Issue 6670: UML2 Super/Connector End (uml2-superstructure-ftf)
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary: p 165, partWithPort: Property [ 0..1 ] Indicates the role of the internal
structure of a classifier with the port to which the connector
end is attached.


Is there any significance to the fact that the term role is used, or is part
meant here? There seems to be no constraint that makes it explicit that
partWithPort must associate to a part (i.e. a property with
isComposite=true.)
Resolution: 
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
December 4, 2003: received issue
March 9, 2005: closed issue
Discussion: 
There is no such constraint. For an example, see the related resolution to issue 6668.
Disposition: Closed, no change
End of Annotations:=====

m: "Moore, Alan" <AlanM@artisansw.com> 
To: issues@omg.org 
Subject: UML2 Super/Connector End 
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 12:00:47 -0000 
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) 


p 165, partWithPort: Property [ 0..1 ] Indicates the role of the internal
structure of a classifier with the port to which the connector
end is attached.


Is there any significance to the fact that the term role is used, or is part
meant here? There seems to be no constraint that makes it explicit that
partWithPort must associate to a part (i.e. a property with
isComposite=true.) 


OMG Issue No: 6670 
Title:		UML2 Super/Connector End
Source:
ARTISAN Software Tools (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore@artisansw.com)
Summary:
p 165, partWithPort: Property [ 0..1 ] Indicates the role of the internal structure of a classifier with the port to which the connector end is attached.

Is there any significance to the fact that the term role is used, or is part meant here? There seems to be no constraint that makes it explicit that  partWithPort must associate to a part (i.e. a property with isComposite=true.)
Discussion:
There is no such constraint. For an example, see the related resolution to issue 6668.
Disposition:	Resolved


From: "Thomas Weigert" <thomas.weigert@motorola.com> 
To: "Thomas Weigert" <thomas.weigert@motorola.com>, 
   "Branislav Selic" <bselic@ca.ibm.com>, <uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org> 
Subject: RE: Updated ballot 12 -- incorrect disposition of 6670 
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 17:05:13 -0500 
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) 
Importance: Normal 


And one more: 6670 should read "Closed, no change". I made a mistake when submitting the resolution. Th.
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Weigert [mailto:thomas.weigert@motorola.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 5:03 PM
To: Branislav Selic; uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org
Cc: mu2i-ftf@omg.org; ocl2-ftf@omg.org
Subject: RE: Updated ballot 12 -- incorrect disposition of 6669


So sorry for just noticing this now, but the disposition for issue 6669 should be "Closed, no change", rather than "Resolved". This is the disposition I submitted when submitting the resolution.
 
Th.
-----Original Message-----
From: Branislav Selic [mailto:bselic@ca.ibm.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 4:23 PM
To: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org
Cc: mu2i-ftf@omg.org; ocl2-ftf@omg.org
Subject: Updated ballot 12



Due to a miscommunication between Eran and myself, I incorrectly included two issue resolutions in ballot 12 that were already approved in ballot 11. These are the resolutions to issues 6237 and 6397. Therefore, they have been removed from the ballot. The newer version of the ballot is appended below. 

Apologies for the confusion, 

Bran