Issue 3291: UML RTF 1.4 Issue: Missing notation mapping for association in composite (uml2-superstructure-ftf) Source: NIST (Dr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: No mapping for this in mapping section, p 3-77: [p 3-75, Notation section for Composition] An association drawn entirely within a border of the composite is considered to be part of the composition. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: February 5, 2000: received issue March 9, 2005: closed issue Discussion: The notation part of the spec has been merged with the semantics part of the spec in UML 2.0, so that this issue is no longer applicable. End of Annotations:===== Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2000 14:39:02 -0800 Message-Id: <200002052239.OAA05747@bones.intellicorp.com> From: Conrad Bock To: issues@omg.org Subject: UML RTF 1.4 Issue: Missing notation mapping for association in composite Reply-to: bock@intellicorp.com Content-Type: text X-UIDL: eLhd95nEe9K?;!!m3=e9 No mapping for this in mapping section, p 3-77: [p 3-75, Notation section for Composition] An association drawn entirely within a border of the composite is considered to be part of the composition. Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 15:04:09 +0100 From: birger Organization: Ifi X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: uml-rtf@omg.org Subject: Issue 3291 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-UIDL: gIK!!<[m!!W4*!!Y!od9 This is a comment to issue 3291. At p. 3-75 in the Notation Guide it is said that "an association drawn entirely within a border of the composite is considered to be part of the composition". What is obviously meant is "... within the border of the composite class". At the same page it is later said that the nested notation is not the correct way to show a class declared within another class. A class can not only have nested classes, but also contain associations as part of its name space. It seems as if the above associations being part of a composite class can at least be mapped to associations in the composite class name space - they may have other properties in addition. There may be somethig I have missed, but what would otherwise be the reason for having associations as part of the namespace of a class? It is further recommended that a class acting as a namespace should have a packge symbol in the rigtmost upper corner and that this package symbol represents the namespace. An implication of that is if the composition involves classes declared in the namespace of the composite class, then the names of these classes would have no path item (indicating that they are defined in the current namespace), but they only become visible by opening the package symbol. If this shall be a consistent use of symbols, I would guess that an instantiable subsystem package would have a class symbol in the corresponding place (to represent the class properties of the package)? /Birger Mxller-Pedersen