Issue 4732: UML 1.4: Feature containment problem (uml2-superstructure-ftf)
Source:  (, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary: According to the UML 1.4 standard, a Feature [UML 1.4, pp. 2-13] is
contained either as an "feature" in a Classifier, or 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). In addition an
Attribute (subclass of Feature) may be contained as a "qualifier" in an
AssociationEnd [UML 1.4, pp. 2-14].

The question is: is the containment as an "ownedElement" intended? If so,
please explain the meaning of e.g. an Operation contained directly in an
otherwise empty Package.

If not, it should be stated unambiguously so in the wellformedness rules for
Feature:

	self.namespace = null

Remarks:
========
It should be noted that the standard does make a number of partly
contradictory statements which seem to indicate that Features can not be
used as ownedElements:

Page 2-25: "BehavioralFeature specifies a behavioral aspect of a
Classifier."
Page 2-36: "A feature [...] is encapsulated within a Classifier."
[contradicts with the statement below].
Page 2-37: "Note that an Attribute may be owned by a Classifier (in which
case it is a feature) or an AssociationEnd (in which case it is a qualifier)
but not both."
Page 2-42: "Method is a declaration of a named piece of behavior in a
Classifier"
Page 2-45: "Operation is a BehavioralFeature that can be applied to the
Instances of the Classifier that contains the Operation.".

These statements could however be made unambiguous by adding the mentioned
wellformedness rule.


Resolution: 
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
December 5, 2001: received issue
March 9, 2005: closed issue
Discussion: 
UML 2.0 separates feature membership from feature ownership, and uses association
redefinition to avoid issues of ambiguity over whether an inherited ‘ownership’
association should be used.
Disposition: Closed, no change
End of Annotations:=====
From: Thomas Schaumburg <thomas.schaumburg@hiq.dk>
To: "'issues@omg.org'" <issues@omg.org>
Subject: UML 1.4: Feature containment problem
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 15:31:41 +0100 
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	      charset="iso-8859-1"
X-UIDL: [2hd9+]dd9d9"e9JY[d9

According to the UML 1.4 standard, a Feature [UML 1.4, pp. 2-13] is
contained either as an "feature" in a Classifier, or 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). In addition
an
Attribute (subclass of Feature) may be contained as a "qualifier" in
an
AssociationEnd [UML 1.4, pp. 2-14].

The question is: is the containment as an "ownedElement" intended? If
so,
please explain the meaning of e.g. an Operation contained directly in
an
otherwise empty Package.

If not, it should be stated unambiguously so in the wellformedness
rules for
Feature:

	self.namespace = null

Remarks:
========
It should be noted that the standard does make a number of partly
contradictory statements which seem to indicate that Features can not
be
used as ownedElements:

Page 2-25: "BehavioralFeature specifies a behavioral aspect of a
Classifier."
Page 2-36: "A feature [...] is encapsulated within a Classifier."
[contradicts with the statement below].
Page 2-37: "Note that an Attribute may be owned by a Classifier (in
which
case it is a feature) or an AssociationEnd (in which case it is a
qualifier)
but not both."
Page 2-42: "Method is a declaration of a named piece of behavior in a
Classifier"
Page 2-45: "Operation is a BehavioralFeature that can be applied to
the
Instances of the Classifier that contains the Operation.".

These statements could however be made unambiguous by adding the
mentioned
wellformedness rule.


          Brgds
               Thomas Schaumburg