Issue 8626: Section: 7.5.13 (ocl2-rtf) Source: (, ) Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor Summary: The example using Bike and Car as two separate subtypes of Transport does not make any mention of Set(Car), Bag(car), or Collection(Car). Either delete reference to Car as a separate subtype of Transport or add some comments about a collection of some sort of Car conforming (and not conforming) to some other collection. I may be confused, but the statement "Note that Set(Bicycle) does not conform to Bag(Bicycle)" does not make a lot of sense to me. Wouldn't it be better to say that "Set(Bicycle) does not conform to Bag(car)?" Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: March 24, 2005: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 24 Mar 2005 10:55:47 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Jane Messenger Company: U. S. Geological Survey mailFrom: jmessenger@usgs.gov Notification: Yes Specification: UML 2.0 OCL Specification Section: 7.5.13 FormalNumber: ptc/03-10-14 Version: Adopted Specification RevisionDate: 10/14/2003 Page: 24 Nature: Clarification Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; Q312461) Description The example using Bike and Car as two separate subtypes of Transport does not make any mention of Set(Car), Bag(car), or Collection(Car). Either delete reference to Car as a separate subtype of Transport or add some comments about a collection of some sort of Car conforming (and not conforming) to some other collection. I may be confused, but the statement "Note that Set(Bicycle) does not conform to Bag(Bicycle)" does not make a lot of sense to me. Wouldn't it be better to say that "Set(Bicycle) does not conform to Bag(car)?"