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: Yes the words can be a little clearer Revised Text: In 7.6.13 replace For example, if Bicycle and Car are two separate subtypes of Transport: by For example, if Bicycle is a subtype of Transport: and replace around. They are both subtypes of Collection(Bicycle) at the same level in the hierarchy. by around, since Set and Bag are subtypes of Collection but not of each other. Actions taken: March 24, 2005: received issue December 23, 2013: closed 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)?"