Issue 6167: No notation defined for suppressing attributes or operations (uml2-superstructure-ftf)
Source: CA Technologies (Mr. Andrew John Haigh, andrew.haigh(at)ca.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary: There is a mention that attributes and operations may be supressed for clarity, but no mention as to how. In UML 1.4 this was shown by including '...' in the compartment, to indicate that there was more information. Is this still viable?


Resolution: see above
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
September 2, 2003: received issue
March 8, 2005: closed issue
Discussion: 
The ellipses notation for suppression has a long-standing tradition in the UML notation
and should not be eliminated. However, there are numerous tools and textbooks that have
not supported this convention, so the best solution is to make it a presentation option.
Superstructure resolution:
?? In the PresentationsOption section of the Feature metaclass on page 73, add the
following text at the end:
An ellipsis (…) as the final element of a list of features indicates that additional features exist but are
not shown in that list.
Infrastructure resolution:
The Infrastructure does not have a defined notation for Feature. This may be an issue
with the Infrastructure, but tha t should be raised as a separate Infrastructure issue
End of Annotations:=====
MG Issue No: 6167
Title:	No notation defined for suppressing attributes or operations
Source:
Computer Associates (Mr. Andrew John Haigh, andrew.haigh@ca.com)
Summary:
There is a mention that attributes and operations may be suppressed for clarity, but no mention as to how. In UML 1.4 this was shown by including '...' in the compartment, to indicate that there was more information. Is this still viable?
Discussion:
No change.
Answer: Yes, this is still viable.  Where no standard notation is suggested for UML 2, vendors are free to continue to use the three-dot ellipsis notation of UML 1.  The use of scroll-bars on compartments is, for computer implementations, a widely standardized widget with the meaning that there are hidden items for the owning window, with clear functional advantages over the three dots.  To preclude the use of such alternatives in UML 2 by making the three dots mandatory would be counterproductive.
Disposition:	Pending



OMG Issue No: 6167
Title:	No notation defined for suppressing attributes or operations
Source:
Computer Associates (Mr. Andrew John Haigh, andrew.haigh@ca.com)
Summary:
There is a mention that attributes and operations may be suppressed for clarity, but no mention as to how. In UML 1.4 this was shown by including '...' in the compartment, to indicate that there was more information. Is this still viable?
Discussion:
No change.
Answer: Yes, this is still viable.  Where no standard notation is suggested for UML 2, vendors are free to continue to use the three-dot ellipsis notation of UML 1.  The use of scroll-bars on compartments is, for computer implementations, a widely standardized widget with the meaning that there are hidden items for the owning window, with clear functional advantages over the three dots.  To preclude the use of such alternatives in UML 2 by making the three dots mandatory would be counterproductive.
Disposition:	Pending