Issues for UML 2.6 Revision task Force mailing list

To comment on any of these issues, send email to uml2-rtf@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 3898: Specify XMI parameters for the UML / XMI interchange format Jira Issue UML22-473
Issue 4110: Semantics of firing compound transitions still appears to be circular Jira Issue UML22-1
Issue 4448: Does visibility apply to creating an destroying links? Jira Issue UML22-474
Issue 4932: Starting state machine Jira Issue UML22-2
Issue 4937: Sending a signal after a delay Jira Issue UML22-475
Issue 5107: Starting a state machine Jira Issue UML22-3
Issue 5593: Namespace issue (UML 1.4 formal/2002-09-67, 2.5.3.26 Namespace ) Jira Issue UML22-476
Issue 5794: Designates a Generalization Jira Issue UML22-477
Issue 5804: 2.5.2.27 ModelElement Jira Issue UML22-478
Issue 5886: behaviour of the shallow history state and deep history state Jira Issue UML22-4
Issue 5896: logic upperbound is the same as the lower bound. Jira Issue UML22-479
Issue 5907: formal/03-03-01 : Omission of definition of Class "Action" Jira Issue UML22-480
Issue 5977: saying {nonunique} on one end of a binary association is meaningless Jira Issue UML22-5
Issue 6002: relationship should just be a cross-reference Jira Issue UML22-481
Issue 6003: document appears to be inconsistent in how it handles concepts Jira Issue UML22-482
Issue 6004: Relationship and DirectedRelationship in Core::Constructs Jira Issue UML22-483
Issue 6005: cross-reference missing Jira Issue UML22-484
Issue 6006: Classes diagram of the Core::Constructs package Jira Issue UML22-485
Issue 6071: Conditional Node and Loop Node notation missing Jira Issue UMLR-1
Issue 6082: Suspension Region Jira Issue UML22-6
Issue 6083: More examples Jira Issue UMLR-2
Issue 6086: More explanation needed on Figure 339 Jira Issue UMLR-3
Issue 6088: Parameterization of lifelines Jira Issue UMLR-4
Issue 6111: Reentrancy 1 Jira Issue UML22-7
Issue 6114: State extension Jira Issue UML22-8
Issue 6126: Target pin notation Jira Issue UML22-9
Issue 6137: Promote local conditions to ExecutableNode Jira Issue UMLR-5
Issue 6150: Notation for method Jira Issue UMLR-6
Issue 6176: UML 2 Super/Metamodel::Constructs/owningComment Jira Issue UML22-486
Issue 6187: UML 2 Super/Metamodel::Super/missing merge Jira Issue UML22-487
Issue 6194: UML 2 Super/Package merge/redefinitions issue - lost association ends Jira Issue UML22-488
Issue 6197: UML 2 Super/Metamodel::Kernel/missing merges Jira Issue UML22-489
Issue 6200: UML 2 Super/Metamodel/redefinition and substitutability Jira Issue UML22-10
Issue 6201: UML 2 Infra/Metamodel::Constructs/invalid OCL constraint for "opposite" Jira Issue UML22-490
Issue 6216: UML 2 Super/pg.75/kinds of changeability Jira Issue UML22-491
Issue 6262: UML 2 Super / Templates / TemplateParameter not named Jira Issue UML22-492
Issue 6275: raisedException Jira Issue UML22-493
Issue 6346: Activity OCL Jira Issue UML22-11
Issue 6353: Deployment a dependency? Jira Issue UMLR-7
Issue 6368: Join nodes that destroy tokens Jira Issue UMLR-8
Issue 6372: Notes versus curly braces Jira Issue UML22-12
Issue 6389: Syntax of names Jira Issue UML22-494
Issue 6395: UML 2 Super / State machines / Transition triggers cannot be redefined Jira Issue UMLR-9
Issue 6398: UML 2 Super / Kernel features / cannot exclude superclass properties Jira Issue UML22-495
Issue 6405: UML 2 super / Dependencies / improper subsetting? Jira Issue UML22-13
Issue 6409: UML 2 Super/Interactions/missing OCL constraints Jira Issue UML22-14
Issue 6422: Section 9.3.3 Jira Issue UML22-15
Issue 6423: Section 9.3.4 page 161, Presentation Option Jira Issue UML22-496
Issue 6430: UML2 super/ad-03-04-01/Derived attributes and associations Jira Issue UML22-16
Issue 6433: 03-04-01 Chap 2 p. 112/Components: Different ways to wire components Jira Issue UML22-17
Issue 6441: Integration between behavioral "sublanguages": Interactions and Activities Jira Issue UMLR-10
Issue 6444: Activity diagram problems Jira Issue UML22-497
Issue 6445: Clarification of use case semantics Jira Issue UMLR-11
Issue 6446: Clarification of Information Flow semantics Jira Issue UML22-498
Issue 6451: UML 2 Super / Dependency / ownership of dependencies Jira Issue UML22-499
Issue 6452: UML 2 Super / Missing OCL constraints Jira Issue UML22-18
Issue 6455: instantiations of Classifiers Jira Issue UML22-19
Issue 6456: Use 'represent' for the relationship of a model Jira Issue UML22-500
Issue 6460: UML 2 Issue: definition of navigability Jira Issue UML22-501
Issue 6462: UML 2 Issue: AssociationEnd Jira Issue UML22-20
Issue 6463: UML 2 Issue: Message notation Jira Issue UML22-502
Issue 6464: UML 2 Issue: isUnique Jira Issue UML22-21
Issue 6466: UML 2 Issue: Qualified pathnames Jira Issue UML22-22
Issue 6470: Section 7.11.2 Association Jira Issue UMLR-12
Issue 6487: Conditions for parameter sets Jira Issue UMLR-13
Issue 6489: Ports in Protocol State Machines Jira Issue UML22-23
Issue 6492: ptc-03-09-15/Non-navigable ends with no role names nor multiplicities Jira Issue UML22-503
Issue 6493: ptc-03-09-15/Constructs::Class superClass property Jira Issue UML22-504
Issue 6495: ptc-03-09-15/Separate classification and generalization in Core::Basic Jira Issue UML22-24
Issue 6496: ptc-03-09-15/Relationships among Core packages Jira Issue UML22-505
Issue 6497: ptc-03-09-15/Need for examples to include instance models Jira Issue UMLR-14
Issue 6498: ptc-03-09-15/Explain the new association modeling constructs Jira Issue UMLR-15
Issue 6500: Federated models - UML2 issue Jira Issue UML22-25
Issue 6501: Rose Model of UML 2.0 spec Jira Issue UML22-506
Issue 6502: Multiplicity seems to be broken - UML2 Infra & Super Jira Issue UML22-507
Issue 6503: Why not using the UML1 activity symbol for UML2 actions? Jira Issue UML22-508
Issue 6524: class "InfrastructureLibrary.core.constructs.Association", Jira Issue UML22-509
Issue 6525: two classes "NamedElement Jira Issue UML22-510
Issue 6616: UML Superstructure FTF : isRoot property disappeared Jira Issue UML22-26
Issue 6624: freeing namespace Jira Issue UMLR-16
Issue 6630: UML 2 Super / Classes / dependencies should be unidirectional Jira Issue UML22-511
Issue 6637: UML 2 Infra/Metamodel/missing derivation indicators Jira Issue UML22-512
Issue 6639: remove paragraph Jira Issue UML22-513
Issue 6640: number of the figure is wrong Jira Issue UML22-514
Issue 6641: well-formedness rules are not numbered correctly Jira Issue UML22-515
Issue 6645: UML 2.0 Superstructure Kernal/Packages Jira Issue UMLR-17
Issue 6659: multiplicity of the association named "type" of type DataType Jira Issue UML22-516
Issue 6660: The multiplicity of association named subaction of type Action ill formed Jira Issue UML22-517
Issue 6661: In paragraph 5, the addition of 2, 5, 7 and -3 does not yield 9 but 11 Jira Issue UML22-518
Issue 6662: In the last paragraph, the period after the word "collections" on the secon Jira Issue UML22-519
Issue 6665: UML 1.5 table of contents Jira Issue UML22-520
Issue 6681: UML2 Super/Kernel Classes Jira Issue UML22-27
Issue 6692: Operations and derived attributes Jira Issue UML22-521
Issue 6696: Remove one of the dots between protectedAction and availableOutput Jira Issue UML22-522
Issue 6697: Associations section of element JumpHandler Jira Issue UML22-523
Issue 6699: UML 2.0 infra and super Constraints Diagram of the Kernel Jira Issue UML22-524
Issue 6700: UML 2.0 Kernel Operations Diagram and Features Diagram and mdl Jira Issue UML22-28
Issue 6702: The numbering of the sub-sections in 2.7.2 is wrong Jira Issue UML22-525
Issue 6703: In "2.9.3.5 Instance", numbering of different well-formedness rules wrong Jira Issue UML22-526
Issue 6704: The section about Procedure does not contain any well-formedness rules Jira Issue UML22-527
Issue 6724: The Composition section does not follow the usual conventions Jira Issue UML22-528
Issue 6725: missing closing parenthesis Jira Issue UML22-529
Issue 6726: At the bottom of the page, the characters "antics." should be removed Jira Issue UML22-530
Issue 6727: In 2.13.3, the first sub-section about ActivityGraph is not numbered Jira Issue UML22-531
Issue 6866: Part subtype Jira Issue UML22-29
Issue 6878: UML 2 Infrastructure / rule for redefinition of Property Jira Issue UMLR-18
Issue 6921: Inheritance of 'Enumerations' is not detailed Jira Issue UML22-30
Issue 6922: Redefinitions of OCL constraints must be aligned with MOF2.0/UML2.0 class R Jira Issue UMLR-19
Issue 6923: Class InfrastructureLibrary::Core::Basic::Property Jira Issue UML22-532
Issue 6927: UML 2 Super / Interactions / Ambiguous diagram tags Jira Issue UMLR-20
Issue 6975: missing illustrations of graphical paths for create and destroy messages Jira Issue UMLR-21
Issue 6989: UML 2 Super/Interactions/Constraints for create messages Jira Issue UML22-533
Issue 6990: manage simultaneity of events Jira Issue UML22-31
Issue 6991: transtion Jira Issue UML22-32
Issue 7051: StateMachine - Constraints Jira Issue UML22-33
Issue 7105: In normative XMI file for the metamodel, no Associations have a name. Jira Issue UML22-534
Issue 7161: UML 2 Super/Interactions/Need constraints that cover multiple Lifelines Jira Issue UML22-34
Issue 7166: show object flow or interactions Jira Issue UML22-35
Issue 7223: Questions about DataTypes and generalization Jira Issue UMLR-22
Issue 7227: UML2 Super/Deployment/inheritance Jira Issue UMLR-23
Issue 7229: UML2 Super/Deployments/Manifestation Jira Issue UMLR-24
Issue 7246: Figure 78 Jira Issue UML22-535
Issue 7247: Connector - "provided Port" and "required Port" not defined Constraint 1 Jira Issue UML22-36
Issue 7248: Connector - inconsistencies in Constraint [2] Jira Issue UML22-37
Issue 7249: Connector - inconsistencies in Constraint[3] Jira Issue UML22-38
Issue 7250: Connector - inconsistencies in Constraint[4] Jira Issue UML22-39
Issue 7251: Connector - inconsistencies in Constraint[5] Jira Issue UML22-40
Issue 7254: completion transitions Jira Issue UML22-41
Issue 7255: Priority of the joint transition Jira Issue UMLR-25
Issue 7274: UML2 Infra/11.5.1/Invalid reference to Attribute class Jira Issue UML22-536
Issue 7303: simple time model" in CommonBehavior Jira Issue UML22-537
Issue 7304: Notation sections for TimeObservation and DurationObservation Jira Issue UML22-42
Issue 7329: large overlap between structural features and variables Jira Issue UMLR-26
Issue 7337: inconsistency in the action model Jira Issue UMLR-27
Issue 7338: metaattribute isReadOnly Jira Issue UMLR-28
Issue 7339: Property defines an association "datatype" which is redundant Jira Issue UML22-43
Issue 7343: Section 11.7 Jira Issue UML22-538
Issue 7362: Clarify example in figure 133 Jira Issue UML22-539
Issue 7364: section on connectors in the component chapter Jira Issue UML22-1376
Issue 7372: surface notation for state machines Jira Issue UMLR-29
Issue 7375: useless example on p.330, Figure 247 Jira Issue UML22-44
Issue 7392: Interactions model sequences of events Jira Issue UML22-540
Issue 7397: add an interaction fragment Jira Issue UML22-541
Issue 7398: Provide exception handling for all behaviors. Jira Issue UMLR-30
Issue 7400: AssociationClass Jira Issue UML22-45
Issue 7401: XMI schema Jira Issue UML22-542
Issue 7406: TimeObservationAction and DurationObservationAction Jira Issue UML22-543
