Issue 6255: UML2 Super / Classes/ Incorrect reference to "access" (uml2-superstructure-ftf) Source: Simula Research Laboratory (Mr. Bran Selic, selic(at)acm.org) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: There are several places in the draft spec that refer to an "access" relationship when it should refer to a "uses" relationship instead. The access relationship according to the appendix is obsolete. The the incorrect reference I have found are on page 39, page 32. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: September 17, 2003: received issue March 9, 2005: closed issue Discussion: The meaning of the <<access>> stereotype has changed between UML 1.x and UML 2.0. The usages of <<access>> on page 32 and 39 are consistent with the UML 2.0 definition of <<access>> and should remain as is. The semantic discontinuity between UML 1.x and UML 2.0 in the meaning of the <<access>> stereotype was the subject of substantial discussion within the FTF team, and the UML 2.0 meaning has been purposefully retained. The reference to “the appendix” refers to Table 28 in appendix B.3 on page 597 of the UML2 Superstructure FAS (ptc/03-09-15). This table notes that the UML 1.x meaning of <<access>> is obsolete but says nothing about the UML 2.0 meaning of <<access>>. Given the structure of Table 28, there does not seem to be an easily understandable way of being more explicit about this without a complete restructuring of table; this does not seems warranted. Disposition: Closed, no change End of Annotations:===== ubject: UML2 Super / Classes/ Incorrect reference to "access" X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.2CF1 June 9, 2003 From: Branislav Selic Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 07:57:52 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML05/25/M/IBM(Release 6.0.2CF1|June 9, 2003) at 09/17/2003 07:57:55, Serialize complete at 09/17/2003 07:57:55 There are several places in the draft spec that refer to an "access" relationship when it should refer to a "uses" relationship instead. The access relationship according to the appendix is obsolete. The the incorrect reference I have found are on page 39, page 32. Bran Selic IBM Software Group -- Rational Software 770 Palladium Drive Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2V 1C8 ph. (613) 591-7915 fax (613) 599-3912 OMG Issue No: 6255 Title: UML2 Super / Classes/ Incorrect reference to "access" Source: International Business Machines (Mr. Bran Selic, bselic@ca.ibm.com) Summary: There are several places in the draft spec that refer to an "access" relationship when it should refer to a "uses" relationship instead. The access relationship according to the appendix is obsolete. The the incorrect reference I have found are on page 39, page 32. Discussion: The meaning of the <> stereotype has changed between UML 1.x and UML 2.0. The usages of <> on page 32 and 39 are consistent with the UML 2.0 definition of <> and should remain as is. The semantic discontinuity between UML 1.x and UML 2.0 in the meaning of the <> stereotype was the subject of substantial discussion within the FTF team, and the UML 2.0 meaning has been purposefully retained. The reference to .the appendix. refers to Table 28 in appendix B.3 on page 597 of the UML2 Superstructure FAS (ptc/03-09-15). This table notes that the UML 1.x meaning of <> is obsolete but says nothing about the UML 2.0 meaning of <>. Given the structure of Table 28, there does not seem to be an easily understandable way of being more explicit about this without a complete restructuring of table; this does not seems warranted. Disposition: Closed, no change e-mail: bselic@ca.ibm.com