Issue 7434: Figure 109, p162 (uml2-superstructure-ftf) Source: (, ) Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor Summary: Figure 109, p162: according to the metamodel presented in figure 100, I think that the dependencies shown in this diagram are inverted. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: June 7, 2004: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 07 Jun 2004 05:32:59 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Yves BERNARD Company: Silogic mailFrom: yves.bernard@silogic.fr Notification: Yes Specification: UML : superstructure Section: 9.3.4 FormalNumber: ptc/03-08-02 Version: 2.0 RevisionDate: 08/2003 Page: 162 Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0) Description Figure 109, p162: according to the metamodel presented in figure 100, I think that the dependencies shown in this diagram are inverted. From: "Thomas Weigert" To: "Branislav Selic" , , Subject: RE: Ballot 24 draft Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 23:35:54 -0500 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Comments: 6171: Delete last sentence of replacement text. It is not at all clear whether the mentioned rules are in scope of UML or not. Certainly we have declared those to be a semantic variation point in other places. I would suggest to move the text into the semantic variation point section and replace the last sentence by "Such rules constitute semantic variation points." 6988: Please make sure you use the new terminology introduced by Jim R. 7392: This would be resolved by the resolution to the Nick's event issue I sent in tonight. I would suggest to combine those. 7417: Just FYI. The text that the submitter complains about was a note that I had written to myself using the Frame conditional text feature. Somehow it ended up in the spec but was later removed, as it should have been. The resolution is correct. 7431: This resolution should be deleted. The issue references an outdated version of the spec. If the adopted resolution to issue 7122 were considered, much of the tension is gone: Constraint [2], as it is in place due to issue 7122, states that "The connectable elements attached to the ends of a connector must be compatible." Constraint [1], for a subtype of connector, states that the connectable elements must have the same or compatible interfaces. So the only conflict is that the phrasing in Components has not been updated to move the compatibility relation to the connectable elements and it still speaks of compatible interfaces. I think the bigger issue is that the constraint [1] mentions a connector between interfaces, which is nonsense. So what we should do is bring the constraint [1] in line with constraint [2] terminology, as compatibility between interfaces is not any more defined. 7434: There are two presentation options discussed under collaboration occurrence. The option quoted "point at the owning classifier" is not relevant to the problem; it refers to the situation where a collaboration represents an operation. But actually, the text of the presentation option has become so confusing due to the repeated changes to the keywords that it makes little sense. A clearer wording is required. In addition, it should be made clear which direction the arrow points. I would defer this issue, as the proposed solution does not really address the problem. 7438: The choice of word "connector" in this resolution is not good, as "Connector" is the name of a model element. 7575: Make sure that the bookmark references are correct in the final version. -----Original Message----- From: Branislav Selic [mailto:bselic@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 7:54 PM To: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org; mu2i-ftf@omg.org Subject: Ballot 24 draft Attached, please find the draft of ballot 24. There are 66 resolutions in this one -- good work! Reminder: voting on this ballot will commence on Friday at 6 pm EDT. If you have any complaints or suggestions, please submit them by tomorrow noon EDT. Regards, Bran