Issue 7407: The specification is fond of using 'typically.' Jira Issue UML22-544
Issue 7620: Coupling between StateMachines and Activities Jira Issue UMLR-31
Issue 7756: Unconsistent association extension description Jira Issue UML22-545
Issue 7757: Unconsistent Profile extension description (02) Jira Issue UML22-546
Issue 7782: Move Comment into Basic and add Kind Jira Issue UML22-547
Issue 7783: Missing XMI tags in spec and XMI rendition of metamodel Jira Issue UML22-548
Issue 7889: Inconsistent use of 'Element' between MOF and UML Jira Issue UML22-549
Issue 7908: Design principles Jira Issue UML22-550
Issue 7909: Problem with diagram references in Profiles section Jira Issue UML22-551
Issue 7910: isComposite inconsistency in UML 2.0 and MOF 2.0 Jira Issue UML22-46
Issue 7938: DataType attributes UML 2 Super (ptc/04-10-02) Jira Issue UML22-552
Issue 7939: DataType attributes UML 2 Super (ptc/04-10-02) Jira Issue UML22-553
Issue 7942: Section: 7.3.43 Jira Issue UML22-554
Issue 7946: Section: 7.2.8 Jira Issue UML22-555
Issue 7947: Classes Jira Issue UML22-556
Issue 7948: section 2.10.4.1 detailed semantics of collaborations Jira Issue UML22-557
Issue 7949: Section: 7.3.44 - OCL incorrect Jira Issue UML22-558
Issue 7950: Interactions Jira Issue UML22-559
Issue 7951: UML 2 Super Basic Interactions Jira Issue UML22-560
Issue 7952: Alternative entry and exit point notation is ambiguous Jira Issue UMLR-32
Issue 7956: InfrastructureLibrary defines, but should not use package merge Jira Issue UML22-561
Issue 7958: should retain Comment and its associations to Element Jira Issue UML22-47
Issue 7967: An observed time value must be written into a structural feature Jira Issue UML22-562
Issue 7969: Section: 9.14.1 Jira Issue UML22-48
Issue 7970: Minor error in BNF of an message argument Jira Issue UML22-563
Issue 7973: UML 2 Super / Incorrect statement on port visibility Jira Issue UML22-564
Issue 7977: ReduceAction Jira Issue UML22-565
Issue 7986: Section: 14.3.7 Jira Issue UML22-566
Issue 7987: Section: 14.3.13 Jira Issue UML22-567
Issue 7988: Section: 14.3.14 Jira Issue UML22-568
Issue 7989: Section: 14.3.16 Jira Issue UML22-569
Issue 7990: Section: Table 14 Jira Issue UML22-570
Issue 7993: Use case extension inconsistencies Jira Issue UML22-49
Issue 7994: Presentation Options Jira Issue UML22-50
Issue 7995: StateInvariants/Continuations Jira Issue UML22-571
Issue 7996: Add concept "StateInvariant" Jira Issue UML22-572
Issue 7997: Too much navigability from Generalizations Jira Issue UMLR-33
Issue 8012: Section: Classes, Behavior Jira Issue UMLR-34
Issue 8014: Disjointness should be independent of generalization Jira Issue UMLR-35
Issue 8015: Transitivity in composition Jira Issue UML22-573
Issue 8016: Action for retrieving activity instance Jira Issue UMLR-36
Issue 8017: Pin/parameter matching constraints Jira Issue UML22-574
Issue 8018: Section: CB/ACT Jira Issue UML22-575
Issue 8019: Section: Classes Jira Issue UML22-576
Issue 8020: constrainedElement direction Jira Issue UML22-51
Issue 8021: Section: Classes Jira Issue UML22-577
Issue 8022: Derived union notation Jira Issue UML22-52
Issue 8023: Association specialization semantics Jira Issue UML22-53
Issue 8024: End objects of a link In the semantics of AssociationClass Jira Issue UMLR-37
Issue 8025: Associations between interfaces Jira Issue UML22-578
Issue 8026: Contextualized attribute values Figures 121 Jira Issue UMLR-38
Issue 8027: Connector multiplicity notation Jira Issue UML22-579
Issue 8028: create dependency Figures 103 and 121 Jira Issue UML22-580
Issue 8029: underlined association name Jira Issue UML22-581
Issue 8030: Interactions chapter refers to ActivityInvocations Jira Issue UML22-582
Issue 8031: Destruction semantics in StructuredClassifier Jira Issue UML22-583
Issue 8032: Link maintenance in StructuredClassifier Jira Issue UML22-584
Issue 8033: Figure 119 missing multiplicity Jira Issue UML22-585
Issue 8034: Notation for classifierBehavior Jira Issue UMLR-39
Issue 8035: Notation for method Jira Issue UML22-586
Issue 8036: Preserve order in result of read actions Jira Issue UML22-587
Issue 8037: Optional inputs Jira Issue UML22-588
Issue 8038: IsReadOnly constriant Jira Issue UML22-589
Issue 8039: DestroyObjectAction semantics Jira Issue UML22-590
Issue 8040: ObjectNode, constraint 1 In ObjectNode Jira Issue UML22-591
Issue 8041: StructuredActivityNode specialized multiplicity Jira Issue UML22-592
Issue 8042: Terminology Issue Jira Issue UML22-593
Issue 8062: section 9.20.2 VisibilityKind lists two types of visibility Jira Issue UML22-594
Issue 8063: Text references Figure 8 and the correct figure number is 6 Jira Issue UML22-595
Issue 8064: unclear statement Jira Issue UML22-596
Issue 8065: extra word in the last sentence of the paragraph under Attributes Jira Issue UML22-597
Issue 8066: clarify what a directed association is Jira Issue UML22-598
Issue 8067: Section is badly worded and does not make a lot of sense Jira Issue UML22-599
Issue 8068: typing error in the statement :unrestricted ? Jira Issue UML22-600
Issue 8069: What happened to real numbers Jira Issue UML22-601
Issue 8070: methods not defined under attributes Jira Issue UML22-602
Issue 8071: ClassifierInState not supported in UML2.0 ? Jira Issue UML22-54
Issue 8072: Figure 68 Jira Issue UML22-603
Issue 8073: Section: 11.3.1 Jira Issue UML22-604
Issue 8074: Section: 11.3.3 Jira Issue UML22-605
Issue 8075: search for referenced item -- Section: 11.3.4 Jira Issue UML22-606
Issue 8076: Section: 11.5 Jira Issue UML22-607
Issue 8077: Properties on Association for end objects Jira Issue UMLR-40
Issue 8078: Actor is a specialized Classifier and not BehavioredClassifier Jira Issue UML22-608
Issue 8079: Section: 11.6.1 Jira Issue UML22-609
Issue 8080: Section: 11.8.3 Jira Issue UML22-610
Issue 8081: Section: 13.1.2 Jira Issue UML22-611
Issue 8082: Section: 13.1.5 Jira Issue UML22-612
Issue 8083: Section: 7.3.3 Jira Issue UML22-613
Issue 8084: Section: 7.3.6 Jira Issue UML22-614
Issue 8085: Section: 7.4.1 Jira Issue UML22-615
Issue 8086: Section: 6.5.1: Error in example Jira Issue UML22-616
Issue 8087: All sections Jira Issue UML22-55
Issue 8088: Section: 7.3.3 Jira Issue UML22-617
Issue 8089: Section: 7.3.8 Jira Issue UML22-618
Issue 8090: Section: 7.3.10 Jira Issue UML22-619
Issue 8091: Section: 7.3.12 Jira Issue UML22-620
Issue 8092: Section: 7.3.15 Jira Issue UML22-621
Issue 8093: Section: 7.3.20 Jira Issue UML22-622
Issue 8094: Stereotypes applying in UML 2.0 Jira Issue UML22-623
Issue 8095: Section: 7.3.22 Jira Issue UML22-624
Issue 8096: Section: 7.3.32 Jira Issue UML22-625
Issue 8097: Section: 7.3.32 Page: 96-99 Jira Issue UML22-626
Issue 8098: Section: 7.3.33 Jira Issue UML22-627
Issue 8099: Section: 7.3.34 Jira Issue UML22-628
Issue 8100: Section: 7.3.35 Jira Issue UML22-629
Issue 8101: Clarify the differences between redefining element and redefined element. Jira Issue UML22-56
Issue 8102: Multiple typos in ptc/04-10-02 Jira Issue UML22-57
Issue 8103: Section: 8.3.1 Jira Issue UML22-630
Issue 8104: Section: 8.3.1 - typo Jira Issue UML22-631
Issue 8105: Section: 8.3.1 Jira Issue UML22-632
Issue 8106: Section: 8.3.2 Jira Issue UML22-58
Issue 8107: Section: 9.20.2 Jira Issue UML22-633
Issue 8108: Section: 9.3.1 Jira Issue UML22-634
Issue 8109: Section: 9.3.2 Jira Issue UML22-635
Issue 8110: Section: 9.3.3 Jira Issue UML22-636
Issue 8111: Section: 9.3.4 Jira Issue UML22-59
Issue 8112: Section: 9.3.5 Jira Issue UML22-637
Issue 8113: Section: 9.3.6 Jira Issue UML22-60
Issue 8114: Section: 9.3.7 Jira Issue UML22-61
Issue 8115: Section: 9.3.9 Jira Issue UML22-638
Issue 8116: Section: 9.3.9 Jira Issue UML22-639
Issue 8117: Section: 9.3.10 Jira Issue UML22-640
Issue 8118: Section: 8.3.2 Jira Issue UML22-62
Issue 8119: Section: 8.3.2 Jira Issue UML22-63
Issue 8120: Section: 8.3.4 Jira Issue UML22-641
Issue 8126: Section: 9.3.11 Jira Issue UML22-64
Issue 8127: Section: 9.3.12 Jira Issue UML22-642
Issue 8128: Section: 9.3.13 Jira Issue UML22-643
Issue 8129: Section: 12.3.13 Jira Issue UML22-644
Issue 8130: Section: 12.3.13 Jira Issue UML22-645
Issue 8131: Section: 9.2 Jira Issue UML22-646
Issue 8132: Section: 10.3.1 Jira Issue UML22-647
Issue 8133: Section: 10.3.1 Jira Issue UML22-648
Issue 8134: Section: 10.3.3 Jira Issue UML22-649
Issue 8135: Section: 10.3.4 Jira Issue UML22-650
Issue 8136: Section: 10.3.5 Jira Issue UML22-651
Issue 8137: Section: 10.3.6 Jira Issue UML22-652
Issue 8138: Section: 10.3.8 Jira Issue UML22-653
Issue 8139: Section: 10.3.9 Jira Issue UML22-654
Issue 8140: Section: 10.3.10 Jira Issue UML22-655
Issue 8141: Section: 10.3.11 Jira Issue UML22-656
Issue 8142: Section: 10.3.11 Jira Issue UML22-65
Issue 8143: Section: 10.4 Jira Issue UML22-657
Issue 8144: Section: 11.1 Jira Issue UML22-658
Issue 8145: Section: 11.3.1 Jira Issue UML22-659
Issue 8146: Section: 11.3.2 Jira Issue UML22-660
Issue 8147: Section: 11.3.3 Jira Issue UML22-661
Issue 8148: Section: 11.3.4 Jira Issue UML22-662
Issue 8149: Section: 11.3.5 Jira Issue UML22-663
Issue 8150: Section: 11.3.6 Jira Issue UML22-664
Issue 8151: Section: 11.3.7 Jira Issue UML22-665
Issue 8152: Section: 11.3.8 Jira Issue UML22-666
Issue 8153: Section: 11.3.9 Jira Issue UML22-667
Issue 8154: Section: 11.3.10 Jira Issue UML22-668
Issue 8155: Section: 11.3.11 Jira Issue UML22-669
Issue 8156: Section: 11.3.12 Jira Issue UML22-670
Issue 8157: Section: 11.3.13 Jira Issue UML22-671
Issue 8158: Section: 11.3.14 Jira Issue UML22-672
Issue 8159: Section: 11.3.15 Jira Issue UML22-673
Issue 8160: Section: 11.3.16 Jira Issue UML22-674
Issue 8161: Section: 11.3.17 Jira Issue UML22-675
Issue 8162: Section: 11.3.18 Jira Issue UML22-676
Issue 8163: Section: 11.3.19 Jira Issue UML22-677
Issue 8164: Section: 11.3.20 Jira Issue UML22-678
Issue 8165: Section: 11.3.21 Jira Issue UML22-679
Issue 8166: Section: 11.3.22 -- significant revision? Jira Issue UML22-680
Issue 8167: Section: 11.3.23 -- significant revision? Jira Issue UML22-681
Issue 8168: Figure 89 on page 158 is incorrect Jira Issue UML22-66
Issue 8169: Section: 11.3.24 Jira Issue UML22-682
Issue 8170: Section: 11.3.25 Jira Issue UML22-683
Issue 8171: Section: 11.3.26 Jira Issue UML22-684
Issue 8172: Section: 11.3.27 Jira Issue UML22-685
Issue 8173: Section: 11.3.28 Jira Issue UML22-686
Issue 8174: Section: 11.3.29 Jira Issue UML22-687
Issue 8175: Section: 11.3.30 Jira Issue UML22-688
Issue 8176: Section: 11.3.31 Jira Issue UML22-689
Issue 8177: Section: 11.3.33 Jira Issue UML22-690
Issue 8178: Section: 11.3.34 Jira Issue UML22-691
Issue 8180: Section: 11.3.35 Jira Issue UML22-692
Issue 8181: Section: 11.3.36 Jira Issue UML22-693
Issue 8182: Section: 11.3.27 Jira Issue UML22-694
Issue 8183: Section: 11.3.38 Jira Issue UML22-695
Issue 8185: Section: 11.3.40 Jira Issue UML22-696
Issue 8186: Section: 11.3.41 Jira Issue UML22-697
Issue 8187: Section: 11.3.43 Jira Issue UML22-698
Issue 8188: Section: 11.3.44 Jira Issue UML22-699
Issue 8189: Section: 11.3.45 Jira Issue UML22-700
Issue 8190: Section: 11.3.46 Jira Issue UML22-701
Issue 8191: Section: 11.3.47 Jira Issue UML22-702
Issue 8192: Section: 11.3.48 Jira Issue UML22-703
Issue 8193: Section: 11.3.49 Jira Issue UML22-704
Issue 8194: Section: 11.3.50 Jira Issue UML22-705
Issue 8195: Section: 11.3.51 Jira Issue UML22-706
Issue 8196: Section: 11.3.52 Jira Issue UML22-707
