Issue 8132: Section: 10.3.1 (uml2-rtf) Source: (, ) Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor Summary: Figure 124 does not show what the Generalizations "Classifier (from Kernel, Dependencies, PowerTypes)" indicates, or the association ownedProperty:Property, or the multiplicity listed for attribute filename:String[0..1] Resolution: see above Revised Text: On page 207, section 10.3.1, in the Associations subsection, replace the text “ownedProperty : Property [*]” with “ownedAttribute : Property [*]”. In Figure 124, section 10.2, page 205, replace the attribute text “fileName:String” of the Attribute class to “fileName:String[0..1]”. In Section 10.3.1, page 207, Attributes subsection, change “filename” to “fileName” Actions taken: January 25, 2005: received issue August 23, 2006: closed issue Discussion: [21 Apr 2005] Figure 124 does correctly show the subject Generalization, but the labeling is not exactly as given in the text on page 207. This is likely due to Rose’s limitation of showing only one package name for a class, as is done in Figure 124 for Classifier shown as “(from Dependencies)”. I don’t see an easy way to fix the figure to match the text, so I suggest no change be made. The text on page 207 is very explicit about which Classifier is meant – the one on page 50. The complaint about ownedProperty:Property refers to the absensce of ownedProperty as an association end name in Figure 124. In fact, the end named “ownedAttribute” should be changed to “ownedProperty” to match the text. Section 6.5.2 requires attribute multiplicity to be shown if it is not the default [0..*]. Consequently, the missing [0..1] multiplicity on the “filename:String” attribute of Artifact should be added to Figure 124. Also, for editorial consistency, the “filename” in the Attributes subsection on page 207 should be correctly render as “fileName”. [22 Apr 2005] Conrad Bock suggests: “Since the name "ownedAttribute" is used in classes as well as datatypes already, it seems like we should leave it that way in deployments. No need to incur a backwards incompatibility with 2.0.” Seems like a good suggestion. The Revised Text section changed to preserve the ownedAttribute name rather than the ownedProperty name. End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 25 Jan 2005 15:32:18 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Jane Messenger Company: U. S. Geological Survey mailFrom: jmessenger@usgs.gov Notification: Yes Specification: Superstructure Section: 10.3.1 FormalNumber: ptc/04-10-02 Version: 2.0 Draft Adopted RevisionDate: 10/08/2004 Page: 205 & 207 Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; Q312461) Description Figure 124 does not show what the Generalizations "Classifier (from Kernel, Dependencies, PowerTypes)" indicates, or the association ownedProperty:Property, or the multiplicity listed for attribute filename:String[0..1] Reply-To: From: "Conrad Bock" To: "Tolbert, Doug M" , "Branislav Selic" Cc: Subject: RE: Deployment issues for Ballot 2 Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 09:56:31 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Hi Doug, One comment on the deployment resolutions. Conrad - Issue 8132: Section: 10.3.1 Since the name "ownedAttribute" is used in classes as well as datatypes already, it seems like we should leave it that way in Subject: RE: Deployment issues for Ballot 2 Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 10:06:09 -0700 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Deployment issues for Ballot 2 Thread-Index: AcVHQ1d85sfvHGUCRlyh1jiv3CblOAAGiQig From: "Tolbert, Doug M" To: , "Branislav Selic" Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Apr 2005 17:07:08.0080 (UTC) FILETIME=[B72F7B00:01C5475D] X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id j3MHB4hh005060 Conrad, Not a problem for me, and I think, a pretty easy fix to the resolution. I'll have a look and resubmit. Doug THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its attachments from all computers. -----Original Message----- From: Conrad Bock [mailto:conrad.bock@nist.gov] Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 6:57 AM To: Tolbert, Doug M; Branislav Selic Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Deployment issues for Ballot 2 Hi Doug, One comment on the deployment resolutions. Conrad - Issue 8132: Section: 10.3.1 Since the name "ownedAttribute" is used in classes as well as datatypes already, it seems like we should leave it that way in deployments. No need to incur a backwards incompatibility with 2.0. Subject: RE: Deployment issues for Ballot 2 Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 13:33:37 -0700 X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Deployment issues for Ballot 2 Thread-Index: AcVGvIqee1aVjMPSQGeHXQa0PUZaZAAvcZ3g From: "Tolbert, Doug M" To: "Branislav Selic" Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Apr 2005 20:34:19.0184 (UTC) FILETIME=[A8B36B00:01C5477A] Bran This update to the Deployment issues sent yesterday contains changes to 8132 in reaction to Conrad's comment. The other two issues are unchanged. Doug THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its attachments from all computers. -----Original Message----- From: Tolbert, Doug M Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 2:53 PM To: 'Branislav Selic' Cc: 'uml2-rtf@omg.org' Subject: Deployment issues for Ballot 2 Bran, Attached are 3 of the easy ones from Deployment for consideration for Ballot 2. You decide whether they go in. Pete, Sebastian, Guus: I know you guys haven't seen these proposals yet. I've sent them straight to Bran in case he wants to use them to feed Ballot 2 on Friday. Please feel free to holler if you have problems with anything herein. Doug THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its attachments from all computers.