Issue 8758: Association in UseCase diagram (uml2-rtf) Source: No Magic, Inc. (Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius, nerijus(at)nomagic.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Actor and UseCase can't own Properties, this means that associations > in UseCase diagram are always non-navigable at both ends. > Is this correct? ??? I don't have the time at the moment to check whether such a constraint exists, but, if it does, it is certainly an error. For example, in the case of Actors there is an explicit constraint that assumes that actors have properties. Can you tell me where your assumption that Actors and UseCases cannot own Properties comes from? Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: May 3, 2005: received issue Discussion: Due to lack of time, the RTF/FTF agrees that the following are problems that need fixing, but decided to defer their resolution to a future RTF working on this specification. End of Annotations:===== ssociation in UseCase diagram > Actor and UseCase can't own Properties, this means that associations > in UseCase diagram are always non-navigable at both ends. > Is this correct? ??? I don't have the time at the moment to check whether such a constraint exists, but, if it does, it is certainly an error. For example, in the case of Actors there is an explicit constraint that assumes that actors have properties. Can you tell me where your assumption that Actors and UseCases cannot own Properties comes from? Reply-To: From: "Conrad Bock" To: "Branislav Selic" Cc: Subject: RE: Draft ballot 7 -- please review Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 14:46:38 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Bran, > 8021 - I see no problem in the proposed resolution; it seems > quite clear to me and answers the issue. I will KEEP this one on > the ballot. > > 8023 - I have REMOVED this resolution pending further discussion > > 8028 - the issue of whether this should be moved to classes is a > separate issue than the one raised. I will KEEP this on the > ballot (if you think it should be in some other part of the > spec, then please raise a separate issue) > > 8038 - I have REMOVED this resolution pending further discussion > > 8078 - the question of why InterfaceRealization refers to > BehavioredClassifier is distinct from this issue. I will KEEP > this one on the ballot (you may want to raise a separate issue) > > 8677 - I made the textual fix that you recommended. I will KEEP > this one on the ballot > > 8751 - I have changed the resolution to Defer as discussed (from > "closed, no change"). I will KEEP this one on the ballot These are fine with me, thanks. > 8758 - I see no problem in the proposed resolution; it does not > say or imply that the user has to draw navigable ends. I will > KEEP this one on the ballot. My concern is the UML 1.x supported associations and attributes with Use Cases (see Figure 2-3 and 2-21 in /formal/03-03-01). The issue is asking for backward compatibility with that. Sorry I couldn't keep up with the emails on this, but can you summarize the reasons for denying the request? Reply-To: From: "Conrad Bock" To: Subject: RE: Draft ballot 7 -- please review, issue 8758 Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 10:43:27 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Ed, > There is no backwards compatibility issue here, at least nothing > specific to use cases. > > In UML 1.x, navigability did not imply ownership of association > ends. Sure, but in UML 1.x, UseCase could have attributes, now it can't (a UML 1.x Classifier is what we now call Class). I'm not particularly concerned with use cases, so won't argue the case anymore. I just wanted to clarify the issue.