Issues for which there is not a valid OMG list (because of typos, or issues for which there is no RTF in existence).

To comment on any of these issues, send email to lost@omg.org. (Please include the issue number in the Subject: header, thusly: [Issue ###].) To submit a new issue, send email to issues@omg.org.

List of issues (green=resolved, yellow=pending Board vote, red=unresolved)

List options: All ; Open Issues only; or Closed Issues only

Issue 14898: SwResource should be a direct specialization of Resource, like its hardware counterpart
Issue 15195: Annex A - A navigation constraint appears in a note
Issue 15613: Extension is only referenced from 1a. However it certainly should be valid within an XMIObjectElement.
Issue 17591: Clarification on the semantics of CommunicationPath
Issue 17859: isIntegral()
Issue 18584: The OMG’s address on page viii is obsolete
Issue 18585: Scope section: A more nuanced description would be better.

Issue 14898: SwResource should be a direct specialization of Resource, like its hardware counterpart (martre-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: THALES (Mr. Sebastien Demathieu, sebastien.demathieu(at)thalesgroup.com)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:

In the SRM meta-model, the SwResource specializes ResourceManager which makes SwSchedulableResource themselves. SwResource should be a direct specialization of Resource, like its hardware counterpart.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 31, 2009: received issue

Issue 15195: Annex A - A navigation constraint appears in a note (sopes-iedem-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive. Click here for this issue's attachments.
Source: Institute for Defense Analyses (Dr. Steven Wartik, swartik(at)ida.org)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

A navigation constraint appears in a note. Notes, more or less by definition, have no formal semantics. Why are they being used to include the OCL? Or is that just how the tool displays constraints?

Resolution: Accept editorial Change.
Revised Text: . The diagram reflects deprecated approach the definition of the data patterns and needs to be updated. Rework Figure A.8. Figure A.8 - Constraints OCL now represented on the aggregation arc as illustrated on the figure above.
Actions taken:
April 7, 2010: received issue
October 21, 2010: closed issue

Issue 15613: Extension is only referenced from 1a. However it certainly should be valid within an XMIObjectElement. (mof2cmi-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Adaptive (Mr. Pete Rivett, pete.rivett(at)adaptive.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

 3:Extension is only referenced from 1a. However it certainly should be valid within an XMIObjectElement.

    (3:Extension)* should be added to 2a

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
September 21, 2010: received issue

Discussion:

Issue 17591: Clarification on the semantics of CommunicationPath (uml25-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: THALES (Mr. Hugues Vincent, hugues.vincent(at)thalesgroup.com)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:

Title: Clarification on the semantics of CommunicationPath 
Where: section 19.4.3
Nature of Issue: Clarification
Severity of Issue: Minor
Full Description of the Issue:
The semantics of CommunicationPath is poorly defined: what is a 'specific communication path'? A wire, a protocol used...?

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
September 13, 2012: received issue

Issue 17859: isIntegral() (uml-25-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Nomos Software (Dr. Edward Willink, ed(at)willink.me.uk)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:

Wouldn’t it be a better name to have the operation called isInteger?

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
September 26, 2012: received issue

Issue 18584: The OMG’s address on page viii is obsolete (cvl-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Microsoft (Mr. Steve Cook, stcook(at)microsoft.com)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:

The OMG’s address on page viii is obsolete

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 22, 2013: received issue

Issue 18585: Scope section: A more nuanced description would be better. (cvl-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Microsoft (Mr. Steve Cook, stcook(at)microsoft.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The Scope section and clause 7 say that CVL is “domain-independent” – surely it is specific to the domain of variability? A more nuanced description would be better.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 22, 2013: received issue