Issue 4300: issues and bugs on the UML 1.4 Draft (uml-rtf) Source: (, ) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: This text contains an number of (mostly minor) issues and bugs on the UML 1.4 Draft of February 2001 (formal OMG document number : ad/2001-02-13). The issues are listed along with their pagenumbers in the order, in which they appear in the UML document. Note: Since the number of issues is quite large, it was decided tot put them in one piece of text. Submitting each item as a seperate issue, utilizing the predefined form at the OMG site would have incurred too much overhead. ----Begin of issues----------------------------- (p. xi) Typographical/Editorial: The page-footer still refers to OMG-UML V1.3. (p. xxi) Typographical/Editorial: The reference to the UML Extensions chapter is not valid anymore. (p. 2-34, Component) It is stated that "In the metamodel <text removed>. A Component is specified by the interfaces is <sic!> exposes". However, there is no meta-association linking Component (or Classifier ?) to Interface, nor is there an OCL contraint indicating this relation. This should be added. (p. 2-46, Interface) Same as the previous comment. Here the relationship between Interface and Classifier could/should be made explicit in the Abstract Syntax. (p. 2-47, ModelElement) It is stated that "It is the base for all modeling metaclasses in the UML". However, this is not true for the following constructs: ElementOwnership ElementResidence ElementImport TemplateParameter TemplateArgument Argument Please clarify or correct the statement. (p. 2-95, 2-98, Integer, String, UnlimitedInteger) It is stated that each of these is "a classifier element that is an instance of Primitive". This is cofusing, since the text on p. 2-92 makes it clear that this Primitive cannot be the subclass of DataType: this is used for datatypes defined by users of the UML. So which Primitive is this ? Is it a MOF (meta-meta-)class ? Please clarify. (p. 2-98, Uninterpreted) It is not clear why this construct is mentioned at all, since it is not shown in the Abstract Syntax, nor referenced anywhere else. (p. 2-106) Typographical/Editorial: The sequence of DestroyAction and DataValue is not according to alphabetic ordering (p. 2-111, Stimulus) A reference is made to MessageInstance. This is not an UML metaclass. Please correct. (p. 2-139, Overview and 2-142, UseCase) In both pieces of text references are made to instances of usecases and instances of actors (or a user playing the role of the Actor). This is confusing in the sence that the concept of a usecase instance is reified as UseCaseInstance, whereas the actor instance is not reified. Please clarify. (p. 2-182,2-183) Typographical/Editorial: The sequence of ActivityGraph and ActionState is not according to alphabetic ordering (p. 3-3) Typographical/Editorial: There is no Part 8. (p. 3-15, Type-Instance Correspondence) It is stated that "Examples of such pairs in UML include: <text omitted>, Parameter-Value, Operation-Invocation, and so on." This is confusing since the constructs Value and Invocation are not UML metaclasses. Please correct. (p. 3-22, Subsystem - Presentation Options) It is stated "As with packages, the contents of a subsystem may be shown using tree notation". Note however that this statement is not included with the passages describing the Package Presentation Options on p. 3-18. Please clarify or add. (p. 3-59, Stereotype Declaration - Semantics) It is stated "although it conceptually belongs in the layer below,the metamodel layer." The use of "below" is not in line with the usual representation of the meta-modeling architecture, such as in table 2-1 on p. 2-5. There the metamodel layer is "above". Please correct. (p. 3-60, Stereotype Declaration - Notation) The special stereotype of Dependency called <<stereotype>> is not mentioned in the semantics section of Dependency (on p. 2-36/2-37), nor in Appendix A, UML Standard Elements. Please add. (p. 5-21?, Chapter 5) Typographical/Editorial: The pagenumbering in the footer starts at page 5-21. Please correct. (p. 5-24, Figure 5-1) It is inferred from the packages shown that the Extension Mechanisms package is absorbed into the Core Package. This is not reflected elsewhere in the document. Please make the neccesary updates. If it is decided to do this only in the Interchange Model, and not in the Abstract Syntax, then this should be noted on p. 5-23 under the heading of "changes". In this case the title of Figure 5-7 on p. 5-30 should be changed to "Core - Extension Mechanisms". (p. 5-31, Figure 5-8) In comparison with the Abstract Syntax diagram on p. 2-91 