Issue 8081: Section: 13.1.2 (uml2-rtf) Source: (, ) Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor Summary: Additional option [1] says that the query lowerBound () returns the lower bound of the multiplicity as an Integer. Why is the type Interger used instead of the type UnlimitedNatural? An integer can be a negative number but not so with naturals. My understanding is that multipliticity is not allowed to be less than 0. Resolution: see above Revised Text: Superstructure (ptc/04-10-02): On page 720 in the “lowerBound()” additional operation ([1]) of ExtensionEnd (section 18.3.3) replace the first line of the OCL: ExtensionEnd::lowerBound() : [Integer]; with the line: ExtensionEnd::lowerBound() : Integer; Infrastructure (ptc/04-11-16): On page 172 in the “lowerBound()” additional operation ([1]) of ExtensionEnd (section 13.1.3) replace the first line of the OCL: ExtensionEnd::lowerBound() : [Integer]; with the line: ExtensionEnd::lowerBound() : Integer; Actions taken: January 10, 2005: received issue August 23, 2006: closed issue Discussion: The submitter is losing sight of the fact that lowerBound is always constrained to be a non-negative number by constraint [2] of MultiplicityElement (see page 77 in ptc/04-11-16). However, there is an error here in the definition of this operation that has an extra set of square brackets. See also the resolution to issue 6502. End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 10 Jan 2005 10:17:26 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Jane Messenger Company: U. S. Geological Survey mailFrom: jmessenger@usgs.gov Notification: Yes Specification: Infrastructure Section: 13.1.2 FormalNumber: ptc/03-09-15 Version: 2.0 RevisionDate: 12/01/2003 Page: 169 Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; Q312461) Description Additional option [1] says that the query lowerBound () returns the lower bound of the multiplicity as an Integer. Why is the type Interger used instead of the type UnlimitedNatural? An integer can be a negative number but not so with naturals. My understanding is that multipliticity is not allowed to be less than 0. Reply-To: Joaquin Miller X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.1.2 Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 11:15:55 -0700 To: UML-RTF From: Joaquin Miller Subject: Ballot 1 draft Please review the proposed ballot 1 resolutions. I sent out a batch yesterday and others will, presumably, send some out later today and tomorrow. If you have any problems with any of the resolutions, this is the time to raise them, not when the ballot has been issued and the vote started. Issue 6275 This would have been clearer had there been an explicit {redefines raisedException} constraint on Operations::raisedException, so let's add that. Or, let's make explicit the reasonable policy that we have limited resources, so we will fix actual errors but not work to improve usability. Issue 6616 The isLeaf feature seems unnecessary, since it is easy to determine if something is a leaf classifier simply by checking whether it is included in the .generalization. meta-attribute of any classifier. In contrast, the .isRoot. property, on the other hand is necessary since it defines a constraint that defines that a classifier must not have any further generalizations. Or is it our intention that UML 2 does not have the capability to specify that the authors of a model intend that users are not to generalize from certain classifiers? Or, perhaps, is it explicit or implicit or assumed in the UML 2 specification that users can't or won't generalize existing classifiers, but that they can and will specialize existing classifiers? Issue 8075 Our audience includes readers of paper documents. If this happens only in a few places, let's correct this usability problem. If it is our policy to cater only to readers using Acrobat or Acrobat Reader, well... Maybe it is too late to change that policy. Issue 8082 Does the proposed resolution describe a best practice? Wouldn't the spec shine even more brightly if it stuck to a single style, even in examples? This is a pedagogical question, and very much worth our time to consider. Issues 8081, 8085, and 6502 I don't want to make work, but do have a question: Is there a positive reason to use integer instead of unlimited natural in the specification of lower bound, and then backpedal with a constraint? (I bet there is a positive reason not to use unlimited natural, and a good one; but then let's mention that reason in the resolution. If we had more resources, i'd urge adding natural to our armamentarium. ) Cordially, Joaquin www.joaquin.net