Issue 6175: 7.15.3 Interface (uml2-superstructure-ftf)
Source: SSA (Mr. Arthur Culbertson, nobody)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary: Presentation Option

In Figure 62 the relationship between TheftAlarm and ISensor should be a dependency relationship (dashed arrow) with the <<use>> stereotype rather than a unidirectional association. The relationship between ProximitySensor and ISensor should be an implementation relationship (probably same as realization consisting of dashed arrow with open arrowhead) rather than a generalization relationship (Table 5).

Figure 63 shows attribute visibility notation for non-navigable association ends. The second from last sentence in section 7.11.2 Association under the Notation part indicates that attribute notation can only be applied to a navigable association end name.

Resolution: 
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
September 3, 2003: received issue
March 9, 2005: closed issue
Discussion: 
Wirh respect to Figure 62, this Duplicates Issues 6069
With respect to Figure 63, this is a misunderstanding. The diagram shows visibility
adornments on association ends and on operation features. This is a valid use of this
notation; in fact, the referenced statement in section 7.11.2 actually states that it is legal
to use the attribute notation (including visibility adornments) on association end names.
Disposition: Closed, no change
End of Annotations:=====
From: "Culbertson, Arthur" <Arthur.Culbertson@ssa.gov> 
To: "'issues@omg.org'" <issues@omg.org>, 
   "'uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org'" <uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org> 
Subject: UML 2.0 Superstructure Issues (Part I -Structure) 
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 10:43:47 -0400 
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2654.52) 


Dear Sirs:

 

The following are some potential issues that I have found while reviewing Part I - Structure portion of the UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification (document pct/03-08-02) dated August 2003. As some of these issues could impact performance on the UML certification exams, I would appreciate feedback as soon as possible.

 

Thanks, 

Art Culbertson





8)      7.15.3 Interface

Presentation Option

In Figure 62 the relationship between TheftAlarm and ISensor should be a dependency relationship (dashed arrow) with the <<use>> stereotype rather than a unidirectional association. The relationship between ProximitySensor and ISensor should be an implementation relationship (probably same as realization consisting of dashed arrow with open arrowhead) rather than a generalization relationship (Table 5).

Figure 63 shows attribute visibility notation for non-navigable association ends. The second from last sentence in section 7.11.2 Association under the Notation part indicates that attribute notation can only be applied to a navigable association end name.