the element Mapping has been omitted/deleted. Please clarify. (p. 5-32, Figure 5-9) In order to be consistent with the titling used in the other figures in this chapter, please change the title to "Datatypes - Expressions". (p. 5-36, Figure 5-14 and p.5-38, Figure 5-16) In comparison with the Figures 2-18 (p. 2-123) and 2-20 (p. 2-125) the follwing assoctiations have been omitted/deleted: Collaboration - AssocationRole Collaboration - ClassifierRole AssocationRole - AssocationEndRole Please clarify Resolution: see below Revised Text: Various small edits, mostly in Section 2, plus a few in Sections 3 and 5: (p. 2-47, ModelElement) Accepted 1.4.1. : added editorial clarification "(even though not displayed explicitly for ElementOwnership ElementResidence ElementImport TemplateParameter TemplateArgument Argument)" (p. 2-98, Uninterpreted)Accept 1.4.1. Text is removed (This is not reflected in the Abstract Sytax nor XMI). (p. 2-106) Accept 1.4.1.: changed order (p. 2-111, Stimulus) Accept 1.4.1. 2.9.2.21 - Replace with Stimulus in the text (p. 2-182,2-183) Accept 1.4.1 editorial (p. 3-15, Type-Instance Correspondence) Accept 1.4.1. : Replaced examples with "UseCase and UseCaseInstance, Message - Stimulus" (p. 3-22, Subsystem - Presentation Options) Accept for 1.4.1. : sentence added to 3.13.3 (figure was already present) (p. 3-59, Stereotype Declaration - Semantics) Accept 1.4.1: the word "below" is replaced with "above" to be consistent with the diagram (p. 5-32, Figure 5-9) Accept 1.4.1 : caption updated Actions taken: May 13, 2001: received issue October 23, 2002: closed issue Discussion: The following sub-points are referenced in the issue text: (p. xi) Already fixed in 1.4 final specification (p. xxi) Already fixed in 1.4 final specification (p. 2-34, Component) Rejected. This is modeled through "!visibilityKind" on ElementImport (p. 2-46, Interface) Rejected. This is modeled through Realization Dependency (p. 2-47, ModelElement) Accepted 1.4.1. Clarify editorial ... (even though not displayed explicitly for ElementOwnership ElementResidence ElementImport TemplateParameter TemplateArgument Argument) (p. 2-95, 2-98, Integer, String, UnlimitedInteger) Defer 2.0 (major). UML 2.0 will re-architect the meta model area. (p. 2-98, Uninterpreted)Accept 1.4.1. Text will be removed (This is not reflected in the Abstract Sytax nor XMI). (p. 2-106) Accept 1.4.1. (p. 2-111, Stimulus) Accept 1.4.1. 2.9.2.21 - Replace with Stimulus in the text (p. 2-139, Overview and 2-142, UseCase) Defer 2.0 (major). Adding ActorInstance will impact the DTD. Instance modleing in general to be reviewed in UML 2.0 (p. 2-182,2-183) Accept 1.4.1 editorial (p. 3-3) Fixed in UML 1.4 final. (p. 3-15, Type-Instance Correspondence) Accept 1.4.1. Replace examples with "UseCase and UseCaseInstance, Message - Stimulus" or remove examples altogether (p. 3-22, Subsystem - Presentation Options) Accept for 1.4.1. Add sentence to 3.13.3 (p. 3-59, Stereotype Declaration - Semantics) Accept 1.4.1 (p. 3-60, Stereotype Declaration - Notation) Defer (2.0 major). This is not a Dependency in the metamodel - rather it is overloading the notation. Profiles expected to be addressed in UML 2.0 (p. 5-21?, Chapter 5) Already fixed in 1.4 final (p. 5-24, Figure 5-1) Defer 2.0 (major). This has a ripple effect on the DTD. UML 2.0 expected to address meta model architecture issues. (p. 5-31, Figure 5-8) Defer 2.0 (minor). This is an error in chapter 5. Deferred because it would touch the DTD. (p. 5-32, Figure 5-9) Accept 1.4.1 (p. 5-36, Figure 5-14 and p.5-38, Figure 5-16) Rejected for 1.4.1. These are derived associations and hence do not show in the physical model and DTD End of Annotations:===== From: webmaster@omg.org Message-Id: <200105131041.f4DAfjF00194@emerald.omg.org> Date: 13 May 2001 06:44:14 -0400 To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Issue/Bug Report Content-Type: Text/html; charset=windows-1252 X-UIDL: ^X6!!gZIe9-NIe9?pVd9 Name: Michael Baggen Company: Technolution b.v. mailFrom: mick.baggen@technolution.nl Notification: Yes Specification: UML Section: all FormalNumber: ad/2001-02-13 Version: 1.4 Draft RevisionDate: February 2001 Page: all Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 98; DigExt; {World Online}) Description This text contains an number of (mostly minor) issues and bugs on the UML 1.4 Draft of February 2001 (formal OMG document number : ad/2001-02-13). The issues are listed along with their pagenumbers in the order, in which they appear in the UML document. Note: Since the number of issues is quite large, it was decided tot put them in one piece of text. Submitting each item as