Issue 8197: Section: 11.3.42 Jira Issue UML22-708
Issue 8198: Section: 11.3.53 Jira Issue UML22-709
Issue 8199: Section: 11.3.54 Jira Issue UML22-710
Issue 8202: Section: 12.1 Jira Issue UML22-711
Issue 8203: Property string {bag} is redundant Jira Issue UML22-712
Issue 8204: {redefined <end-name>} should be named {redefines <end-name>} Jira Issue UML22-713
Issue 8206: Section: 12.2 Jira Issue UML22-714
Issue 8207: Section: 12.3.2 Jira Issue UML22-715
Issue 8208: Section: 12.3.4 Jira Issue UML22-716
Issue 8209: Section: 12.3.4 Jira Issue UML22-717
Issue 8210: Section: 12.3.5 Jira Issue UML22-718
Issue 8213: Section: 12.3.6 Jira Issue UML22-719
Issue 8214: Section: 12.3.7 Jira Issue UML22-720
Issue 8215: Section: 12.3.8 Jira Issue UML22-721
Issue 8216: Section: 12.1 Jira Issue UML22-722
Issue 8217: Section: 12.3.9 Jira Issue UML22-723
Issue 8218: Section: 12 Jira Issue UML22-724
Issue 8219: Section: 12.3.9 Jira Issue UML22-725
Issue 8220: Section: 12 Jira Issue UML22-726
Issue 8222: Section: 12.3.10 Jira Issue UML22-727
Issue 8223: Section: 12.3.12 Jira Issue UML22-728
Issue 8224: Section: 12.1 Jira Issue UML22-729
Issue 8225: Section: 12.3.13 Jira Issue UML22-730
Issue 8226: MultiplicityElement BNF too restrictive Jira Issue UML22-731
Issue 8227: Incomplete BNF for Property Jira Issue UML22-732
Issue 8228: BNF Notation for Operation is too restrictive Jira Issue UML22-733
Issue 8229: Used of "Redefines ...from Abstractions" in descriptions is misleading Jira Issue UML22-734
Issue 8231: Section: 12.3.14 Jira Issue UML22-735
Issue 8232: Section: 12.3.15 Jira Issue UML22-736
Issue 8233: Section: 12.3.16 Jira Issue UML22-737
Issue 8234: Section: 12.3.17 Jira Issue UML22-738
Issue 8235: Section: 12.3.18 Jira Issue UML22-739
Issue 8236: Section: 12.3.19 Jira Issue UML22-740
Issue 8237: Section: 12.3.6 & 12.3.19 Jira Issue UML22-741
Issue 8238: Section: 12.3.22 Jira Issue UML22-742
Issue 8239: Section: 12.3.24 Jira Issue UML22-743
Issue 8240: Section: 12.3.23 Jira Issue UML22-744
Issue 8241: Section: 12.3.27 Jira Issue UML22-745
Issue 8242: Section: 12.3.28 Jira Issue UML22-746
Issue 8243: Section: 12.3.30 Jira Issue UML22-747
Issue 8245: Section: 12.3.38 Jira Issue UML22-748
Issue 8246: namespace Jira Issue UML22-67
Issue 8247: Section: 12.3.31 Jira Issue UML22-749
Issue 8248: Section: 12.3.32 Jira Issue UML22-750
Issue 8249: Section: 12.3.33 Jira Issue UML22-68
Issue 8250: Section: 12.3.33 Jira Issue UML22-751
Issue 8252: Section: 12.3.34 Jira Issue UML22-752
Issue 8253: Section: 12.3.35 Jira Issue UML22-753
Issue 8254: Section: 12.3 Jira Issue UML22-754
Issue 8255: Section: 12.3.35 Jira Issue UML22-755
Issue 8256: Profiles:Extension End Jira Issue UML22-756
Issue 8257: Section: 12.3.37 Jira Issue UML22-757
Issue 8258: Section: 12.3.38 Jira Issue UML22-758
Issue 8260: Section: 12.3.40 Jira Issue UML22-69
Issue 8261: Section: 12.3.41 Jira Issue UML22-759
Issue 8262: Section: 12.3.43 Jira Issue UML22-760
Issue 8263: Section: 12.3.44 Jira Issue UML22-761
Issue 8264: UML 2 Super/templates/inexplicable constraint on defaults Jira Issue UML22-762
Issue 8265: UML 2 super/templates/ Jira Issue UML22-763
Issue 8270: Section: 12.3.47 Jira Issue UML22-764
Issue 8271: Section: 12.2 Jira Issue UML22-765
Issue 8272: Section: 12.3.48 Jira Issue UML22-766
Issue 8273: Section: 11.3.48 Jira Issue UML22-767
Issue 8274: UML2/Infra section 11.6.2/ Enumerations should not have attributes Jira Issue UML22-70
Issue 8275: Section: 12.3.50 Jira Issue UML22-768
Issue 8276: Section: 12.3.51 Jira Issue UML22-769
Issue 8277: Section: 12.3.52 Jira Issue UML22-1373
Issue 8278: section 7.3.17 /EnumerationLiteral should not be an InstanceSpecification Jira Issue UMLR-41
Issue 8279: Section: 12.4 Jira Issue UML22-770
Issue 8280: Section: 12 Jira Issue UML22-771
Issue 8292: Section: 13.1 Jira Issue UML22-772
Issue 8293: Section: 12.3.46 Jira Issue UML22-773
Issue 8294: Section: 12.3.49 Jira Issue UML22-774
Issue 8295: Section: 13.3.2 Jira Issue UML22-775
Issue 8297: Section: 13.3.3 Jira Issue UML22-776
Issue 8298: Section: 7.3.36 Jira Issue UML22-777
Issue 8301: Section: 13.3.4 Jira Issue UML22-778
Issue 8302: Section: 13.3.7 Jira Issue UML22-779
Issue 8303: Section: 13.3.8 Jira Issue UML22-780
Issue 8304: Section: 13.3.10 Jira Issue UML22-781
Issue 8305: Section: 13.3.9 Jira Issue UML22-782
Issue 8306: Section: 13.3.11 Jira Issue UML22-71
Issue 8307: Section: 13.3.12 Jira Issue UML22-783
Issue 8308: Section: 13.3.14 Jira Issue UML22-784
Issue 8309: Section: 13.3.15 Jira Issue UML22-785
Issue 8310: Section: 13.3.17 Jira Issue UML22-72
Issue 8311: Section: 13.3.19 Jira Issue UML22-786
Issue 8312: Section: 13.3.20 Jira Issue UML22-787
Issue 8313: Section: 13.3.22 Jira Issue UML22-788
Issue 8314: Section: 13.3.23 Jira Issue UML22-789
Issue 8315: Section: 13.3.24 Jira Issue UML22-790
Issue 8316: Section: 13.3.26 Jira Issue UML22-791
Issue 8317: Section: 13.3.27 Jira Issue UML22-792
Issue 8318: Section: 13.3.28 Jira Issue UML22-793
Issue 8319: Section: 13.3.29 Jira Issue UML22-794
Issue 8320: Section: 13.3.30 Jira Issue UML22-795
Issue 8322: Section: 13 Jira Issue UML22-796
Issue 8323: Section: 14.3.2 Jira Issue UML22-797
Issue 8324: Section: 14.3.3 Jira Issue UML22-798
Issue 8325: Section: 14.3.4 Jira Issue UML22-799
Issue 8326: Section: 14.3.5 Jira Issue UML22-800
Issue 8327: Section: 14.3.6 Jira Issue UML22-801
Issue 8328: Section: 14.3.8 Jira Issue UML22-802
Issue 8329: Section: 14.3.10 Jira Issue UML22-803
Issue 8330: Section: 14.3.3 & 14.3.11 Jira Issue UML22-804
Issue 8331: Section: 14.3.12 Jira Issue UML22-805
Issue 8332: inconsistent description Jira Issue UML22-73
Issue 8335: ReadStructuralFeatureAction Jira Issue UMLR-42
Issue 8336: RemoveStructuralFeatureValueAction specification Jira Issue UML22-74
Issue 8337: Section: 14.3.14 Jira Issue UML22-806
Issue 8338: Section: 14.3.13 Jira Issue UML22-807
Issue 8339: Section: 14.3.15 Jira Issue UML22-808
Issue 8340: Section: 14.3.16 Jira Issue UML22-809
Issue 8341: Section: 14.3.17 Jira Issue UML22-810
Issue 8342: Section: 14.3.18 Jira Issue UML22-75
Issue 8343: Section: 14.3.19 Jira Issue UML22-811
Issue 8345: Section: 14.3.20 Jira Issue UML22-812
Issue 8346: Section: 14.3.21 Jira Issue UML22-813
Issue 8347: Section: 14.3.21 Jira Issue UML22-814
Issue 8348: Section: 14.3.24 Jira Issue UML22-815
Issue 8349: Section: 14.3.25 Jira Issue UML22-816
Issue 8350: Section: 14.3.26 Jira Issue UML22-817
Issue 8351: Section: 14.3.29 Jira Issue UML22-818
Issue 8352: Section: 14.4 Jira Issue UML22-819
Issue 8353: Section: 14 Jira Issue UML22-76
Issue 8356: Section: 11.3.5 Jira Issue UML22-820
Issue 8357: Section: 12.3.4 Jira Issue UML22-821
Issue 8385: UML 2 Super / Components / realizingClassifier Jira Issue UML23-148
Issue 8386: Section: 8.3.4 Jira Issue UML23-149
Issue 8387: Section: 8.3.1 Jira Issue UML22-822
Issue 8401: Section: 15.3.1 Jira Issue UML22-823
Issue 8402: Section: 15.3.2 Jira Issue UML22-824
Issue 8403: Section: 15.3.3 Jira Issue UML22-825
Issue 8404: Section: 15.3.5 Jira Issue UML22-826
Issue 8405: Section: 15.3.5 Jira Issue UML22-827
Issue 8406: Section: 11.3.42 Jira Issue UML22-828
Issue 8407: Section: 15.3.6 Jira Issue UML22-829
Issue 8408: Section: 15.3.7 Jira Issue UML22-830
Issue 8409: Section: 15.3.8 Jira Issue UML22-831
Issue 8410: Section: 15.3.9 Jira Issue UML22-832
Issue 8411: Section: 15.3.10 Jira Issue UML22-833
Issue 8412: Specification: Action Semantics Section: 9.5 Jira Issue UML22-834
Issue 8413: Action Semantics Section: 9.5 Jira Issue UML22-835
Issue 8414: Section: 14 Jira Issue UML22-77
Issue 8415: Section: 15.3.11 Jira Issue UML22-836
Issue 8416: Section: 15.3.11 Jira Issue UML22-837
Issue 8433: Section: 15.3.12 Jira Issue UML22-838
Issue 8439: Appendix C.1 Jira Issue UML22-839
Issue 8440: Section: Appendix A Jira Issue UML22-840
Issue 8443: Section: 15.3.14 Jira Issue UML22-841
Issue 8444: Section: 15.3.15 Jira Issue UML22-842
Issue 8445: Section: 15.3.16 Jira Issue UML22-843
Issue 8446: Section: 15.3.7 Jira Issue UML22-844
Issue 8447: Section 15 Jira Issue UML22-78
Issue 8449: Should Profiles::Image be an Element? Jira Issue UML22-845
Issue 8450: Default values for ValueSpecification are not specified properly Jira Issue UML22-79
Issue 8451: OCL for Property::opposite() is incorrect: Jira Issue UML22-846
Issue 8452: Remove redundant superclass for Element Jira Issue UML22-847
Issue 8453: Profiles::ExtensionEnd has wrong default multiplicity Jira Issue UML22-848
Issue 8454: Profiles::ObjectNode has wrong default multiplicity Jira Issue UML22-849
Issue 8455: Profiles::ObjectNode has wrong default multiplicity Jira Issue UML22-1374
Issue 8456: UML 2 Super / Collaborations / improper subset Jira Issue UML22-850
Issue 8457: UML 2 Super / General / improper subsetting Jira Issue UML22-851
Issue 8458: UML 2 Super / General / missing merges Jira Issue UML22-852
Issue 8459: UML 2 Super / Conformance / inconsistencies Jira Issue UML22-853
Issue 8460: UML 2 Super / Kernel / invalid restriction in isConsistentWith() Jira Issue UML22-80
Issue 8461: UML 2 Super / Kernel / excessive restriction on redefinition Jira Issue UML22-854
Issue 8462: UML 2 Super / General / invalid subset rule too strict Jira Issue UML22-855
Issue 8463: UML 2 Super / Common Behaviors / missing multiplicites Jira Issue UML22-856
Issue 8464: Section: 16.3.1 Jira Issue UMLR-43
Issue 8465: Section: 16.3.3 Jira Issue UML22-857
Issue 8466: Section: 16.3.4 Jira Issue UML22-858
Issue 8467: Section: 16.3.5 Jira Issue UML22-859
Issue 8468: Section: 16.3.6 Jira Issue UML22-860
Issue 8469: Section: 14.3.3 Jira Issue UML22-861
Issue 8470: Section: Actions Jira Issue UML22-81
Issue 8471: Decision node Jira Issue UML22-82
Issue 8472: Section: Activities Jira Issue UML22-83
Issue 8473: Activities section Jira Issue UMLR-44
Issue 8474: Section: Classes Jira Issue UML22-84
Issue 8475: Section: Interactions Jira Issue UML22-85
Issue 8476: Section: Common Behavior Jira Issue UML22-862
Issue 8477: Section: Actions Jira Issue UML22-863
Issue 8478: ValueSpecificationAction, Attribute section, is missing the return pin Jira Issue UML22-864
Issue 8479: Section: Activities - clarification Jira Issue UMLR-45
Issue 8480: Section: Activities : Why is exception type needed? Jira Issue UMLR-46
Issue 8481: Section: Activities Jira Issue UML22-865
Issue 8482: Section: Activities, ExpansionRegion Jira Issue UML22-866
Issue 8483: Section: Activities, ExpansionRegion (02) Jira Issue UML22-867
Issue 8484: Section: Activities, ExpansionRegion (03) Jira Issue UML22-868
Issue 8485: Section: Activities, ExpansionRegion (04) Jira Issue UML22-869
Issue 8486: Section: Activities, ExpansionRegion (05) Jira Issue UML22-870
Issue 8487: ExpansionRegioin example, Figure 261: concurrent => parallel Jira Issue UML22-871
Issue 8488: Expansion region description Jira Issue UML22-872
Issue 8489: ExpansionRegion (behavior in the shorthand notation) Jira Issue UMLR-47
Issue 8490: Section: Activities Jira Issue UML22-873
Issue 8491: Add constraint in LoopNode Jira Issue UML22-874
Issue 8492: Section: Activities, LoopNode Jira Issue UML22-86
Issue 8493: Semantics of isAssured/isDeterminant in conditional node Jira Issue UML22-875
Issue 8494: Add constraints on conditional, loop, sequence to rule out node contents Jira Issue UML22-87
