Issue 8307: Section: 13.3.12 (uml2-rtf) Source: (, ) Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor Summary: To be consistent, add the multiplicity for duration:Duration[1] to figure 318. Also, fig. 318 indicates that the association redefines value. Please indicate this in the text. I am not familiar with BFN but should "<urationobservation>" be "<durationObservation>"? Resolution: see above Revised Text: In the specification of duration, add “(Specializes ValueSpecification::value.)” Editor’s note: change not inserted; superseded by 8894 Actions taken: February 22, 2005: received issue August 23, 2006: closed issue Discussion: The first sentence in the issue description is a duplicate. -- BranSelic - 20 May 2005 the illegible part of the text said: I am not familiar with BFN but should "" be ""? (it was accidentally corrupted due to the OMG database software quirk which removes text between angular brackets). I don't think that this correction is necessary. also, changed dot notation to double-colon notation End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 22 Feb 2005 14:10:09 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Jane Messenger Company: U. S. Geological Survey mailFrom: jmessenger@usgs.gov Notification: Yes Specification: Superstructure Section: 13.3.12 FormalNumber: ptc/04-10-02 Version: 2.0 Draft Adopted RevisionDate: 10/08/2004 Page: 477-478 Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; Q312461) Description To be consistent, add the multiplicity for duration:Duration[1] to figure 318. Also, fig. 318 indicates that the association redefines value. Please indicate this in the text. I am not familiar with BFN but should "" be ""? Issue 8307: Section: 13.3.12 Issue summary To be consistent, add the multiplicity for duration:Duration[1] to figure 318. Also, fig. 318 indicates that the association redefines value. Please indicate this in the text. I am not familiar with BFN but should [illegible, ed.]? Discussion The first sentence in the issue description is a duplicate. -- BranSelic - 20 May 2005 the illegible part of the text said: I am not familiar with BFN but should "" be ""? (it was accidentally corrupted due to the OMG database software quirk which removes text between angular brackets). I don't think that this correction is necessary. also, changed dot notation to double-colon notation Revised Test In the specification of duration, add .(Specializes Value Specification?::value.). Resolution Resolved