a seperate issue, utilizing the predefined form at the OMG site would have incurred too much overhead. ----Begin of issues----------------------------- (p. xi) Typographical/Editorial: The page-footer still refers to OMG-UML V1.3. (p. xxi) Typographical/Editorial: The reference to the UML Extensions chapter is not valid anymore. (p. 2-34, Component) It is stated that "In the metamodel . A Component is specified by the interfaces is exposes". However, there is no meta-association linking Component (or Classifier ?) to Interface, nor is there an OCL contraint indicating this relation. This should be added. (p. 2-46, Interface) Same as the previous comment. Here the relationship between Interface and Classifier could/should be made explicit in the Abstract Syntax. (p. 2-47, ModelElement) It is stated that "It is the base for all modeling metaclasses in the UML". However, this is not true for the following constructs: ElementOwnership ElementResidence ElementImport TemplateParameter TemplateArgument Argument Please clarify or correct the statement. (p. 2-95, 2-98, Integer, String, UnlimitedInteger) It is stated that each of these is "a classifier element that is an instance of Primitive". This is cofusing, since the text on p. 2-92 makes it clear that this Primitive cannot be the subclass of DataType: this is used for datatypes defined by users of the UML. So which Primitive is this ? Is it a MOF (meta-meta-)class ? Please clarify. (p. 2-98, Uninterpreted) It is not clear why this construct is mentioned at all, since it is not shown in the Abstract Syntax, nor referenced anywhere else. (p. 2-106) Typographical/Editorial: The sequence of DestroyAction and DataValue is not according to alphabetic ordering (p. 2-111, Stimulus) A reference is made to MessageInstance. This is not an UML metaclass. Please correct. (p. 2-139, Overview and 2-142, UseCase) In both pieces of text references are made to instances of usecases and instances of actors (or a user playing the role of the Actor). This is confusing in the sence that the concept of a usecase instance is reified as UseCaseInstance, whereas the actor instance is not reified. Please clarify. (p. 2-182,2-183) Typographical/Editorial: The sequence of ActivityGraph and ActionState is not according to alphabetic ordering (p. 3-3) Typographical/Editorial: There is no Part 8. (p. 3-15, Type-Instance Correspondence) It is stated that "Examples of such pairs in UML include: , Parameter-Value, Operation-Invocation, and so on." This is confusing since the constructs Value and Invocation are not UML metaclasses. Please correct. (p. 3-22, Subsystem - Presentation Options) It is stated "As with packages, the contents of a subsystem may be shown using tree notation". Note however that this statement is not included with the passages describing the Package Presentation Options on p. 3-18. Please clarify or add. (p. 3-59, Stereotype Declaration - Semantics) It is stated "although it conceptually belongs in the layer below,the metamodel layer." The use of "below" is not in line with the usual representation of the meta-modeling architecture, such as in table 2-1 on p. 2-5. There the metamodel layer is "above". Please correct. (p. 3-60, Stereotype Declaration - Notation) The special stereotype of Dependency called <> is not mentioned in the semantics section of Dependency (on p. 2-36/2-37), nor in Appendix A, UML Standard Elements. Please add. (p. 5-21?, Chapter 5) Typographical/Editorial: The pagenumbering in the footer starts at page 5-21. Please correct. (p. 5-24, Figure 5-1) It is inferred from the packages shown that the Extension Mechanisms package is absorbed into the Core Package. This is not reflected elsewhere in the document. Please make the neccesary updates. If it is decided to do this only in the Interchange Model, and not in the Abstract Syntax, then this should be noted on p. 5-23 under the heading of "changes". In this case the title of Figure 5-7 on p. 5-30 should be changed to "Core - Extension Mechanisms". (p. 5-31, Figure 5-8) In comparison with the Abstract Syntax diagram on p. 2-91 the element Mapping has been omitted/deleted. Please clarify. (p. 5-32, Figure 5-9) In order to be consistent with the titling used in the other figures in this chapter, please change the title to "Datatypes - Expressions". (p. 5-36, Figure 5-14 and p.5-38, Figure 5-16) In comparison with the Figures 2-18 (p. 2-123) and 2-20 (p. 2-125) the follwing assoctiations have been omitted/deleted: Collaboration - AssocationRole Collaboration - ClassifierRole AssocationRole - AssocationEndRole Please clarify. ----End of issues-----------------------------