Issue 8495: Add constraints on ConditionalNode Jira Issue UMLR-48
Issue 8496: Add constraints on conditional and loop nodes Jira Issue UML22-876
Issue 8497: Add constraints on conditional and loop nodes (02) Jira Issue UML22-877
Issue 8498: Constrain conditional node to have body pins if there is a result pin. Jira Issue UML22-88
Issue 8499: No notation Jira Issue UML22-878
Issue 8500: mustIsolate: Jira Issue UML22-879
Issue 8501: SequenceNode should have way to set output pins in CompleteStructured Jira Issue UMLR-49
Issue 8502: Figure 209 of Activites Jira Issue UML22-880
Issue 8503: Clarify the semantics of minimum multiplicity > 0 for streaming parameters Jira Issue UML22-881
Issue 8506: Section: 17.2.1 Jira Issue UML22-882
Issue 8507: Section: 17.2.2 Jira Issue UML22-883
Issue 8508: Section: 17.3.1 Jira Issue UML22-884
Issue 8509: Section: 17.4 Jira Issue UML22-885
Issue 8510: Section: 17.5.1 Jira Issue UML22-886
Issue 8511: Section: 17.5.2 Jira Issue UML22-887
Issue 8512: Section: 17.5.1 Jira Issue UML22-888
Issue 8513: Section: 17.5.3 Jira Issue UML22-889
Issue 8514: Section: 17.5.3 Jira Issue UML22-890
Issue 8515: Section: 17.5.4 Jira Issue UML22-891
Issue 8516: Section: 17.5.5 Jira Issue UML22-892
Issue 8517: Section: 17.5.6 Jira Issue UML22-893
Issue 8518: Section: 17.1 Jira Issue UML22-894
Issue 8527: Section: 17.5.7 Jira Issue UML22-895
Issue 8528: Section: 17.5.8 Jira Issue UML22-896
Issue 8529: Section: 17.5.12 Jira Issue UML22-897
Issue 8530: Section: 17.5.13 Jira Issue UML22-898
Issue 8544: Section: 12 Activities Jira Issue UML22-899
Issue 8587: Section: 17.5.14 Jira Issue UML22-900
Issue 8588: Section: 17.5.15 Jira Issue UML22-901
Issue 8589: Section: 17.5.16 Jira Issue UML22-902
Issue 8590: Section: 17.5.17 Jira Issue UML22-903
Issue 8591: Section: 17.5.18 Jira Issue UML22-904
Issue 8592: Section: 17.5.19 Jira Issue UML22-905
Issue 8593: Section: 17.5.20 Jira Issue UML22-906
Issue 8594: Section: 17 Jira Issue UML22-89
Issue 8595: Section: 18.1.2 Jira Issue UML22-907
Issue 8596: Section: 18.3.2 Jira Issue UML22-908
Issue 8598: Section: 18.2 Jira Issue UML22-909
Issue 8599: Section: 18.3.2 Jira Issue UML22-910
Issue 8600: Section: 18.3.3 Jira Issue UML22-911
Issue 8601: Section: 18.3.6 Jira Issue UML22-90
Issue 8602: Section: 18.3.7 Jira Issue UML22-912
Issue 8603: Section: 18.3.8 Jira Issue UML22-913
Issue 8604: Section: 18.4 Jira Issue UML22-914
Issue 8605: Section: 18 Jira Issue UML22-915
Issue 8606: Section: Appendix B Jira Issue UML22-916
Issue 8607: Section: Appendix B (02) Jira Issue UML22-917
Issue 8608: Section: Appendix C Table 25 Jira Issue UML22-918
Issue 8609: Section: Appendix C Table 26 Jira Issue UML22-919
Issue 8610: Section: Appendix C Table 27 Jira Issue UML22-920
Issue 8611: Section: 15.3.8 Jira Issue UML22-921
Issue 8612: Section: 15.3.8 (second issue) Jira Issue UML22-91
Issue 8613: Section: D.1 Jira Issue UML22-922
Issue 8614: Section: D.2 Jira Issue UML22-923
Issue 8615: Section: D.3 Jira Issue UML22-924
Issue 8616: Section: D.4 Jira Issue UML22-92
Issue 8617: Section: E.1 Jira Issue UML22-925
Issue 8619: Section: Appendix F Jira Issue UML22-926
Issue 8668: UML 2 Super / Activities / missing subsets Jira Issue UML23-150
Issue 8670: Section: 12 Jira Issue UML22-927
Issue 8671: Section 12 (02) Jira Issue UML22-928
Issue 8672: Section 12 (03) Jira Issue UML22-929
Issue 8673: Figure 179 (Control nodes) Jira Issue UML22-93
Issue 8674: text p.297 Jira Issue UML22-930
Issue 8675: Output tokens Jira Issue UML22-1142
Issue 8676: output tokens (02) Jira Issue UML22-931
Issue 8677: token movement Jira Issue UML22-932
Issue 8678: UML 2 -- Need explanations of XMI structure and usage Jira Issue UML22-933
Issue 8679: token Jira Issue UML22-934
Issue 8680: Section: 12 Jira Issue UML22-935
Issue 8681: add the rule of ``natural termination'' Jira Issue UML22-936
Issue 8682: A test cannot be empty Jira Issue UML22-94
Issue 8683: ``conditional node or conditional node'' delete one. Jira Issue UML22-937
Issue 8684: Add a Constraint Jira Issue UMLR-50
Issue 8685: Delete sentence Jira Issue UML22-938
Issue 8686: reword sentence Jira Issue UML22-95
Issue 8687: rewording isuse? Jira Issue UML22-96
Issue 8688: UML 2 Different constraints for Property in Super and Infra Jira Issue UML22-97
Issue 8689: editorial in section 12 Jira Issue UML22-98
Issue 8690: Section: 12.2 Jira Issue UML22-939
Issue 8692: Section: 7.3.36 Jira Issue UML22-99
Issue 8693: Section: 10.3.1 Jira Issue UMLR-51
Issue 8696: policy to describe the Associations sub section of a meta class description Jira Issue UML22-940
Issue 8698: CombinedFragment Loop notation Jira Issue UML22-100
Issue 8699: UML2-rtf issue: communication diagram Jira Issue UMLR-52
Issue 8700: Meaning of relationship between iteration clause and Lifeline.selector clau Jira Issue UMLR-53
Issue 8702: Section: Actions Jira Issue UML22-101
Issue 8705: Section: 8.3.1 Jira Issue UML22-102
Issue 8706: Profile Semantics, pag 723 Jira Issue UML22-941
Issue 8718: In Activities, Figure 176, Action should be abstract Jira Issue UML22-942
Issue 8719: Semantics for instances applies to InstanceSpecification? Jira Issue UML22-943
Issue 8720: String is primitive but has structure. Jira Issue UML22-944
Issue 8721: Client/supplier on dependencies Jira Issue UML22-103
Issue 8722: Misleading statement about multiplicity in AssociationClass Jira Issue UML22-104
Issue 8723: Disjointness should be independent of generalization Jira Issue UML22-945
Issue 8724: DataStoreNode has uniqueness, reverse constraint inherited from ObjectNode Jira Issue UML22-105
Issue 8725: Clarify multiple inputs to expansion regions Jira Issue UML22-106
Issue 8726: Element to Constraint navigation Jira Issue UML22-946
Issue 8727: The create stereotype on Usage dependency Jira Issue UML22-947
Issue 8728: Solid triange notation for Association Jira Issue UML22-948
Issue 8729: Multiple exception handlers Jira Issue UML22-949
Issue 8730: Exceptions thrown across synchronous invocations Jira Issue UML22-950
Issue 8731: Activities Jira Issue UML22-107
Issue 8732: In Figure 210, put merge before Use Part to merge the incoming flows Jira Issue UML22-951
Issue 8733: LoopNode should move rather than copy values to/from loop variables Jira Issue UML22-952
Issue 8734: Clarify first constraint on InputPin and OutputPin, move "only" to before " Jira Issue UML22-953
Issue 8735: The Syle Guidelines for Stereotype Jira Issue UML22-954
Issue 8736: Actions, CallBehaviorAction, third sentence, Jira Issue UML22-955
Issue 8737: ControlFlow Jira Issue UML22-956
Issue 8738: StructuredActivityNode, Semantics, third paragraph, first sentence, Jira Issue UML22-108
Issue 8739: ExpansionRegion Jira Issue UML22-957
Issue 8740: ConditionalNode and LoopNode test and bodies should be ExecutableNodes Jira Issue UML22-958
Issue 8741: In Figure 12, ownedAttribute is bidirectional, in Figure 95, it is unidirec Jira Issue UML22-109
Issue 8742: represents and occurrence keywords are switched Jira Issue UML22-110
Issue 8743: Clarify which classifier or operation this is referring to Jira Issue UML22-111
Issue 8744: CollaborationUse: Constraint 1, Jira Issue UML22-959
Issue 8745: Section: Interactions Jira Issue UML22-960
Issue 8746: Clarify caption of Figure 56 Jira Issue UML22-961
Issue 8747: Notation for connector end multiplicities. Jira Issue UML22-962
Issue 8748: Operation calls on behavior ports Jira Issue UMLR-54
Issue 8749: ParameterSet, first line: "inputs *or* outputs". Jira Issue UML22-963
Issue 8750: External exceptions. Jira Issue UML22-112
Issue 8752: Last element in transition BNF Jira Issue UML22-964
Issue 8753: Page: 591 Jira Issue UML22-965
Issue 8756: Section: Classes Jira Issue UMLR-55
Issue 8757: 1. Deployment Jira Issue UML22-113
Issue 8758: Association in UseCase diagram Jira Issue UMLR-56
Issue 8759: OpaqueAction Jira Issue UML22-966
Issue 8760: Events in Sequence diagram Jira Issue UML22-114
Issue 8761: Arguments of Message Jira Issue UMLR-57
Issue 8763: Nested Nodes Jira Issue UML22-115
Issue 8764: Section: 14.3.3 Jira Issue UMLR-58
Issue 8765: Section: 14.3.3 Page: 508+ Jira Issue UMLR-59
Issue 8766: Section: 12.3.37 Jira Issue UML22-967
Issue 8768: Section: Classes Jira Issue UML23-144
Issue 8769: Can't specify mutator semantics for derived properties Jira Issue UML22-968
Issue 8770: Section: Actions Jira Issue UML22-969
Issue 8771: Section: Action/Activity Jira Issue UML22-116
Issue 8772: Section: 11.3.48 Jira Issue UML22-970
Issue 8773: Page: 330 Jira Issue UML22-971
Issue 8774: Notation of Attributes and Associations subsections Jira Issue UML22-972
Issue 8776: Section: 9.3.7 Jira Issue UML22-117
Issue 8777: Section: 8.3.1 Jira Issue UML22-118
Issue 8778: Section: 8.3.1 Page: 156 ff Jira Issue UML22-973
Issue 8779: ConditionalNode inputs used by more than one test Jira Issue UMLR-60
Issue 8780: Input tokens to LoopNodes should be destroyed when the loop is done Jira Issue UML22-119
Issue 8781: Actions should be able to overlap partitions, to support multiple participa Jira Issue UML22-974
Issue 8782: ExecutableNode should be abstract in Figure 195. It is in Figure 197. Jira Issue UML22-975
Issue 8784: MessageEnd Jira Issue UML22-976
Issue 8785: Return message Jira Issue UML22-120
Issue 8786: Arguments of Message Jira Issue UMLR-61
Issue 8787: Numbering Jira Issue UMLR-62
Issue 8788: Variables Jira Issue UMLR-63
Issue 8824: Obsolete term EventOccurrence still used in multiple places Jira Issue UML22-977
Issue 8825: Incorrect Communication Domain Model Jira Issue UML22-978
Issue 8826: Section: 12 and 13 Jira Issue UML22-979
Issue 8845: p. 721: Allow stereotypes to have properties that are typed by metaclasses Jira Issue UML22-980
Issue 8846: p. 728: New presentation options. Replace the following paragraph Jira Issue UML22-981
Issue 8847: p. 729: Extend the Clock example to show metaclass property Jira Issue UML22-982
Issue 8848: Make instance model consistent with new definition of Clock Jira Issue UML22-983
Issue 8849: p. 731: Make this example consistent with the new definition of Clock Jira Issue UML22-984
Issue 8850: p. 731: Make example consistent with new definition of Clock. Jira Issue UML22-985
Issue 8851: p. 732: Change example to be consistent with new definition of Clock Jira Issue UML22-986
Issue 8852: p. 732: Show examples of new stereotype notation Jira Issue UML22-987
Issue 8853: pp. 733-734: Add association as valid graphic path Jira Issue UML22-988
Issue 8854: multiplicity should not be used/shown in an communicates association Jira Issue UML22-121
Issue 8855: Issue 7368 - make Classifier::useCase navigable Jira Issue UMLR-64
Issue 8859: Section: 12.3.37 ObjectFlow Jira Issue UML22-989
Issue 8861: Section: 12.3.2 Action Jira Issue UML22-122
Issue 8866: Section: Classes Jira Issue UML22-123
Issue 8867: OpaqueAction Jira Issue UML22-990
Issue 8876: Page: 369/370 Jira Issue UML22-124
Issue 8877: Page: 129 Jira Issue UML22-125
Issue 8878: Page: 532 Jira Issue UML22-126
Issue 8880: 9.1 BehavioralFeature package Jira Issue UML22-127
Issue 8882: Section: 10.1 Types Diagram Jira Issue UML22-128
Issue 8883: UML 2.0 Super/Use Cases/Subject of a Use Case Jira Issue UMLR-65
Issue 8887: Section: 11.3.6 Classifiers diagram Jira Issue UML22-129
Issue 8888: Section: 11.3.13 TypedElement (as specialized) Jira Issue UML22-130
