Issue 8594: Section: 17 (uml2-rtf) Source: (, ) Nature: Enhancement Severity: Minor Summary: Add OCL notation to constraints or a note that OCL notation is not available for this constraint. In the figures show all sub-package names or ellipses associated with the direct generalizations. Use of the words subclass and subclasses is often confusing and inappropriate as these are not shown in associated figures or mentioned in text. Whenever subclasses are mentioned, please clarify by giving examples as was done on page 690. Orgainzation of this Part is confusing after becomming accustomed to the organization used in parts I and II. Placement of all abstract syntax figures in one place helps clarify relationships of figures to each other and makes it easier to see/verify consistency. Names of classifiers and packages in the text often don't agree with the names shown on associated figure. Resolution: The summary raises a number of different issues, many of which appear to have already been addressed. 1. Missing OCL notation on constraints OCL exists for the constraints. 2. Show sub-package names in figures or ellipses associated with direct generalizations. This appears to have been done already. There were no cases where classes defined in other packages were not fully qualified. 3. Clarify the use of the term subclass and subclasses These terms seem to be used consistently throughout the section. Perhaps updates were already done. 4. Reorganize as was done in parts I and II Auxiliary Constructs is a collection of unrelated elements. Therefore each sub-section organizes its abstract syntax in that section rather than at the beginning of section 17. This should be retained in order to maintain logical cohesion. The only possible exception is starting after section 17.5.6, subsections ClassifierTemplates, PackageTemplates, NameExpressions, OperationTemplateParameters, Connectable Element template parameters, PropertyTemplateParameters, and ValueSpecificationTemplateParameters all have their own abstract syntax diagrams. Since these are all different kinds of templates, it makes sense to keep them separate. And this appears to be consistent with the Specification format given in section 6.4.1 5. Names of classifiers and packages in the text need to be corrected to be consistent with the figures Reading through the specification I didn't see any specific inconsistencies. Perhaps these have already been updated. Revised Text: see page 42 of ptc/2009-09-07 for details Actions taken: March 17, 2005: received issue Discussion: Disposition: Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 17 Mar 2005 11:41:15 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Jane Messenger Company: U. S. Geological Survey mailFrom: jmessenger@usgs.gov Notification: No Specification: Superstructure Section: 17 FormalNumber: ptc/04-10-02 Version: 2.0 Draft Adopted RevisionDate: 10/08/2004 Page: 655-710 Nature: Enhancement Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; Q312461) Description Add OCL notation to constraints or a note that OCL notation is not available for this constraint. In the figures show all sub-package names or ellipses associated with the direct generalizations. Use of the words subclass and subclasses is often confusing and inappropriate as these are not shown in associated figures or mentioned in text. Whenever subclasses are mentioned, please clarify by giving examples as was done on page 690. Orgainzation of this Part is confusing after becomming accustomed to the organization used in parts I and II. Placement of all abstract syntax figures in one place helps clarify relationships of figures to each other and makes it easier to see/verify consistency. Names of classifiers and packages in the text often don't agree with the names shown on associated figure.