Issue 7780: UML2 Superstructure - profiles (uml2-superstructure-ftf) Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: From the current spec I really can't work out what to implement. For what it's worth, this is what I think should be there: Properties can be typed either by MOF primitive types (the ones used in the UML metamodel, such as string, boolean and enumeration and subtypes), or by UML metaclasses. This is not only consistent wth UML 1.x, it also is likely to be the most easily implemented - vendors already need to provide a UI for editing boolean properties etc. and editing properties typed by metaclasses is easy - just use a list control to reference existing model elements. The spec seems to state that properties can typed by arbitrary model elements.("However, it is possible to have associations between ordinary classes, and from stereotypes to ordinary classes") How is a tool supposed to know what to do with it - it looks like the current spec allows a stereotype property to be typed by something like an Actor, not the actor metaclass, but some specific actor - what use is that? The more I read about this the more I'm convinced that we will never get interoperability, unless we tighten the rules as I suggested above. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: September 23, 2004: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: "Moore, Alan" To: "'issues@omg.org'" Subject: UML2 Superstructure - profiles Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:16:21 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) >From the current spec I really can't work out what to implement. For what it's worth, this is what I think should be there: Properties can be typed either by MOF primitive types (the ones used in the UML metamodel, such as string, boolean and enumeration and subtypes), or by UML metaclasses. This is not only consistent wth UML 1.x, it also is likely to be the most easily implemented - vendors already need to provide a UI for editing boolean properties etc. and editing properties typed by metaclasses is easy - just use a list control to reference existing model elements. The spec seems to state that properties can typed by arbitrary model elements.("However, it is possible to have associations between ordinary classes, and from stereotypes to ordinary classes") How is a tool supposed to know what to do with it - it looks like the current spec allows a stereotype property to be typed by something like an Actor, not the actor metaclass, but some specific actor - what use is that? The more I read about this the more I'm convinced that we will never get interoperability, unless we tighten the rules as I suggested above.