Issue 8889: Section: 11.5.1 DataType (as specialized) Jira Issue UML22-131
Issue 8890: Section: 15.3.12 Jira Issue UML22-132
Issue 8891: Page: 423 Jira Issue UML22-133
Issue 8893: UseCase and Actors Jira Issue UML22-134
Issue 8894: TimeExpression Jira Issue UML22-991
Issue 8895: ObjectNode Jira Issue UML22-135
Issue 8896: abstract Action in Activity diagram Jira Issue UML22-992
Issue 8897: OutputPin Jira Issue UMLR-66
Issue 8898: Syntax of Transition Jira Issue UMLR-67
Issue 8899: reply messages in interactions Jira Issue UMLR-68
Issue 8900: Page: 157,162,163 Jira Issue UML22-136
Issue 8901: Page: 163 Jira Issue UML22-993
Issue 8903: page 97, Chapter 10.2.2. MultiplicityElement Jira Issue UML22-137
Issue 8904: page 134, Chapter 11.4.1 Jira Issue UML22-138
Issue 8919: Section: 12.3.5 Jira Issue UML22-994
Issue 8920: Page: 62 Jira Issue UML22-139
Issue 8921: Meaning of navigability Jira Issue UML22-140
Issue 8930: Section: 12.3.9 Jira Issue UML22-995
Issue 8932: UML Superstructure / Actions / incorrect form for subsetting Jira Issue UML22-996
Issue 8933: UML Superstructure / Actions / Missing package heading Jira Issue UML22-997
Issue 8935: UML2 issue: {unrestricted} described in text but not BNF Jira Issue UML22-998
Issue 8936: event parameters Jira Issue UML22-141
Issue 8938: Section: 15.3.14 Jira Issue UML22-999
Issue 8939: Section: 12.3.18 and 12.3.35 Jira Issue UML22-1000
Issue 8945: Page: 420 Jira Issue UML22-142
Issue 8946: Section: 9.3.5 Jira Issue UML22-1001
Issue 8947: Figure 430 references invalid metaclass Jira Issue UML22-1002
Issue 8951: UML 2 Super / Actions / Compliance Levels of Actions Jira Issue UML22-143
Issue 8952: UML 2 - Invalid subsetting of composition ends Jira Issue UML22-144
Issue 8955: connection point reference Jira Issue UML22-1003
Issue 8956: UML 2 Classes Notation for association end ownership Jira Issue UML22-1004
Issue 8957: UML 2 XMI DTD requirement Jira Issue UML22-1005
Issue 8963: UML2 Navigability Impact on Tools Jira Issue UML22-1006
Issue 8964: Interaction::lifeline should be ordered Jira Issue UML22-1007
Issue 8965: Section: 14.3.20 Jira Issue UML22-145
Issue 8966: Core::Constructs::Operation Jira Issue UML22-1008
Issue 8967: UML SuperStructure - Inconsistency re State Machine terms Jira Issue UML22-146
Issue 8968: Page: 591,592 Jira Issue UML22-1009
Issue 8970: Behavior Jira Issue UML22-147
Issue 8972: Page: 255 Jira Issue UML22-148
Issue 8973: Page: 346-347 Jira Issue UML22-149
Issue 8974: Missing notation for association classes Jira Issue UML22-150
Issue 8975: UML2 Super / 14.3.13 Interaction Jira Issue UMLR-69
Issue 8976: UML 2 Super / Undocumented properties Jira Issue UML22-1010
Issue 8977: Property ownership must be consistent across association redefinitions Jira Issue UML22-151
Issue 8978: UML2 should specify default property ownership for association ends Jira Issue UML22-1011
Issue 8987: Section: 6.5 Jira Issue UML22-1012
Issue 8989: UML 2 Super / Collaboration use issues (01) Jira Issue UML22-1013
Issue 8990: UML 2 Super / Collaboration use issues (02) Jira Issue UML22-1014
Issue 8993: UML 2 Super / miscellaneous figure-text discrepancies Jira Issue UML22-1015
Issue 8996: Invalid stereotype in StandardProfile Jira Issue UML22-1016
Issue 9000: Section: Activities Jira Issue UML22-1017
Issue 9001: Section: Common Behavior Jira Issue UML22-152
Issue 9002: Section: Common Behavior (02) Jira Issue UML22-153
Issue 9003: Section: Classes Jira Issue UML22-1018
Issue 9004: Section: Classes (02) Jira Issue UML22-154
Issue 9005: Section: Common Behavior Jira Issue UML22-155
Issue 9006: Section: Actions Jira Issue UML22-1019
Issue 9007: Section: Common Behaviors Jira Issue UML22-1020
Issue 9008: Section: Classes Jira Issue UMLR-70
Issue 9009: Section: Activities Jira Issue UML22-156
Issue 9010: Section: Activities Jira Issue UML22-1021
Issue 9011: Section: Classes Jira Issue UML22-157
Issue 9012: Section: Classes Jira Issue UML22-158
Issue 9013: Section: Activities Jira Issue UMLR-71
Issue 9014: Section: Activities Jira Issue UML22-159
Issue 9015: Section: Classes Jira Issue UMLR-72
Issue 9017: Section: 16.3.3 Jira Issue UML22-160
Issue 9023: 7.3.22 InstanceSpecification Jira Issue UML22-1022
Issue 9024: "ownedType" is not a valid element Jira Issue UML22-161
Issue 9076: Page: 53-55 Jira Issue UML22-162
Issue 9077: Section: 14.4 Jira Issue UML22-1023
Issue 9078: Section: Activities Jira Issue UML22-163
Issue 9080: UML2 Superstructure Fig 2.2 Incomplete Jira Issue UML22-1024
Issue 9081: Section: 14.3.20 Message (from BasicInteractions) Jira Issue UML22-164
Issue 9084: following imports from merged packages to unmerged packages should be remov Jira Issue UML22-1025
Issue 9085: body expression for Property::isConsistentWith(RedefinableElement) Jira Issue UML22-1026
Issue 9086: Rename Constraint::namespace Jira Issue UML22-1027
Issue 9087: Rename Package::ownedMember Jira Issue UML22-1028
Issue 9088: Rename Component::ownedMember Jira Issue UML22-1029
Issue 9089: Rename ActivityEdge::redefinedElement Jira Issue UML22-1030
Issue 9090: Rename ActivityNode::redefinedElement Jira Issue UML22-1031
Issue 9091: Replace {redefines redefinedElement} Jira Issue UML22-1032
Issue 9092: Replace {redefines redefinedElement} Jira Issue UML22-1033
Issue 9093: Replace {redefines redefinedElement} Jira Issue UML22-1034
Issue 9094: Replace {redefines redefinedElement} Jira Issue UML22-1035
Issue 9095: Rename ActivityPartition::subgroup to subpartition Jira Issue UML22-1036
Issue 9096: Change type of WriteStructuralFeatureAction::value Jira Issue UML22-1037
Issue 9097: Change type of WriteStructuralFeatureAction::value to ValueSpecification Jira Issue UML22-1038
Issue 9098: compliance levels L2 and L3 Jira Issue UML22-1039
Issue 9099: Rename InformationFlow::target Jira Issue UML22-1040
Issue 9100: Rename InformationFlow::source Jira Issue UML22-1041
Issue 9101: (merged) compliance level L1 Jira Issue UML22-165
Issue 9102: (merged) compliance levels L2 and L3 Jira Issue UML22-166
Issue 9103: Rename OpaqueAction::input to inputPin Jira Issue UML22-1042
Issue 9104: Rename LinkAction::input to inputPin Jira Issue UML22-1043
Issue 9105: Make ActivityGroup::containedEdge a derived union Jira Issue UML22-1044
Issue 9106: Make ActivityGroup::containedNode a derived union Jira Issue UML22-1045
Issue 9107: Rename OpaqueAction::output to outputPin. Jira Issue UML22-1046
Issue 9108: Rename ActivityGroup::activity to containingActivity Jira Issue UML22-1047
Issue 9109: Component::realization should NOT be derived Jira Issue UML22-1048
Issue 9110: Classifier::parameter, Operation::parameter, and ConnectableElement::parame Jira Issue UML22-1049
Issue 9111: Page: 492-493 Jira Issue UMLR-73
Issue 9117: UML 2 issue: redefining isComposite on association ends Jira Issue UML22-1050
Issue 9119: Realization classifier Jira Issue UML22-1051
Issue 9120: section, 12.3.27 ExpansionRegion(from ExtarStructureActivities Jira Issue UML22-167
Issue 9122: UML 2.1 Regressions Jira Issue UML22-1052
Issue 9123: Section: Actions, Figure 156 Jira Issue UML22-1053
Issue 9124: Need more flexible notation for activity partitions Jira Issue UMLR-74
Issue 9125: keyword, "buildcomponent", and a stereotype, "buildComponent" Jira Issue UML22-168
Issue 9138: inconsistency wrt UML2 classifier behavior Jira Issue UML22-169
Issue 9141: Section 8.3.2 sub-section "Notation" starting on page 149 Jira Issue UML22-170
Issue 9142: Section 8 Issue - Component Realization-Classifier multiplicity Jira Issue UML22-1054
Issue 9143: Section: 7.3.36 Operation Jira Issue UML22-1055
Issue 9145: Page: 107 Jira Issue UMLR-75
Issue 9146: Section 7.2.1 of ptc/04-10-14 Jira Issue UML22-1056
Issue 9172: Section: 15.3.15 Jira Issue UML22-171
Issue 9179: Section: Appendix A: Diagrams Jira Issue UML22-1057
Issue 9180: UML 2.0 issue: Package Primitive Types not merged Jira Issue UML22-1058
Issue 9181: UML 2.0 issue: Profile::ownedStereotype should be derived Jira Issue UML22-1059
Issue 9182: UML 2.0: invalid package merge diagrams for compliance points Jira Issue UML22-1060
Issue 9183: UML 2.0: separate profile application from profile importing Jira Issue UML22-1061
Issue 9184: UML 2.0: CMOF/UML mixup for profiles Jira Issue UML22-1062
Issue 9185: UML 2.0 issue: ownedMember xsi:type="uml:Stereotype" should be used Jira Issue UML22-1063
Issue 9186: UML 2.0: Inconsistencies in profile example XMI Jira Issue UML22-1064
Issue 9187: UML 2.1 XMI Issue Jira Issue UML22-1065
Issue 9188: uml::Extension::ownedEnd should not subset uml::Association::ownedEnd Jira Issue UML22-1066
Issue 9189: Artifact::fileName Jira Issue UML22-1067
Issue 9190: Parameter::effect Jira Issue UML22-1068
Issue 9191: Required attributes Jira Issue UML22-1069
Issue 9192: The following properties should not subset DirectedRelationship::source Jira Issue UML22-1070
Issue 9193: The following properties should not subset DirectedRelationship::target Jira Issue UML22-1071
Issue 9194: Compliance package L2 does not merge StructuredActions in the metamodel Jira Issue UML22-1072
Issue 9195: parameter of operation isRedefinitionContextValid() is inconistently named Jira Issue UML22-1073
Issue 9196: Transition guards cannot currently be evaluated because they have no contex Jira Issue UML22-1074
Issue 9197: Issue regarding "Action::effect : String" Jira Issue UML22-1075
Issue 9198: Behavior::context Jira Issue UML22-1076
Issue 9224: StateMachine::extendedStateMachine should have a multiplicity of 0..*. Jira Issue UML22-1077
Issue 9225: No notation for associating Exceptions with Operations Jira Issue UMLR-76
Issue 9230: choice of terminolgy for TransitionKind is non-intuitive Jira Issue UML22-172
Issue 9232: Page: 161 Jira Issue UML22-1078
Issue 9233: On page 26, Figure 7.9 Jira Issue UML22-173
Issue 9234: Operation should be a specialization of TypedElement and MultiplicityElemen Jira Issue UML22-174
Issue 9235: Figure 12.18: Small typo: "subsets ownedMember" not "ownedmember" Jira Issue UML22-1079
Issue 9236: constraints owned by these properties have no context Jira Issue UML22-175
Issue 9237: Section: Classes Jira Issue UML22-176
Issue 9241: Operation::ownedParameter should be ordered in XMI? Jira Issue UML22-177
Issue 9242: /qualifiedName attribute missing on Core::Constructs::NamedElement Jira Issue UML22-178
Issue 9243: XMI file: Core::Constructs::Operation::bodyCondition should have upper boun Jira Issue UML22-179
Issue 9244: Unclear relationship between the Basic and Abstractions packages Jira Issue UML22-180
Issue 9245: Description of Element Jira Issue UML22-181
Issue 9246: Element and Comment in Basic Jira Issue UML22-182
Issue 9247: No ReadParameterAction or WriteParameterAction Jira Issue UMLR-77
Issue 9249: 7.3.4 Association Class Jira Issue UML22-183
Issue 9256: Optional name attribute in NamedElement is misleading and insufficient Jira Issue UML22-184
Issue 9330: Page: 338, 339 Jira Issue UML22-185
Issue 9337: 7.3.41 Parameter (from Kernel, AssociationClasses)" Jira Issue UML22-1080
Issue 9338: 7.3.41 Parameter (from Kernel, AssociationClasses)" Jira Issue UML22-1375
Issue 9339: consistent ordering of Association::memberEnd and ownedEnd Jira Issue UMLR-78
Issue 9340: Section: 14.4 Jira Issue UML22-186
Issue 9341: reference to Figure 12.87 missing Jira Issue UML22-187
