Issue 5080: The limits of the use of stereotypes are sometimes ambiguous (uml-scheduling-ftf)
Source: International Business Machines (Mr. Morgan Bjorkander, nobody)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary: The limits of the use of stereotypes are sometimes ambiguous. For example, in Fig. 28 there is a composition drawn between two stereotypes. This is not supported in UML (stereotypes are not classifiers). Inheritance between stereotypes imposes constraints on the set of metaclasses on which the stereotypes are defined. For example, how is it possible for GRMaccessControlPolicy to be defined for ActivityGraphs, while its ancestor GRMqosCharacteristic is not valid on ActivityGraphs

Resolution: closed, no change
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
September 24, 2004: closed issue
Discussion: 
This is an issue that was raised against the initial submission and not against the revised submission. The particular problems reported in this issue were resolved in the final submission and the issue should have been closed even before the FTF. Most abstract stereotypes, such as "GRMqosCharacteristic" were removed from the proposal. Also, in all cases where one stereotype is defined as a subclass of another stereotype, there is consistency in terms of their base classes in the sense that the specialized stereotype applies to only a subset of the base classes of the parent class.
End of Annotations:=====
This is issue # 5080

The limits of the use of stereotypes are sometimes ambiguous

The limits of the use of stereotypes are sometimes ambiguous. For
example, in Fig. 28 there is a composition drawn between two
stereotypes. This is not supported in UML (stereotypes are not
classifiers). Inheritance between stereotypes imposes constraints on
the set of metaclasses on which the stereotypes are defined. For
example, how is it possible for GRMaccessControlPolicy to be defined
for ActivityGraphs, while its ancestor GRMqosCharacteristic is not
valid on ActivityGraphs