Issue 9017: Section: 16.3.3 (uml2-rtf) Source: oose Innovative Informatik GmbH (Mr. Tim Weilkiens, tim.weilkiens(at)oose.de) Nature: Revision Severity: Minor Summary: Fig 16.3. uses note symbol notation of the Hruby Vision template. That's not conform to UML 2.0 at this point. The end of the note anchor line doesn't have a circle in UML 2.0. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: September 26, 2005: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 26 Sep 2005 12:04:45 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Tim Weilkiens Company: oose.de GmbH mailFrom: tim.weilkiens@oose.de Notification: Yes Specification: UML Superstructure Section: 16.3.3 FormalNumber: formal/05-07-04 Version: 2.0 RevisionDate: 05-07-04 Page: 575 Nature: Revision Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322) Description Fig 16.3. uses note symbol notation of the Hruby Vision template. That's not conform to UML 2.0 at this point. The end of the note anchor line doesn't have a circle in UML 2.0. Subject: Issue 9017: Comment notation (Draft Ballot 4) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 12:00:10 +0100 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Issue 9017: Comment notation (Draft Ballot 4) Thread-Index: Achx3w3+GeL0LOWfQoySfnjsxpZG/gBBzX6Q From: "Tim Weilkiens" To: "Bran Selic" , X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id m1JB0VSZ020267 Not sure if it is necessary: Issue 9017 adds a change that is not requested by the issue. Instead issue 9369 requests that change. I only have this organizational concern. I agree with fix. Tim > -----Original Message----- > From: Bran Selic [mailto:bran.selic@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 4:29 AM > To: uml2-rtf@omg.org > Subject: Draft Ballot 4 > > Attached, please find draft ballot 4. Comments are due by > Friday, February 29. > > So as not to embarrass ourselves, I have added a bunch of > easy-pickin' resolution proposals on various topics. However, > most of these were low-intensity non-controversial issues. > But, what we really need to focus on at this time are the > tough and critical issues. There was a whole set of > supposedly "critical" issues raised in the past several > months mostly by tool vendors. However, there has not been > much action on these (perhaps they are not as critical as > people claimed?). > > In any case, if you want to have your important issues > resolved, please provide resolution proposals. > > Regards, > > Bran Selic > >