Issue 9351: UML 2.1/Superstructure/ call triggers vs signal triggers Jira Issue UML22-188
Issue 9352: UML 2 Superstructure / CommonBehaviors / Incorrect types in text Jira Issue UML22-1081
Issue 9362: Page: 625 Jira Issue UML22-189
Issue 9369: Section: 7.3.9 Jira Issue UMLR-79
Issue 9370: Section: Sequence diagrams Jira Issue UMLR-80
Issue 9371: All associations ends in the UML2 metamodel itself should be navigable Jira Issue UMLR-81
Issue 9372: Show an example of correct notation for the metamodel Jira Issue UML22-190
Issue 9373: Use the new 'dot' notation in examples Jira Issue UML22-1082
Issue 9374: AssociationClass is severely underspecified Jira Issue UML22-191
Issue 9375: Section: 7.3.7 Jira Issue UML22-192
Issue 9395: Fig 12.10 Jira Issue UML22-193
Issue 9398: UML 2/Templates -- single argument? Jira Issue UML22-1083
Issue 9400: Notation for ordering action input and output pins Jira Issue UMLR-82
Issue 9401: ControlNodes in ActivityPartitions Jira Issue UMLR-83
Issue 9402: Reception has no notation for its signal Jira Issue UMLR-84
Issue 9403: No ObjectEvent corresponding to SendObjectAction Jira Issue UML22-194
Issue 9406: UML2: No notation for indicating Operation::raisedException Jira Issue UMLR-85
Issue 9407: UML2: No notation for BehavioredClassifier::ownedTrigger Jira Issue UML22-1084
Issue 9413: UML 2 Super / Composite Structure / ambiguous constraint Jira Issue UML22-195
Issue 9416: Section: 12.3.48 Jira Issue UML22-196
Issue 9445: Link notation for instance diagrams does not cope with multiple classifiers Jira Issue UMLR-86
Issue 9464: UML 2 Super / Components / connectors to interfaces Jira Issue UML22-197
Issue 9513: UML 2.2 RTF issue - line styles for profiles Jira Issue UML22-198
Issue 9514: page 467, Section 13.3.24 Jira Issue UML22-1085
Issue 9556: Question on InfrastrucutreLibrary::BehavioralFeatures::Parameter Jira Issue UML22-199
Issue 9576: Section: 13.3.24 Signal (from Communications) Jira Issue UML22-1086
Issue 9577: New Issue on multiple guillemot pairs for same element Jira Issue UML22-200
Issue 9578: assembly connectors Jira Issue UML22-201
Issue 9597: Fig 7.14 Jira Issue UML22-202
Issue 9598: ptc/06-01-02:14.3.14, Notation Jira Issue UML22-203
Issue 9599: New issue on notation for multiple stereotypes Jira Issue UMLR-87
Issue 9605: packagedElement Jira Issue UML22-204
Issue 9606: ptc/06-01-02:14.3.14, Notation Jira Issue UML22-1366
Issue 9617: Section: 7.3.10 Jira Issue UML22-205
Issue 9619: Section: 9.3.13 - connectors Jira Issue UML22-1087
Issue 9622: the default for a Property should not be inconsistent with its type Jira Issue UML22-206
Issue 9700: UML's support for null values and semantics is unclear Jira Issue UML22-207
Issue 9701: Unnecessary restriction on aggregations being binary Jira Issue UMLR-88
Issue 9702: No way of specifying element documentation Jira Issue UMLR-89
Issue 9703: Unclear usage of LiteralExpression::type Jira Issue UMLR-90
Issue 9704: "Property::lowerValue" is not a good name Jira Issue UML22-208
Issue 9705: ValueSpecification::isComputable() Jira Issue UMLR-91
Issue 9706: Definition of stereotype placement requires a name Jira Issue UML22-209
Issue 9710: 11.3.26 OpaqueAction Jira Issue UML22-210
Issue 9718: UML 2/ Super / SendSignalEvent erratum Jira Issue UML22-211
Issue 9720: Action inputs/outputs Jira Issue UML22-212
Issue 9750: A notation for Trigger Jira Issue UML22-1088
Issue 9751: UML/OCL spec mismatch-Constraint.context vs Constraint.constrainedElement Jira Issue UMLR-92
Issue 9752: Section: 11.1.3 Jira Issue UML22-213
Issue 9754: Section: 7.3.33 Jira Issue UMLR-93
Issue 9760: Section: 9.14.2 Jira Issue UML22-214
Issue 9800: What exactly is a state list? Jira Issue UML22-215
Issue 9803: Editorial bug in 2.1 Superstructure Convenience document Jira Issue UML22-216
Issue 9805: Default value types Jira Issue UMLR-94
Issue 9806: General ordering cycles Jira Issue UML22-217
Issue 9807: Section: 8.3.1 Jira Issue UML22-218
Issue 9808: Completion event modeling Jira Issue UML22-219
Issue 9812: Page: 64 & 112 Jira Issue UML22-220
Issue 9813: Section: 9.2 Jira Issue UML22-1089
Issue 9814: Section: 9.3.11 Jira Issue UML22-1090
Issue 9817: Section: 7.2 Jira Issue UML22-221
Issue 9818: discrepancies between package dependencies and XMI file for Superstructure Jira Issue UML22-222
Issue 9819: Section: Appendix F Jira Issue UML22-223
Issue 9820: Section: Figure 14.5 Jira Issue UML22-224
Issue 9821: Section: 9.3.11 Jira Issue UML22-1091
Issue 9822: Section: 7.3.44 Jira Issue UML22-225
Issue 9823: Section: 7 Jira Issue UML22-226
Issue 9824: Section: 15.3.14 Transition Jira Issue UML22-227
Issue 9825: Notation (p 154, formal/05-07-04 ) Jira Issue UML22-228
Issue 9826: Section 10.2.1 "Class" (in Basic) Jira Issue UML22-229
Issue 9827: Section 11.4.1 "Classifier" (in Constructs) Jira Issue UML22-230
Issue 9828: Section 11.4.1 "Classifier" (in Constructs) Jira Issue UML22-231
Issue 9829: Section: 12.3.8 Jira Issue UML22-232
Issue 9830: Stereotype attributes inherited from Class Jira Issue UML22-233
Issue 9831: UML 2: "isLeaf" Jira Issue UML22-234
Issue 9833: text of specs and corresponding XMI specs should be clarified Jira Issue UML22-235
Issue 9834: Relationships Jira Issue UMLR-95
Issue 9839: Section: 15.3.12 Jira Issue UML22-236
Issue 9840: Section: 15.3.12, p 588, 589 Jira Issue UMLR-96
Issue 9841: EnumerationLiteral should constrain InstanceSpecification Jira Issue UML22-237
Issue 9842: Guidance for Representing Enumeration Values Jira Issue UMLR-97
Issue 9843: Figure 7.4 invalid redefines Jira Issue UML22-238
Issue 9855: Section: Activities Jira Issue UML22-1092
Issue 9856: Section: Activities - Weight description Jira Issue UML22-1093
Issue 9857: Section: Activities - Weight notation Jira Issue UML22-1094
Issue 9858: Section Activities: Default weight Jira Issue UML22-239
Issue 9859: ReadLinkAction Jira Issue UML22-1095
Issue 9860: Section: Activities - Pin ordering semantics Jira Issue UML22-240
Issue 9861: Section: Activities - Preserving order of multiple tokens offered. Jira Issue UML22-241
Issue 9862: Section: Actions - InputPin semantics wording Jira Issue UML22-242
Issue 9863: Section: Actions - Output of read actions for no values Jira Issue UML22-243
Issue 9864: Section: Activities - Semantics of fork node wording Jira Issue UML22-1096
Issue 9865: Section: Activities - Multiple activity parameters nodes for a single inout Jira Issue UML22-1097
Issue 9866: Section: Activities - Offer ordering on joins Jira Issue UML22-1098
Issue 9867: Section: Activities - Join node edge constraint Jira Issue UML22-1099
Issue 9868: Section: Activities - ForkNode semantics wording Jira Issue UML22-244
Issue 9869: Section: Activities - Output pin semantics clarification Jira Issue UML22-245
Issue 9870: Actions on non-unique properties with location specified Jira Issue UML22-246
Issue 9871: Section: Activities - isSingleExecution default Jira Issue UML22-1100
Issue 9872: Section: Activities -StartClassifeirBehaviorAction and classifier behaviors Jira Issue UML22-1101
Issue 9873: Section: Common Behavior - isReentrant should default to true Jira Issue UML22-247
Issue 9875: Section: Activities - Action semantic clarification Jira Issue UML22-1102
Issue 9877: Notation for stereotypes on Comments and other elements Jira Issue UML22-248
Issue 9878: PrimitiveTypes access by UML (M1) models Jira Issue UML22-249
Issue 9881: Bad cross reference for InterfaceRealization Notation Jira Issue UML22-250
Issue 9885: text-diagram out of synch in Infrastructure 11.4.1 Jira Issue UML22-251
Issue 9886: OCL Syntax in expressions Jira Issue UMLR-98
Issue 9887: Optional values and evaluation of defaults Jira Issue UMLR-99
Issue 9888: Move Property::isId from MOF to UML Jira Issue UML22-252
Issue 9889: Unclear which Property has aggregation Jira Issue UML22-253
Issue 9890: Clarify isRequired Jira Issue UML22-254
Issue 9891: ExtensionEnd description refers to old use of navigability Jira Issue UML22-255
Issue 9923: Section: 13 & 14 Jira Issue UMLR-100
Issue 9961: navigating from link to link ends Jira Issue UML22-256
Issue 9962: Subclasses of InstanceSpecification Jira Issue UMLR-101
Issue 9963: No default value specified for Generalization::isSubstitutable Jira Issue UML22-1103
Issue 9999: Association::isDerived should be derived Jira Issue UMLR-102
Issue 10000: Missing inheritance in 9.3.12 Jira Issue UML22-1104
Issue 10001: Merged Metam.:Property::class with redefinition of non-inherited property Jira Issue UML22-257
Issue 10003: Section: 9.12.1 Jira Issue UML22-258
Issue 10004: Section: 9.13 Jira Issue UML22-259
Issue 10005: Section: 9.10.3 Jira Issue UML22-260
Issue 10006: Section: 9.19.1 Jira Issue UML22-261
Issue 10007: Section: 9.16.1 Jira Issue UML22-262
Issue 10044: Profile Structure Diagrams are missing from Annex A Jira Issue UML22-1105
Issue 10045: 11.3.47 on StructuralFeatureAction (and related sections on subclasses) Jira Issue UML22-263
Issue 10074: Invalid mandatory compositions and associations Jira Issue UML22-264
Issue 10076: Section: 14.3.20 Jira Issue UML23-151
Issue 10079: Invalid redefinitions introduced into metamodel Jira Issue UML22-265
Issue 10080: Section: 11.3.5 Jira Issue UML22-266
Issue 10081: Section: 13.2 Jira Issue UML22-267
Issue 10082: Section: 15.3.8 Jira Issue UML23-152
Issue 10083: proper content for Figure 13.8 Jira Issue UML23-153
Issue 10086: Section: Annex C.1 Jira Issue UML22-268
Issue 10087: Figure 7.31 Jira Issue UML22-269
Issue 10140: Section: 7.3.3 Jira Issue UML22-270
Issue 10144: redefined properties Jira Issue UML22-271
Issue 10145: 12.3.26 ExpansionNode Jira Issue UML22-272
Issue 10146: 12.3.27 ExpansionRegion Jira Issue UML22-273
Issue 10147: UML 2 state machines / entry point outgoing transitions Jira Issue UML22-274
Issue 10151: UML 2: Semantics of isOrdered need to be clarified Jira Issue UML22-1106
Issue 10345: Section: 7 Jira Issue UMLR-103
Issue 10347: Section: 17.5 Jira Issue UML22-275
Issue 10351: Section: 12.3.2 Action Jira Issue UML22-276
Issue 10353: UML2: Parameter::isException overlaps with Operation::raisedException Jira Issue UML22-277
Issue 10354: issue regarding required and provided interfaces Jira Issue UML22-1107
Issue 10356: Page 60 of the pdf Jira Issue UML22-278
Issue 10376: uml.xsd schema file in ptc/2006-04-05 is not correctly generated Jira Issue UML22-279
Issue 10379: Section: 7.3.38 Jira Issue UML22-280
Issue 10382: Meaning of Constraint visibility Jira Issue UML22-281
Issue 10383: Section: 13.3.25 Jira Issue UML22-1108
Issue 10386: Change references in Infra- and Superstructure to UML 2.1.1- URGENT ISSUE- Jira Issue UML22-282
Issue 10388: Activity shape Jira Issue UML22-283
Issue 10411: Section: Chapter: 7.3.2.4 View Jira Issue UMLR-104
Issue 10413: Constraint.context vs Constraint.constrainedElement Jira Issue UMLR-105
Issue 10441: UML2: ReadSelfAction with a context cannot access behavior owned attributes Jira Issue UML22-284
Issue 10469: Figure 13.8 shows the wrong diagram Jira Issue UML22-1109
Issue 10474: Connector contract is inflexible Jira Issue UMLR-106
Issue 10498: Section: 15 Jira Issue UML22-285
Issue 10512: Section: 15 Jira Issue UML22-286
Issue 10513: Section: 13.2 Jira Issue UML22-1110
Issue 10515: Section: 7 Jira Issue UML22-287
Issue 10521: AcceptCallAction has not operation Jira Issue UML22-288
