Issue 6519: Activity nodes and Stereotypes - UML2 Superstructure issue (uml2-superstructure-ftf)
Source: Pivot Point (Mr. Cris Kobryn, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary: The new Profiles package and the respective Stereotypes still seem 
very
"class-oriented" when it comes to notation (maybee my fault?). 
Specifically,
I have the following doubt:


If I want to define a Stereotype for an activity node, e.g. a 
ForkNode, is
the notation in the attached file correct?

Resolution: 
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
November 7, 2003: received issue
March 9, 2005: closed issue
Discussion: 
The file that was supposed to be attached to the issue is missing. After having asked a
couple of time for it, no one could find it again. The issue cannot be understood/treated
without further information.
Disposition: Closed, no change
End of Annotations:=====
-Return: cris.kobryn@telelogic.com 
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 07:25:57 -0000 
From: "Cris Kobryn" <cris.kobryn@telelogic.com> 
To: juergen@omg.org, issues@omg.org, cris.kobryn@telelogic.com 
Subject: Fwd:  Activity nodes and Stereotypes - 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, "Joao Paulo Barros" <jpb@u...> 
wrote:



The new Profiles package and the respective Stereotypes still seem 
very
"class-oriented" when it comes to notation (maybee my fault?). 
Specifically,
I have the following doubt:


If I want to define a Stereotype for an activity node, e.g. a 
ForkNode, is
the notation in the attached file correct?



Thanks a lot in advance


Joao Paulo Barros
--- End forwarded message ---