Issue 6507: Binary associations decorated with large diamonds legal? (uml2-superstructure-ftf) Source: Daimler AG (Mr. Mario Jeckle, mario(at)jeckle.de) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: The current Superstructure document states that "Any association may be drawn as a diamond ...". This changes the behavior present in UML 1.x significantly which only allowed the diamond for n-ary (n>2) associations. As a consequence of this change a UML diagram may look more like an Entity-Relationship model with some changes (placement of the association's name, multiplicity notation, and all the semantics) than a upward compatible UML digram. Is this intended? I tend to retain UML's former behavor to allow the large diamond only for n-ary associations. Any ideas or am I just misreading the spec? Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: November 7, 2003: received issue March 9, 2005: closed issue Discussion: This issue reports the situation accurately. The answer is that it is intended to permit the use of the diamond. Use of the word “may” is the sign that is not required that one use the diamond. The user is free to retain the former notation which he evidently prefers. Disposition: Closed, no change End of Annotations:===== -Return: cris.kobryn@telelogic.com Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 07:16:02 -0000 From: "Cris Kobryn" To: juergen@omg.org, issues@omg.org, cris.kobryn@telelogic.com Subject: Fwd: Binary associations decorated with large diamonds legal? - UML2 issue User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 68.71.8.84 --- In u2p-issues@yahoogroups.com, Mario Jeckle wrote: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi group, The current Superstructure document states that "Any association may be drawn as a diamond ...". This changes the behavior present in UML 1.x significantly which only allowed the diamond for n-ary (n>2) associations. As a consequence of this change a UML diagram may look more like an Entity-Relationship model with some changes (placement of the association's name, multiplicity notation, and all the semantics) than a upward compatible UML digram. Is this intended? I tend to retain UML's former behavor to allow the large diamond only for n-ary associations. Any ideas or am I just misreading the spec? Mario - -- Prof. Mario Jeckle University of Applied Sciences Furtwangen Dept. Business Applications of Computer Science W3C Representative of DaimlerChrysler Research and Technology OMG Representative of DaimlerChrysler URL: http://www.jeckle.de MailTo:mario@j... MailTo:jeckle@f... My public key: http://www.jeckle.de/marioJeckle.pub [mail really from me _always_ has this signature and is signed digitally - -- mail without it is forged spam] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE/DmT/46tt20EwGqwRAgEJAJ4xwti7A4N0sSRIDnG+G73WPIcmWgCffvZJ Bh3Iq0fzajL5BLgeKizmm3g= =5ZKR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Issue 6507: Binary associations decorated with large diamonds legal? (uml2-superstructure-ftf) Source: DaimlerChrysler (Mr. Mario Jeckle, mario@jeckle.de) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: The current Superstructure document states that "Any association may Be drawn as a diamond ...". This changes the behavior present in UML 1.x significantly which only allowed the diamond for n-ary (n>2) associations. As a consequence of this change a UML diagram may look more like an Entity-Relationship model with some changes (placement of the association's name, multiplicity notation, and all the semantics) than a upward compatible UML digram. Is this intended? I tend to retain UML's former behavor to allow the large diamond only for n-ary associations. Any ideas or am I just misreading the spec? Discussion: This issue reports the situation accurately. The answer is that it is intended to permit the use of the diamond. Use of the word .may. is the sign that is not required that one use the diamond. The user is free to retain the former notation which he evidently prefers. Resolution: Closed, no change. Revised Text: N/A Actions taken: Issue 6507: Binary associations decorated with large diamonds legal? Source: DaimlerChrysler (Mr. Mario Jeckle, mario@jeckle.de) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: The current Superstructure document states that "Any association may Be drawn as a diamond ...". This changes the behavior present in UML 1.x significantly which only allowed the diamond for n-ary (n>2) associations. As a consequence of this change a UML diagram may look more like an Entity-Relationship model with some changes (placement of the association's name, multiplicity notation, and all the semantics) than a upward compatible UML digram. Is this intended? I tend to retain UML's former behavor to allow the large diamond only for n-ary associations. Any ideas or am I just misreading the spec? Discussion: The issue reports the situation accurately; it is legal to decorate binary associations with large diamonds. It is intended to permit the use of the diamond for those who wish to emphasize that an association is an association, whether it associates 2, 3, 4, or any number of ends. Use of the word .may. is the sign that is not required that one use the diamond. The user is free to retain the former notation which he evidently prefers. Resolution: Closed, no change. Revised Text: N/A Actions taken: November 7, 2003: received issue November 7, 2003: received issue --- End forwarded message ---