Issue 5079: how are the association from the initial class model reflected in the stere (uml-scheduling-ftf)
Source: International Business Machines (Mr. Morgan Bjorkander, nobody)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary: The concepts described in the beginning of each section in terms of a class model are later transposed in terms of stereotypes. But how are the association from the initial class model reflected in the stereotypes (which are, as I understand, the only normative part of the profile)?For example, a Resource has a set of offered QoS characteristics. How is the connection between a user <<GRMressource>> class and its corresponding <<GRMqosCharacteristics>> made in the user's model?The same question holds for all other associations. In some cases the connection is obvious informally: for example in case of a user class stereotyped with <<GRMresource>>, whose operations are stereotyped with<<GRMresourceService>>, it is clear that the operations represent the services of the resource represented by the user class. But that link is not captured formally by the metamodel / stereotype definition

Resolution: see below
Revised Text: This issue has been resolved by adding an explanation that can be included in the introduction to section 3.2 between the third and second  paragraphs just preceding section 3.2.1:
"In effect, the UML profile mechanism provides a way of specializing the concepts defined in the UML standard. A stereotype can be viewed as a subclass of an existing UML concept. Most domain concepts map directly into a stereotype with any additional attributes of such concepts, specified using appropriately typed tags for each attribute. However, the domain model often shows associations between domain concepts, and, since the UML extension mechanisms do not provide a convenient facility for specifying new associations in its metamodel, such domain associations have to be represented in a variety of different ways, depending on the case at hand. The following three general techniques are used to capture associations between domain elements:
1.	Some domain associations map directly to existing associations in the metamodel. For example, the association between a resource (usually a kind of class or object) and its services (usually a kind of behavioral feature) maps directly to the meta-association that exists between Classifier and BehavioralFeature in the metamodel.
2.	Some domain composition associations map to tags associated with the stereotype. For instance, the domain association between a TimedAction and TimeValue that is used to represent the "start" characteristic of the timed action is mapped into the tagged value RTstart associated with the RTaction stereotype.
3.	In few cases, a domain associations is represented by using the <<taggedValue>> relationship provided by the UML profile mechanisms. For example, a real-time clock instance may have a domain link to another real-time clock that represents its reference clock (as shown in Figure 5-9)."

Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue
Discussion: 
It’s up to the analysis tool to determine the associations, except for very specific situations, such as Realizes and a new one Usage.  We need to ensure that GRM associations between the base types can be derived from a combination of GRM associations and standard UML associations. However, It's up to the analysis tool to determine the associations, except for very specific situations, such as Realizes and a new one Usage.  We need to ensure that GRM associations between the base types can be derived from a combination of GRM associations and standard UML associations. This part of the issue has been deferred via issue 5875

End of Annotations:=====
This is issue # 5079

how are the association from the initial class model reflected in the
stere

The concepts described in the beginning of each section in terms of a
class model are later transposed in terms of stereotypes. But how are
the association from the initial class model reflected in the
stereotypes (which are, as I understand, the only normative part of
the profile)?For example, a Resource has a set of offered QoS
characteristics. How is the connection between a user <<GRMressource>>
class and its corresponding <<GRMqosCharacteristics>> made in the
user's model?The same question holds for all other associations. In
some cases the connection is obvious informally: for example in case
of a user class stereotyped with <<GRMresource>>, whose operations are
stereotyped with<<GRMresourceService>>, it is clear that the
operations represent the services of the resource represented by the
user class. But that link is not captured formally by the metamodel /
stereotype definition