Issue 6516: Dependency notation for interfaces - UML2 Superstructure (uml2-superstructure-ftf) Source: Daimler AG (Mr. Mario Jeckle, mario(at)jeckle.de) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Comparing figure 1-63 (Superstructure document page 92) with the text placed above describing it and the presentation guidelines for interface relationships (i.e. the relationships connecting an interface with its requiring and/or providing classes) it seems that the dashed lines announced in the text are gone in the figure. Reading the text the arrow pointing from TheftAlarm to ISensor should be realized as a dependency relationship and also the arrow pointing from ProximitySensor to ISensor. The latter is currently realized as a generalization arrow which is solely a valid presentation option for relationships connecting a Component and their Interface. According to the spec the arrow should be a dependency relationship that is stereotyped with realizes having ProximitySensor as client and Isensor as supplier. Or am I just misreading the spec? Any help and clarification appreciated Resolution: Resolved by the resolution to issue 6069 Revised Text: Actions taken: November 7, 2003: received issue December 2, 2004: closed issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== -Return: cris.kobryn@telelogic.com Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 07:22:31 -0000 From: "Cris Kobryn" To: juergen@omg.org, issues@omg.org, cris.kobryn@telelogic.com Subject: Fwd: Dependency notation for interfaces - UML2 Superstructure 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 Comparing figure 1-63 (Superstructure document page 92) with the text placed above describing it and the presentation guidelines for interface relationships (i.e. the relationships connecting an interface with its requiring and/or providing classes) it seems that the dashed lines announced in the text are gone in the figure. Reading the text the arrow pointing from TheftAlarm to ISensor should be realized as a dependency relationship and also the arrow pointing from ProximitySensor to ISensor. The latter is currently realized as a generalization arrow which is solely a valid presentation option for relationships connecting a Component and their Interface. According to the spec the arrow should be a dependency relationship that is stereotyped with realizes having ProximitySensor as client and Isensor as supplier. Or am I just misreading the spec? Any help and clarification appreciated 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/KNFw46tt20EwGqwRAvaOAKDbeByJu3KyZNNi0BS1XUiB9PmKTwCfRDzK gapSW4mG15PRw64kp6yjn/A= =Mvw3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- OMG Issue No: 6516 Title: Dependency notation for interfaces - UML2 Superstructure Source: DaimlerChrysler (Mr. Mario Jeckle, mario@jeckle.de) Summary: Comparing figure 1-63 (Superstructure document page 92) with the text placed above describing it and the presentation guidelines for interface relationships (i.e. the relationships connecting an interface with its requiring and/or providing classes) it seems that the dashed lines announced in the text are gone in the figure. Reading the text the arrow pointing from TheftAlarm to ISensor should Be realized as a dependency relationship and also the arrow pointing from ProximitySensor to ISensor. The latter is currently realized as a generalization arrow which is solely a valid presentation option for relationships connecting a Component and their Interface. According to the spec the arrow should be a dependency relationship that is stereotyped with realizes having ProximitySensor as client and Isensor as supplier. Or am I just misreading the spec? Any help and clarification appreciated Discussion: Resolved by the resolution to issue 6069 Disposition: Duplicate --- End forwarded message ---