Issue 4730: UML 1.4: ExtensionPoint containment problem (uml2-superstructure-ftf)
Source:  (, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary: According to the UML 1.4 metamodel, an ExtensionPoint [UML 1.4, pp. 2-135]
can be contained as an ownedElement [UML 1.4, pp. 2-13] in a Model, Package,
Artifact, Node or ClassifierRole (other containers excluded because of
restrictions they make on the "ownedElement" containment in their
wellformedness rules).

The questions are: what is the intended meaning of an ExtensionPoint in eg.
an otherwise empty Package? Why isn't the ExtensionPoint contained in the
UseCase it extends, as would appear more logical to the uninitiated?

Suggestion: change the association between ExtensionPoint and UseCase [UML
1.4, pp. 2-135] to an unconditional composite containment (with
ExtensionPoint as the part).

Resolution: 
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
December 5, 2001: received issue
March 9, 2005: closed issue
Discussion: 
The use case model has changed in UML 2.0, mainly due to changes in the supporting
abstract classes. In the new metamodel (see figure 401 in the final adopted spec),
ExtensionPoints are indeed contained in the corresponding use case, as was suggested in
the issue text. Hence, no change to the final adopted spec is required for this issue.
End of Annotations:=====
From: Thomas Schaumburg <thomas.schaumburg@hiq.dk>
To: "'issues@omg.org'" <issues@omg.org>
Subject: UML 1.4: ExtensionPoint containment problem
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 15:22:11 +0100 
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	      charset="iso-8859-1"
X-UIDL: i:)e9Ili!!Q"T!!Wf_d9

According to the UML 1.4 metamodel, an ExtensionPoint [UML 1.4,
pp. 2-135]
can be contained as an ownedElement [UML 1.4, pp. 2-13] in a Model,
Package,
Artifact, Node or ClassifierRole (other containers excluded because of
restrictions they make on the "ownedElement" containment in their
wellformedness rules).

The questions are: what is the intended meaning of an ExtensionPoint
in eg.
an otherwise empty Package? Why isn't the ExtensionPoint contained in
the
UseCase it extends, as would appear more logical to the uninitiated?

Suggestion: change the association between ExtensionPoint and UseCase
[UML
1.4, pp. 2-135] to an unconditional composite containment (with
ExtensionPoint as the part).

                      Brgds
                            Thomas Schaumburg