Issue 10526: UML 2 Superstructure/Components/overly stringent constraints Jira Issue UML22-289
Issue 10529: Section: 14.3.14 Jira Issue UML22-290
Issue 10530: Section: 14.3.10 Jira Issue UML22-291
Issue 10536: A_end_role should not be bidirectional Jira Issue UML22-292
Issue 10537: A_outgoing_source and A_incoming_target should not be bidirectional Jira Issue UML22-293
Issue 10590: UML 2.1 Spec, Interactions: 14.3.18 - InteractionUse Jira Issue UML22-294
Issue 10591: UML 2.1 Spec, Interactions: 14.3.18 Jira Issue UML22-295
Issue 10594: Section: e. g. 12.2. page 287 Jira Issue UML22-296
Issue 10597: Behavioral port Jira Issue UMLR-107
Issue 10600: UML 2 Superstructure: Abstractions should be acyclic Jira Issue UMLR-108
Issue 10634: UML2: notation issue Jira Issue UML22-297
Issue 10635: Presentation option for return parameter for operation type are incomplete Jira Issue UMLR-109
Issue 10636: ReplyAction::replyValue type is incorrct Jira Issue UML22-298
Issue 10637: Section: 12.3.38 Jira Issue UML22-299
Issue 10643: Section: 13 SimpleTime Jira Issue UML22-1111
Issue 10650: Section: 14.3.28 ReceiveSignalEvent (from BasicInteractions) Jira Issue UML22-300
Issue 10651: Page: 155, 162 Jira Issue UML22-301
Issue 10655: UML2: Behavior without a specification should not be a classifier behavior Jira Issue UML22-1112
Issue 10656: clarification on Behavior::specification / meaning of InterfaceRealization Jira Issue UMLR-110
Issue 10731: Uses notation "Subsets Element::ownedElement" and similar Jira Issue UML22-1113
Issue 10775: section 13.3.2 – doc ptc/2006-04-02, v.2.1 Jira Issue UML22-1114
Issue 10776: consistent descriptions of semantics of event consumption needed Jira Issue UML22-1115
Issue 10777: A notation for Trigger Jira Issue UML22-1116
Issue 10778: Mismatch between Superstructure ptc/06-04-02 and XML Schema ptc/06-04-05 Jira Issue UML22-302
Issue 10780: UML2: Actor cannot have ownedAttributes Jira Issue UML22-303
Issue 10781: Section: 10.3.4 of formal/2007-02-03 Jira Issue UMLR-111
Issue 10783: Section: 7.3.32 Jira Issue UML22-1117
Issue 10788: Ptc/06-04-02/Pg 188 Jira Issue UML22-1118
Issue 10789: Port.provided:Interface Jira Issue UML22-304
Issue 10802: Section: 17/17.5.7 Jira Issue UML22-305
Issue 10814: Section: Composite Structures Jira Issue UML22-1119
Issue 10815: Flowing data into decision input behaviors Jira Issue UML22-1120
Issue 10816: Setting structural features of a data type Jira Issue UML22-1121
Issue 10818: Section: 12.3.30 Jira Issue UML22-306
Issue 10819: Diagram metaclass shall be introduced and shall be subclass of Element Jira Issue UML22-1122
Issue 10820: ConnectorEnd shall have references to provided or required interfaces Jira Issue UML22-1123
Issue 10821: ValueSpecification that refers to some Element shall be defined Jira Issue UMLR-112
Issue 10822: Ability to define "context specific" default values for Part Jira Issue UMLR-113
Issue 10823: names and namespaces Jira Issue UMLR-114
Issue 10824: Units and types are still problematic Jira Issue UMLR-115
Issue 10826: Repr. of applied stereotypes and their properties insufficiently described Jira Issue UML22-307
Issue 10827: Consistency in description of ends owned by associations Jira Issue UML22-308
Issue 10828: Figure 7.14: "Type" does not show its inheritance from "PackageableElement" Jira Issue UML22-1124
Issue 10829: Usage of "Element::ownedMember" Jira Issue UML22-309
Issue 10830: "Constraint::context" is marked as derived in the metaclass description Jira Issue UML22-310
Issue 10831: "PackageableElement::visibility" uses "false" as default value Jira Issue UML22-311
Issue 10832: Section: 15.3.12 Jira Issue UML22-312
Issue 10930: Section: 18.3.8 Jira Issue UML22-313
Issue 10931: State Machines Jira Issue UML22-314
Issue 10957: UML 2.1.1 - notation for parameter sets Jira Issue UMLR-116
Issue 10959: Section: 15.3.14 Jira Issue UML22-315
Issue 10960: Section: 13.3.24 Jira Issue UML22-316
Issue 10966: drawing a frame to represent Combined Fragment or an Interaction Occurrence Jira Issue UML22-317
Issue 10967: description of 14.3.24 MessageSort (from BasicInteractions) - typo Jira Issue UML22-318
Issue 10974: Explanation of Observation notation Jira Issue UML22-319
Issue 10976: Section: 15.3.11 Jira Issue UML22-320
Issue 10992: UML 2 superstructure -- figure 9.4 is duplicate of figure 9.3 Jira Issue UML22-1125
Issue 10999: 9.3.9 Invocation Action Jira Issue UMLR-117
Issue 11003: page 449 chapter 13.3.24 (Signal (from Communications) Jira Issue UML22-1126
Issue 11004: Section: 9.3.8 Jira Issue UML22-1127
Issue 11007: Wrong notation description Jira Issue UML22-1128
Issue 11008: Wrong subsets Jira Issue UML22-321
Issue 11054: Section 18.3.1 Jira Issue UML22-322
Issue 11055: Section: 16.3.2 Classifier (from UseCases) Jira Issue UML22-323
Issue 11067: Section: 9 Composite Structures / Port notation Jira Issue UML22-324
Issue 11068: Section: 14 Interactions: Lifeline representing an actor Jira Issue UML22-325
Issue 11069: Section: 12.3.41 Streaming parameters for actions Jira Issue UML22-326
Issue 11076: Behaviors Owned by State Machines Jira Issue UML22-327
Issue 11087: Section: 9.3.11 p 182 Jira Issue UML22-1129
Issue 11089: "representation" Jira Issue UML22-1130
Issue 11090: information flow source and target Jira Issue UML22-328
Issue 11092: Section: 14.4 Timing Diagram: Continuous time axis Jira Issue UMLR-118
Issue 11109: Section: 11.4 Classifiers Diagram Jira Issue UML22-329
Issue 11114: Section: 11.4 Jira Issue UML22-330
Issue 11115: Section: 7.3.21 Jira Issue UML22-331
Issue 11116: Section: 7.3.21 figure 7.47 Jira Issue UML22-332
Issue 11120: Property::isAttribute() query needs no argument Jira Issue UML22-333
Issue 11152: UML 2.2 scope statement Jira Issue UML22-334
Issue 11154: Section: Abstractions Jira Issue UML22-335
Issue 11155: Section: Constructs Jira Issue UML22-336
Issue 11156: Section: Abstractions (02) Jira Issue UML22-337
Issue 11160: Namespace URI for Standard Profile(s) Jira Issue UML22-338
Issue 11162: Section: 13.3.3 Jira Issue UML22-339
Issue 11164: Section: 9 composite structures Jira Issue UML22-1131
Issue 11200: Actor concept was indeed changed Jira Issue UML22-340
Issue 11201: Section: 14.3.3 Jira Issue UML22-341
Issue 11234: UML 2.1.2: Path names for CMOF files Jira Issue UML22-342
Issue 11238: composite subsets Jira Issue UML22-343
Issue 11239: composite values Jira Issue UML22-1132
Issue 11240: defaultClassifier of ClassifierTemplateParameter Jira Issue UML22-1133
Issue 11243: constraining Classifiers Jira Issue UML22-1134
Issue 11244: RedefinableTemplateSignature Jira Issue UML22-344
Issue 11265: Any ownedBehavior should be able to have AcceptEventAction Jira Issue UML22-1135
Issue 11268: Section: 12.3.1 AcceptEventAction Jira Issue UML22-345
Issue 11272: Section: Annex A: Diagrams Jira Issue UMLR-119
Issue 11273: Section: Annex A: Diagrams Jira Issue UMLR-120
Issue 11286: first constraint for CombinedFragment Jira Issue UML22-346
Issue 11287: Section: 7.3.3 Jira Issue UMLR-121
Issue 11307: Section: 16.3.5 Jira Issue UMLR-122
Issue 11323: UML2 Property collaborationRole should be removed Jira Issue UMLR-123
Issue 11342: Section: 7.3.37 Package (from Kernel) Jira Issue UMLR-124
Issue 11343: Section: 18.3.6 Profile (from Profiles) Jira Issue UML22-347
Issue 11400: Change multiplicity of ClassifierTemplateParameter role Jira Issue UML22-1136
Issue 11401: Figure 14.5 - Messages. Jira Issue UML22-1137
Issue 11407: context of Constraint Jira Issue UML22-348
Issue 11408: UML 2.1.1 - fig 7.14 Jira Issue UML22-349
Issue 11409: TimeEvent Jira Issue UML22-1138
Issue 11410: simpleTime package problems Jira Issue UMLR-125
Issue 11413: The section titled "Changes from previous UML" is not complete Jira Issue UML22-350
Issue 11414: Incorrect word renders sentence meaningless: Chap. 12.3.41 Jira Issue UML22-351
Issue 11488: ElementImport Jira Issue UML22-352
Issue 11489: In section 7.3.12 Figure 7.38 Jira Issue UML22-353
Issue 11503: Section: Composite Structures/Abstract syntax Jira Issue UML22-1367
Issue 11524: Figures 9.4 identical to figure 9.3 Jira Issue UML22-1139
Issue 11625: Section: 7.3.7 Jira Issue UML22-1140
Issue 11630: Section: 7.3.33 Jira Issue UML22-354
Issue 11646: StructuredActivityNode [UML 2.1.1] Jira Issue UML22-355
Issue 11657: UML2 issue: ProfileApplication treated as Import Jira Issue UML22-356
Issue 11683: UML2 Issue - 'abstract' not listed in keyword Annex Jira Issue UML22-357
Issue 11762: Section: 8.3.2 Connector Jira Issue UML22-358
Issue 11763: Section: 12 Jira Issue UML22-359
Issue 11807: Figure 7.48 and the accompanying discussion under 7.3.21 Jira Issue UMLR-126
Issue 11815: Section: 14.4 Jira Issue UMLR-127
Issue 11827: UML2 Issue: notation for Literals does not allow for name Jira Issue UMLR-128
Issue 11828: Figure 7.6 Jira Issue UML22-360
Issue 12158: The spec needs to clarify the isConsistentWith() method for transitions Jira Issue UML22-361
Issue 12161: UML2: Missing ActionOutputPin Jira Issue UML22-362
Issue 12162: pull semantics are only supported on Action inputs, not outputs Jira Issue UMLR-129
Issue 12166: should be able to show gates on communication diagrams Jira Issue UMLR-130
Issue 12167: inability to specify ordering of messages connected to gates is problematic Jira Issue UML22-363
Issue 12168: TemplateSignature / TemplateParameter / StructuredClassifier Jira Issue UML22-364
Issue 12169: Regarding the quote on p128 Jira Issue UML22-1368
Issue 12170: section 15.3.14 Transition :: Constraints Jira Issue UML22-1369
Issue 12193: UML 2.1.1 Issue: Invalid association end in Figure 7.20 Jira Issue UML22-365
Issue 12195: Section 14.3.19 Jira Issue UML22-366
Issue 12197: UML 2: Need an explicit listing of all semantic variation points Jira Issue UMLR-131
Issue 12203: UML 2 has lost cability to represent operations by collaborations Jira Issue UMLR-132
Issue 12204: paragraph on "deferred events" on page 552 Jira Issue UML22-367
Issue 12218: 15.3.14: This paragraph refers to signal and change events Jira Issue UML22-368
Issue 12224: Datatypes in UML profiles Jira Issue UML22-369
Issue 12235: Table 8.2 must be named "Graphic paths..." instead of "Graphic nodes..." Jira Issue UML22-370
Issue 12236: Table 8.2 Jira Issue UML22-371
Issue 12241: The semantics of an assembly connector remains unspecified Jira Issue UML22-372
Issue 12244: association 'ownedTemplateSignature' of a Classifier Jira Issue UML22-373
Issue 12250: formal definitions of 'isCompatibleWith' (pages 622, 647, 649) Jira Issue UML22-374
Issue 12251: definition of 'isCompatibleWith' for ValueSpecification Jira Issue UML22-375
Issue 12252: term 'templatedElement' not defined Jira Issue UML22-376
Issue 12259: The list of literal described for the ennumeration MessageSort is not compl Jira Issue UML22-377
Issue 12261: Comments owned by Packages Jira Issue UML22-1370
Issue 12262: Comments owned by Packages (02) Jira Issue UML22-1371
Issue 12263: description of MessageOccurenceSpecification Jira Issue UML22-378
Issue 12266: PackageableElement (from Kernel), subsection: "Attribute" Jira Issue UML22-379
Issue 12267: Section: 7.3.41 Jira Issue UMLR-133
Issue 12271: section '10.3.12 Property (from Nodes)' Jira Issue UML22-380
Issue 12272: Section 7.3.44 Jira Issue UMLR-134
Issue 12273: undefined term 'Element::redefinedElement' occurs three times in standard Jira Issue UML22-381
