Issue 19726: UML 2.5: Property::isConsistentWith() error (uml2-rtf)
Source: Simula Research Laboratory (Mr. Bran Selic, selic(at)acm.org)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: 
Summary: There appears to be an error in the Property::isConsistentWith() operation (page 155 of the 2.5 spec). As written, it looks like this (with a bit of my editing for readability) :


isConsistentWith(redefiningElement : RedefinableElement) : Boolean {redefines RedefinableElement::isConsistentWith()} 

// The query isConsistentWith() specifies, for any two Properties in a context in which 
// redefinition is possible, whether redefinition would be logically consistent. A redefining 
// Property is consistent with a redefined Property if the type of the redefining Property
// conforms to the type of the redefined Property, and the multiplicity of the redefining 
// Property (if specified) is contained in the multiplicity of the redefined Property.

pre: redefiningElement.isRedefinitionContextValid(self) 
body: redefiningElement.oclIsKindOf(Property) and
   let prop : Property = redefiningElement.oclAsType(Property) in
      (prop.type.conformsTo(self.type) and
      ((prop.lowerBound()->notEmpty() and self.lowerBound()->notEmpty()) implies          
         prop.lowerBound() >= self.lowerBound()) and
      ((prop.upperBound()->notEmpty() and self.upperBound()->notEmpty()) implies 
         prop.lowerBound() <= self.lowerBound()) and
      (self.isComposite implies prop.isComposite))



The problem is with the second last line, which should read:


prop.upperBound() <= self.upperBound())


Seems like a copy-paste error.

Resolution: 
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
February 20, 2015: received issue
Discussion: 

End of Annotations:=====
iler: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 11:33:24 -0500
To: issues@omg.org, uml2-rtf@omg.org
From: Juergen Boldt <juergen@omg.org>
Subject: issue 19726 -- UML 2.6 RTF issue
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org




DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type;
        bh=2dtV62ykE9d34p8oDvyyjNyVJGFP3hUqldxnJH3dpFE=;
        b=Ee8HfB21I34M4POLUdGktuhopt+KJsBmIonVn1WCbO7Tm3LeN0oLJGPMN5apUs2aCn
         s6bRDCuTJXjm3fLXXtFKfTryu+3fNY/ghBxi7fhc1ltTZ0UeK3N9T7OMgCsPwHub3Ay1
         PYhiAyWjoAs9TxYEcRK1hJxQV050APpl4V8ycBvudr67NhOS0cvFPcsrBMKCVLHqJwJ2
         yCDJDYkZgPuRNQ+Vv6gfPpounGu9Qv3WS/hF83kosFRqee9DvC026KhQNRJyk/D6BIvs
         qIkHwc3V0OT93pLdODGJpKQTPPGoqM8Wlyg+2ZUtt/sFCsaSt5GjE45KiWK5vcN+L5h8
         fUyQ==
X-Received: by 10.152.9.230 with SMTP id d6mr7443161lab.16.1424448880728; Fri,
 20 Feb 2015 08:14:40 -0800 (PST)
Sender: bran.selic@gmail.com
From: Bran Selic <selic@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 11:14:00 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: RmrCJ66wzxTmmcC9xxnYsjWnXPk
Subject: UML 2.5: Property::isConsistentWith() error
To: "issues@omg.org" <issues@omg.org>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org

There appears to be an error in the Property::isConsistentWith() operation (page 155 of the 2.5 spec). As written, it looks like this (with a bit of my editing for readability) :

isConsistentWith(redefiningElement : RedefinableElement) : Boolean {redefines RedefinableElement::isConsistentWith()} 

// The query isConsistentWith() specifies, for any two Properties in a context in which 
// redefinition is possible, whether redefinition would be logically consistent. A redefining 
// Property is consistent with a redefined Property if the type of the redefining Property
// conforms to the type of the redefined Property, and the multiplicity of the redefining 
// Property (if specified) is contained in the multiplicity of the redefined Property.

pre: redefiningElement.isRedefinitionContextValid(self) 
body: redefiningElement.oclIsKindOf(Property) and
   let prop : Property = redefiningElement.oclAsType(Property) in
      (prop.type.conformsTo(self.type) and
      ((prop.lowerBound()->notEmpty() and self.lowerBound()->notEmpty()) implies          
         prop.lowerBound() >= self.lowerBound()) and
      ((prop.upperBound()->notEmpty() and self.upperBound()->notEmpty()) implies 
         prop.lowerBound() <= self.lowerBound()) and
      (self.isComposite implies prop.isComposite))

The problem is with the second last line, which should read:

prop.upperBound() <= self.upperBound())

Seems like a copy-paste error.

Bran






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

[]