19454: UML wording in Superstructure 2.4.1 (uml2-rtf) Source: (, ) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: I have a comment concerning wording in the UML 2.4.1 Superstructure document you are using both "classifier rectangle" and "class rectangle" for describing presentation options. Is this really appropriate? I'd like to suggest to use "classifier rectangle" consistently since there is no special representation shape of a class, and class is a specialization of classifier. Additionally, at page 152, you give "Classifier rectangle" with capital letter. I think that, in terms of consistency, it should be "classifier rectangle" there as well. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: June 5, 2014: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== uthentication-Warning: petros.omg.org: nobody set sender to nobody@omg.org using -f Delivered-To: virus-quarantine X-Envelope-From: X-Envelope-To: X-Quarantine-Id: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tu-chemnitz.de; s=dkim2010; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date; bh=NXQAbr3cunDKNRfF4WFPiA2q3B4DT/RLUWvQLTIiFeA=; b=r41Qxfr5XiMoB/fu+T5feb44yJoL0Y2oDi6rPt6ycI69qg1Iirs1rk+bGZtr4ubQCaaUCQwIeRE2GLF8hoyWasm/4ZJaM0Tttu9IKMr6kDbHEJHjLKtlG+cUc2nT4Vxr7Sicy7gJsk27HHUg/0hKYg7hd4WCgKjIji08eZSk+0Q=; Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 15:26:25 +0200 From: Dirk Müller To: juergen@omg.org Subject: UML wording in Superstructure 2.4.1 User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H5 (6.1.7) X-Scan-AV: mailbox.hrz.tu-chemnitz.de;2014-06-05 15:26:25;8593356e3aa986bff1e7afe636c142f9 X-purgate: clean X-purgate-type: clean X-purgate-ID: 154106::1401974785-00001684-B5CB0501/0-0/0-0 X-Scan-SA: nick.hrz.tu-chemnitz.de;2014-06-05 15:26:25;e2a7b1e12e5530f419037702b5d1625d X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) X-Spam-Report: --- Textanalyse SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (-1.7 Punkte) Fragen an/questions to: Postmaster TU Chemnitz * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * -0.7 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain --- Ende Textanalyse X-Amavis-Alert: INFECTED, message contains virus: popfile spam Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Disposition: inline Dear Juergen Boldt, I have a comment concerning wording in the UML 2.4.1 Superstructure document you are using both "classifier rectangle" and "class rectangle" for describing presentation options. Is this really appropriate? I'd like to suggest to use "classifier rectangle" consistently since there is no special representation shape of a class, and class is a specialization of classifier. Additionally, at page 152, you give "Classifier rectangle" with capital letter. I think that, in terms of consistency, it should be "classifier rectangle" there as well. Best regards Dirk Mueller -- PD Dr.-Ing. habil. Dirk Müller, Akademischer Rat, Raum 1/336b Fakultät für Informatik, Professur Betriebssysteme Prof. Dr. M. Werner Technische Universität Chemnitz Straße der Nationen 62 D-09111 Chemnitz Tel: {+49|0}371-531-37339 http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/~dirkm From: Axel Scheithauer To: Juergen Boldt , "uml2-rtf@omg.org" Subject: AW: UML wording in Superstructure 2.4.1 Thread-Topic: UML wording in Superstructure 2.4.1 Thread-Index: AQHPgNftmywBoQ987Ua0JVw0EfLv8JtitaQA Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 16:50:19 +0000 Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [87.128.223.58] X-XWALL-BCKS: auto X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org Hi Jürgen, it is correct that it is inconsistent, even in 2.5, therefore it is an issue, albeit minor. Following needs to be changed: In some places Class is used, where Classifier should be (Actor and Artifact are a Classifier not a Class): Pages xliii, 675, 688 Whenever we mean the Metaclasses Classifier or Class they should be spelled with capital letter (there are probably more spaces left, where this is wrong): Pages 210, 685, 778, 779 In other places it is ok to use “Class rectangle”, since a Class is the only valid element there. It doesn’t matter, that it inherited the notation from Classifier. Regards Axel Von: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 5. Juni 2014 18:03 An: uml2-rtf@omg.org Betreff: Fwd: UML wording in Superstructure 2.4.1 Before I file as an issue I would like to hear your opinion on this -Juergen X-Authentication-Warning: petros.omg.org: nobody set sender to nobody@omg.org using -f Delivered-To: virus-quarantine X-Envelope-From: X-Envelope-To: X-Quarantine-Id: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tu-chemnitz.de; s=dkim2010; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date; bh=NXQAbr3cunDKNRfF4WFPiA2q3B4DT/RLUWvQLTIiFeA=; b=r41Qxfr5XiMoB/fu+T5feb44yJoL0Y2oDi6rPt6ycI69qg1Iirs1rk+bGZtr4ubQCaaUCQwIeRE2GLF8hoyWasm/4ZJaM0Tttu9IKMr6kDbHEJHjLKtlG+cUc2nT4Vxr7Sicy7gJsk27HHUg/0hKYg7hd4WCgKjIji08eZSk+0Q=; Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 15:26:25 +0200 From: Dirk Müller To: juergen@omg.org Subject: UML wording in Superstructure 2.4.1 User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H5 (6.1.7) X-Scan-AV: mailbox.hrz.tu-chemnitz.de;2014-06-05 15:26:25;8593356e3aa986bff1e7afe636c142f9 X-purgate: clean X-purgate-type: clean X-purgate-ID: 154106::1401974785-00001684-B5CB0501/0-0/0-0 X-Scan-SA: nick.hrz.tu-chemnitz.de;2014-06-05 15:26:25;e2a7b1e12e5530f419037702b5d1625d X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) X-Spam-Report: --- Textanalyse SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (-1.7 Punkte) Fragen an/questions to: Postmaster TU Chemnitz * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * -0.7 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain --- Ende Textanalyse X-Amavis-Alert: INFECTED, message contains virus: popfile spam Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Disposition: inline Dear Juergen Boldt, I have a comment concerning wording in the UML 2.4.1 Superstructure document you are using both "classifier rectangle" and "class rectangle" for describing presentation options. Is this really appropriate? I'd like to suggest to use "classifier rectangle" consistently since there is no special representation shape of a class, and class is a specialization of classifier. Additionally, at page 152, you give "Classifier rectangle" with capital letter. I think that, in terms of consistency, it should be "classifier rectangle" there as well. Best regards Dirk Mueller -- PD Dr.-Ing. habil. Dirk M�ller, Akademischer Rat, Raum 1/336b Fakult�t f�r Informatik, Professur Betriebssysteme Prof. Dr. M. Werner Technische Universit�t Chemnitz Stra�e der Nationen 62 D-09111 Chemnitz Tel: {+49|0}371-531-37339 http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/~dirkm Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services 109 Highland Ave Needham, MA 02494 USA Tel: +1 (781) 444 0404 x 132 fax: +1 (781) 444 0320 www.omg.org []