Issue 9372: Show an example of correct notation for the metamodel (uml2-rtf)
Source: Adaptive (Mr. Pete Rivett, pete.rivett(at)adaptive.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary: Though section 6.5.2 explains and justifies the convention (in the UML2 spec only) for use of navigability arrows to represent property ownership, it would be worth showing a non-normative example of one of the metamodel diagrams with the correct 'dot at line end' notation used. This depends on the resolution to issue A) above.
 
C) Use the new 'dot' notation in examples
 Currently there is only one example of its use. However most of the examples have taken an unadorned line to indicate that both ends are owned by the respective classes: now the same diagram indicates both ends are owned by the association. Though tools may be at liberty to hid the adornments the spec itself should be extremely precise in the examples and show the adornments explicitly since otherwise the diagrams are ambiguous.
Note that the conventions in 6.5.2 explicitly apply only to the diagrams for the metamodel itself (see line 1 of 6.5.2).

Resolution: 
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
February 23, 2006: received issue
Discussion: 

End of Annotations:=====
how an example of correct notation for the metamodel
 
Though section 6.5.2 explains and justifies the convention (in the UML2 spec only) for use of navigability arrows to represent property ownership, it would be worth showing a non-normative example of one of the metamodel diagrams with the correct 'dot at line end' notation used. This depends on the resolution to issue A) above.
 
C) Use the new 'dot' notation in examples
 Currently there is only one example of its use. However most of the examples have taken an unadorned line to indicate that both ends are owned by the respective classes: now the same diagram indicates both ends are owned by the association. Though tools may be at liberty to hid the adornments the spec itself should be extremely precise in the examples and show the adornments explicitly since otherwise the diagrams are ambiguous.
Note that the conventions in 6.5.2 explicitly apply only to the diagrams for the metamodel itself (see line 1 of 6.5.2).