Issue 6509: Large diamond for binary associations legal? - UML2 Superstructure issue (uml2-superstructure-ftf) Source: Daimler AG (Mr. Mario Jeckle, mario(at)jeckle.de) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Reviewing the current Superstructure spec I noticed that it allows the usage of the large diamond in the middle of an association also for binary associations which significantly changes to notation compared to UML 1.x By doing so UML class diagrams become Entity-Relationship flavoured but do not have the semantics of those notation (identity, multiplicities, etc.) and also the notation is still different (multiplicity, association name, etc.). Is it really intended to allow the usage of the large diamond also for binary associations? Personally, I'm quite reluctant accepting these change ... Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: November 7, 2003: received issue March 9, 2005: closed issue Discussion: Section 7.11.2 Association does indeed permit the use of the diamond for binary associations. It also states in the Notation section: A binary association is normally drawn as a solid line connecting two classifiers… The person reporting this issue is free to continue with his preferred notation usage, which is also recognized as not only OK, but “normal”. Disposition: Closed, no change End of Annotations:===== -Return: cris.kobryn@telelogic.com Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 07:18:01 -0000 From: "Cris Kobryn" To: juergen@omg.org, issues@omg.org, cris.kobryn@telelogic.com Subject: Fwd: Large diamond for binary associations legal? - UML2 Superstructure 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 Reviewing the current Superstructure spec I noticed that it allows the usage of the large diamond in the middle of an association also for binary associations which significantly changes to notation compared to UML 1.x By doing so UML class diagrams become Entity-Relationship flavoured but do not have the semantics of those notation (identity, multiplicities, etc.) and also the notation is still different (multiplicity, association name, etc.). Is it really intended to allow the usage of the large diamond also for binary associations? Personally, I'm quite reluctant accepting these change ... 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/DmcO46tt20EwGqwRAgA1AJ9C/Naa4Hvi52NK9/o6GfQx1EU8ZACaAm73 eAiol8IE5kamQC0RP45QLdM= =MWqz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Issue 6509: Large diamond for binary associations legal? - UML2 Superstructure issue (uml2-superstructure-ftf) Source: DaimlerChrysler (Mr. Mario Jeckle, mario@jeckle.de) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Reviewing the current Superstructure spec I noticed that it allows the usage of the large diamond in the middle of an association also for binary associations which significantly changes to notation compared to UML 1.x By doing so UML class diagrams become Entity-Relationship flavoured but do not have the semantics of those notation (identity, multiplicities, etc.) and also the notation is still different (multiplicity, association name, etc.). Is it really intended to allow the usage of the large diamond also for binary associations? Personally, I'm quite reluctant accepting these change ... Discussion: Section 7.11.2 Association does indeed permit the use of the diamond for binary associations. It also states in the Notation section: A binary association is normally drawn as a solid line connecting two classifiers. The person reporting this issue is free to continue with his preferred notation usage, which is also recognized as not only OK, but .normal.. Resolution: Closed, no change Revised Text: N/A Actions taken: November 7, 2003: received issue Issue 6509: Large diamond for binary associations legal? Source: DaimlerChrysler (Mr. Mario Jeckle, mario@jeckle.de) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Reviewing the current Superstructure spec I noticed that it allows the usage of the large diamond in the middle of an association also for binary associations which significantly changes to notation compared to UML 1.x By doing so UML class diagrams become Entity-Relationship flavoured but do not have the semantics of those notation (identity, multiplicities, etc.) and also the notation is still different (multiplicity, association name, etc.). Is it really intended to allow the usage of the large diamond also for binary associations? Personally, I'm quite reluctant accepting these change ... Discussion: Section 7.11.2 Association does indeed permit the use of the diamond for binary associations. It also states in the Notation section: A binary association is normally drawn as a solid line connecting two classifiers. The person reporting this issue is free to continue with his preferred notation usage, which is also recognized as not only OK, but .normal.. Resolution: Closed, no change Revised Text: N/A Actions taken: November 7, 2003: received issue --- End forwarded message ---