Issue 4816: Suggest that alternate syntax used in section 6.5.5 be adopted thoughout (uml2-superstructure-ftf) Source: (, ) Nature: Revision Severity: Significant Summary: Subclassing of associations for various reasons leads to having duplicate opposite association ends with in the same class hierarchy unless the association ends are renamed for each subclass. A specific example where this has been miss-used is throughout the DMTF CIM specification. This rule is derived from section 6.5.4 and is expressed in the well-formedness rules in 2.5.3.8 for Classifiers. However, if opposite association end name(rolename) was qualified by association name, then the navigational reason to not allow duplicates goes away. Suggest that the alternate syntax used in section 6.5.5 be adopted thoughout. Specifically, define "rolename = associationName[oppositeassociationend]" Then specify "classifier.rolename" instead of "classifier.oppositeassociationend." Can then optionally allow use of "classifier.oppositeassociationend" when usage would not be ambiquous. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: January 29, 2002: received issue March 9, 2005: closed issue Discussion: In UML 2.0 association ends are modeled as features of classifiers, which means that they can use the standard qualified name syntax. In the UML spec, two forms are used: <classifier-name>’.’<assoc-end-name> or <classifier-name>’::’<assoc-end-name> This is more than enough and the re is no reason to add yet another form. In fact, only the latter form should be used. Disposition: Closed, no change End of Annotations:===== From: webmaster@omg.org Message-Id: <200201281851.g0SIpos02043@emerald.omg.org> Date: 28 Jan 2002 13:35:02 -0500 To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Issue/Bug Report Content-Type: Text/html; charset=windows-1252 X-UIDL: C*Ke9RX