Issue 7865: notational standard for {subsets x} in textual contexts (uml2-superstructure-ftf) Source: Capability Measurement (Mr. Karl Frank, karl.karolus(at)gmail.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Minor Summary: The text of the UML 2 Finalized Superstructure spec randomly uses dots and doubled-colons, as separator characters, in specifying the metaattribute of a metaassociation end, {subsets <x>} It also randomly uses or does not use (a) capitalization, as in 'Subsets' and 'subsets', and (b) curly braces. These issues may seem trivial to some human readers but are of consequence wrt any attempt to programmatically navigate structured text.. Details: The dot sometimes used as a navigation path separator, as is correct for OCL, and in other contexts the UML namespace separator, the double-colon, is used. Instances of the usage of the dot are at 7.3.5 BehavioralFeature, Association, ownedParameter (which also shows random variation, in not including the curly braces that sometimes set off the subsets property in the textual spec), and of the doubled-colons, at 17.2.1 InformationFlow, Associations target:NamedElement[ ] {Subsets DirectedRelationship::target} which also shows the occasional use of the curly braces. It seems that, since subsets is a relationship between the sets of instances that can qualify for occupying an end of an association, the dot notation, which is used for instance navigation in OCL and in familiar OO programming languages, is correct. Another reason for thinking the dot is correct is that the namespace separator implies that the named association end is part of the namespace of the Classifier at the other end, and that seems to imply that the end is navigable. There are some instances in the spec where the namespace separator is used, but wrt a non-navigable end. Question: what is the "standard" notation in the context of text outside of diagrams? Proposal: Revise the notation section for Association to make it explicit that the notational standards given there apply in both diagrams and text, and revise the text for consistency. The problem may be that the notational standard does not say whether it applies to text, diagrams, or both. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: October 15, 2004: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== ubject: random notation for {subsets x} in textual contexts Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 15:13:20 -0700 X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: random notation for {subsets x} in textual contexts Thread-Index: AcSyKr+8U6qHPspNTlupuIaI/HnfxQAD7UYQ From: "Karl Frank" To: "Juergen Boldt" Cc: "Oleg Smirnov" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Oct 2004 22:13:20.0655 (UTC) FILETIME=[039B71F0:01C4B23B] Juergen, here is another UML 2 Superstructure issue that Oleg brought to my attention and that I have written up. This is mostly about how the path separator is sometimes :: and sometimes . in exactly the same context. Want to make sure it is not duplicated. bis spaeter, Karl unassigned_For_xTF.doc OMG Issue No: tbd Title: notational standard for {subsets x} in textual contexts Source: Karl Frank and Oleg Smirnov, Borland Software Severity: not very Summary: The text of the UML 2 Finalized Superstructure spec randomly uses dots and doubled-colons, as separator characters, in specifying the metaattribute of a metaassociation end, {subsets } It also randomly uses or does not use (a) capitalization, as in .Subsets. and .subsets., and (b) curly braces. These issues may seem trivial to some human readers but are of consequence wrt any attempt to programmatically navigate structured text.. Details: The dot sometimes used as a navigation path separator, as is correct for OCL, and in other contexts the UML namespace separator, the double-colon, is used. Instances of the usage of the dot are at 7.3.5 BehavioralFeature, Association, ownedParameter (which also shows random variation, in not including the curly braces that sometimes set off the subsets property in the textual spec), and of the doubled-colons, at 17.2.1 InformationFlow, Associations target:NamedElement[ ] {Subsets DirectedRelationship::target} which also shows the occasional use of the curly braces. It seems that, since subsets is a relationship between the sets of instances that can qualify for occupying an end of an association, the dot notation, which is used for instance navigation in OCL and in familiar OO programming languages, is correct. Another reason for thinking the dot is correct is that the namespace separator implies that the named association end is part of the namespace of the Classifier at the other end, and that seems to imply that the end is navigable. There are some instances in the spec where the namespace separator is used, but wrt a non-navigable end. Question: what is the .standard. notation in the context of text outside of diagrams? Proposal: Revise the notation section for Association to make it explicit that the notational standards given there apply in both diagrams and text, and revise the text for consistency. The problem may be that the notational standard does not say whether it applies to text, diagrams, or both.