Issue 6004: Relationship and DirectedRelationship in Core::Constructs (uml2-rtf) Source: Honeywell (Mr. Steve Hickman, steve.hickman(at)honeywell.com) Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor Summary: There doesn't seem to be any value in the specialization of Relationship and DirectedRelationship in Core::Constructs from their definitions in Core::Abstractions::Relationships. The documentation clearly states that the specializations don't add anything to the either concept. In fact, it appears that this can be said for everything in the Core::Constructs Root Diagram. If this is the case, why do these specializations exist? The UML spec is big enough - there is no point in adding things that don't need to be there. If the goal is to merely create a single diagram that includes concepts and relationships that were previously spread across multiple diagrams, then why not simply create the diagram and have every contained concept refer to the package where it was originally defined? If there is a compelling reason for these specializations, then that reason needs to be spelled out in the spec - because it isn't obvious to me. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: July 19, 2003: received issue February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure August 23, 2006: closed issue Discussion: See the resolutions to issue 6002 and 6003. Disposition: Closed, no change End of Annotations:===== From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 19 Jul 2003 10:53:28 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Steve Hickman Company: self mailFrom: shickman@ieee.org Notification: Yes Specification: UML 2.0 Infrastructure Section: 5 Core Constructs FormalNumber: ad/03-03-01 Version: Third Revision RevisionDate: 03-01-03 Page: 87 Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.0; T312461; Guidant IE5 09302001 Win2000 Distribution; .NET CLR 1.0.3705) Description There doesn't seem to be any value in the specialization of Relationship and DirectedRelationship in Core::Constructs from their definitions in Core::Abstractions::Relationships. The documentation clearly states that the specializations don't add anything to the either concept. In fact, it appears that this can be said for everything in the Core::Constructs Root Diagram. If this is the case, why do these specializations exist? The UML spec is big enough - there is no point in adding things that don't need to be there. If the goal is to merely create a single diagram that includes concepts and relationships that were previously spread across multiple diagrams, then why not simply create the diagram and have every contained concept refer to the package where it was originally defined? If there is a compelling reason for these specializations, then that reason needs to be spelled out in the spec - because it isn't obvious to me.