Issue 12274: new constraint ? Jira Issue UMLR-135
Issue 12275: UML Super 2.1.2:Feature Jira Issue UML22-382
Issue 12278: UML 2.1.2:18.3.5 Package (from Profiles) Jira Issue UML22-383
Issue 12279: Section: 18.3.3 Jira Issue UMLR-136
Issue 12284: A final node that returns to the caller but leaves alive any parallel flow Jira Issue UML22-384
Issue 12285: UML Super 2.1.2: section 18.3.2 Jira Issue UMLR-137
Issue 12354: Section: 15.3.7 Constraint [2] Jira Issue UMLR-138
Issue 12355: UML 2.1.2 Super: Execution Specification Jira Issue UMLR-139
Issue 12356: Section: 8.3.3 Jira Issue UML22-385
Issue 12357: CMOF file for UML2 does not have derived Associations marked as such Jira Issue UML22-386
Issue 12369: qualifiers Jira Issue UML22-387
Issue 12379: Section 11.3.25 gives the definition of MultiplicityExpression::isConsisten Jira Issue UML22-388
Issue 12380: Section: 15.3.11/Notation Jira Issue UML22-389
Issue 12381: Section: 13.3.3/ Changes from previous UML Jira Issue UML22-390
Issue 12382: Section: 7.3.10/Associations Jira Issue UML22-391
Issue 12383: Section: 7.3.10/Associations Jira Issue UML22-1380
Issue 12384: Section: 7.3.10/Associations - insert reference Jira Issue UML22-392
Issue 12385: Section: 12.3.8/Generalizations Jira Issue UML22-393
Issue 12405: Car dependency example Jira Issue UML22-394
Issue 12406: Figure showing an AssociationClass as a ternary association Jira Issue UML22-395
Issue 12427: interpreting InstanceSpecification Jira Issue UML22-396
Issue 12431: Section: 15 StateMachines: doActivity and internal transitions Jira Issue UML22-397
Issue 12432: Section: 7.3.7 and 8.3.1 Jira Issue UML22-398
Issue 12433: Section: Activities: Modifications to the approved resolution of 10815 Jira Issue UML22-1141
Issue 12434: Section: Activities Jira Issue UMLR-140
Issue 12436: first paragraph of section 7.8 UML kernel Jira Issue UML22-399
Issue 12455: Section 14 Interaction Jira Issue UML22-400
Issue 12492: Port Jira Issue UML22-401
Issue 12511: Callout notation for many clients/suppliers Jira Issue UMLR-141
Issue 12516: Classifiers Jira Issue UML22-402
Issue 12528: PackageMerge relationships Jira Issue UML22-403
Issue 12530: Behavior's parameter list Jira Issue UML22-404
Issue 12532: definition of RedefinableElement::isLeaf Jira Issue UML22-405
Issue 12544: role bindings of a CollaborationUse Jira Issue UMLR-142
Issue 12545: Section 10.3.10 Jira Issue UML22-406
Issue 12556: Section: 7.3.35 Jira Issue UML22-407
Issue 12557: The behavior of an OpaqueExpression should itself be opaque Jira Issue UML22-408
Issue 12558: Section: 13.3.23 Jira Issue UML22-409
Issue 12564: Section: 13.3.3 Jira Issue UML22-410
Issue 12565: Section: 12.2 Jira Issue UML22-411
Issue 12566: 3 3.2 Behavior (CommonBehaviors/BasicBehaviors) Jira Issue UMLR-143
Issue 12567: Section: 11.3.30,12.3.23 Jira Issue UML22-412
Issue 12568: Section: 14.3.24, 14.3.20 Jira Issue UMLR-144
Issue 12569: Section: 7.3.36 Jira Issue UML22-413
Issue 12570: UML2 issue regarding Redefinition Jira Issue UMLR-145
Issue 12580: UML2 issue regarding RedefinableTemplateSignature Jira Issue UML22-414
Issue 12583: OCL 2.0 8.2 Real Jira Issue UML22-415
Issue 12584: Keyword ambiguity for DataType Section Jira Issue UML22-416
Issue 12586: Section 7.3.50 "substitution" Jira Issue UML22-417
Issue 12587: UML2: Need a better mechanism for integrating UML2 Profiles Jira Issue UML22-418
Issue 12749: Section: 7.4 figure 7.1 missing dependency Jira Issue UML22-419
Issue 12750: Section: 2.2-2.4 compliance level clarifiction needed Jira Issue UML22-420
Issue 12774: Regression in XMI from UML 2.1.2 to UML 2.2 Jira Issue UML22-421
Issue 12775: Section: 9.3.8 Jira Issue UML22-422
Issue 12781: Incorrect OCL expression for constraint [1] on BehavioredClassifier Jira Issue UML22-423
Issue 12782: Unspecified constraint [1] on AcceptEventAction Jira Issue UML22-424
Issue 12783: Unspecified constraint [1] on ActivityEdge Jira Issue UML22-425
Issue 12784: Unspecified constraint [2] on ActivityEdge Jira Issue UML22-426
Issue 12785: Unspecified constraint [1] on ActivityEdge (CompleteStructuredActivities) Jira Issue UML22-427
Issue 12786: Unspecified constraint [1 on Activity Jira Issue UML22-428
Issue 12787: Unspecified constraint [2] on Activity Jira Issue UML22-429
Issue 12788: Unspecified constraint [3] on Activity Jira Issue UML22-430
Issue 12789: constraint [4] on AcceptEventAction and unordered result:OutputPin property Jira Issue UML22-431
Issue 12790: Unspecified constraint [1] on ActivityNode Jira Issue UML22-432
Issue 12791: Unspecified constraint [1] on ActivityNode (StructuredActivities) Jira Issue UML22-433
Issue 12792: figure 13.12 Jira Issue UML22-434
Issue 12794: Property – Additional Operations, page 127. Jira Issue UML22-435
Issue 12833: Clarification on use of Profiles. Jira Issue UML22-436
Issue 12834: On the communication diagram in Fig 6.2 (P12) Jira Issue UML22-437
Issue 12835: On the communication diagram in Fig 6.2 (second issue) Jira Issue UML22-438
Issue 12836: On the table 2.3, page 8 Jira Issue UML22-439
Issue 12837: Figure 7.65 and its explanation, P115 Jira Issue UMLR-146
Issue 12838: Typo P205 10.3.4 Jira Issue UML22-440
Issue 12839: 7.3.11 DataType, P61 Jira Issue UML22-441
Issue 12840: 18.3.8 Stereotype Jira Issue UML22-442
Issue 12841: 7.3.44 Property P128 Jira Issue UML22-443
Issue 12842: 7.3.44 additional operation P128 Jira Issue UML22-444
Issue 12843: Typo 9.3.13 p190 Jira Issue UML22-445
Issue 12844: Classifier has association end "attribute" Jira Issue UML22-446
Issue 12845: Property 7.3.44 p125 Jira Issue UML22-447
Issue 12846: 7.3.33 p100 Jira Issue UML22-448
Issue 12847: Metaclass Property is denoted in Interfaces Package on p.36 Jira Issue UML22-449
Issue 12848: TYPO p.54 Additional Operations Jira Issue UML22-450
Issue 12850: operation allConnections Jira Issue UML22-451
Issue 12851: p269-p270 Constraint Jira Issue UML22-452
Issue 12852: issue to address how problem 11240 was actually addressed in UML 2.2 spec Jira Issue UMLR-147
Issue 12855: specificMachine association should be changed to be type StateMachine Jira Issue UML22-453
Issue 12860: InterfaceRealization Jira Issue UMLR-148
Issue 12912: InstanceSpecifications Jira Issue UML22-454
Issue 12915: Inconsistency in Superstructure 2.2 p. 550 Jira Issue UML22-455
Issue 12942: Actors cannot own Operations - a contradiction Jira Issue UMLR-149
Issue 12985: Could you please clarify what does the UML2 specifications intend for "provided port" and "required port"? Jira Issue UML22-456
Issue 13058: 18.3.8 Generalization of stereotyped model elements Jira Issue UMLR-150
Issue 13080: New proposal for conjugate types for ports Jira Issue UML22-457
Issue 13081: New proposal for conjugate types for ports Jira Issue UML23-154
Issue 13083: UML 2.2 superstructure section 9.3.11 page 184: Port.isService Jira Issue UML22-458
Issue 13088: MARTE/section 7.2.1/ "several labels for the same classifiers in the Metamodel" bug Jira Issue UMLR-151
Issue 13091: Super package should import NamedElement from the Visibilities package, not Namespaces Jira Issue UML23-1
Issue 13092: Parameter isn't package (Heading 2 level) Jira Issue UML23-2
Issue 13093: Figure 9.20 Jira Issue UML23-3
Issue 13134: Section: 14.3.20 Actors in Interactions Jira Issue UML23-4
Issue 13136: Section: 7.3.12 Dependency (from Dependencies) Jira Issue UML23-5
Issue 13137: Section: 7.3.39 PackageImport (from Kernel) Jira Issue UML23-6
Issue 13140: Semantics of Ports in Components and CompositeStructures are incompatible Jira Issue UML22-459
Issue 13141: UML 2.2 Section 9.3.1 nested classes paragrpah in wrong chapter Jira Issue UML22-460
Issue 13142: UML2.2 Section 9.3.1 Presentation Options section Jira Issue UML22-461
Issue 13146: UML2 section 8.3.1 OCL derivations on Component.provided and Component.required are still invalid Jira Issue UML22-462
Issue 13147: UML 2.2 figure 8.10 has arrows the wrong way around Jira Issue UML22-463
Issue 13148: Section: 14.3.3 CombinedFragment (from Fragments) Jira Issue UML23-7
Issue 13149: Section: 14.3.24 MessageSort (from BasicInteractions) Jira Issue UML23-8
Issue 13163: transitionkind Constraints Jira Issue UML22-464
Issue 13164: UML. Clarify relationship of Substitution and InterfaceRealization Jira Issue UML22-465
Issue 13165: There is no way to specify the behavior of operations which are members of data types Jira Issue UMLR-152
Issue 13188: "description" section of the Behavior metaclass Jira Issue UML23-9
Issue 13192: UML: Standard Techniques to disambiguate crossing lines needed Jira Issue UMLR-153
Issue 13193: Section: 12.3.14 Figure 12.29 on page 320 Jira Issue UML23-10
Issue 13250: Val(MyCar.Interaction [SVWB Jira Issue UML23-11
Issue 13253: description of Interaction provided by the Semantic section inconsistent Jira Issue UML23-12
Issue 13254: Notation for ExecutionSpecification Jira Issue UML23-13
Issue 13255: UML2.2 RTF: EnumerationLiteral is a DeploymentTarget Jira Issue UMLR-154
Issue 13256: Section: 14.3.13 Interaction (from BasicInteraction, Fragments) Jira Issue UML23-14
Issue 13257: ParameterableElement as a formal template parameter Jira Issue UML22-466
Issue 13258: inconsistency with how constraints are specified in UML and OCL Jira Issue UML22-467
Issue 13291: Instance modeling does not take into account stereotypes properties Jira Issue UML22-1372
Issue 13306: Packaging Issues with Stereotype Extension Jira Issue UML22-468
Issue 13324: Statemachine diagram in section 15.3.12 diagram 15.42 (and the text above) Jira Issue UML23-15
Issue 13325: use of "internal" transition is used incorrectly in many places where "local" should be used. Jira Issue UML23-16
Issue 13327: P479L.14 Section "Notation" in 14.3.10 ExecutionOccurences - Typo Jira Issue UML22-469
Issue 13330: Allowing multiple Associations in a Package with the same name Jira Issue UML22-470
Issue 13395: UML2: Unclear how to indicate what events a classifier might send Jira Issue UMLR-155
Issue 13425: Section: 7.3.9 Comment should be NamedElement Jira Issue UMLR-156
Issue 13449: we can create an invalid active state configuration Jira Issue UMLR-157
Issue 13452: Section 9.3.4 Collaboration Use, 2nd constraint creates unneces Jira Issue UMLR-158
Issue 13466: Lack of clarity about meaning of package shapes containing elements with fully qualified names Jira Issue UMLR-159
Issue 13476: UML 2: conflicting specifications for how to calculate context for a Behavior Jira Issue UML23-17
Issue 13477: default multiplicty of association ends are defined more than one Jira Issue UML23-18
Issue 13478: The UML XMI fails to include an ownedRule for the Constraint specified for an OpaqueExpression Jira Issue UML23-19
Issue 13479: Section: 9.8.3 XMI fails to include a "lower" attribute Jira Issue UML23-20
Issue 13480: In the XMI, Ownerships::Element fails to include a superClass attribute for Elements::Element Jira Issue UML23-21
Issue 13481: In the XMI, Ownerships::Element erroneously includes an association for ownedComment. Jira Issue UML23-22
Issue 13482: UML 2.2 Profiles Issue: Stereotypes extending multiple metaclasses are ill-formed as metamodel equivalents Jira Issue UML23-23
Issue 13543: UML 2.2 Beta1 Figure 12.18 is misleading about Parameter::effect : ParameterEffectKind [0..1] Jira Issue UML23-24
Issue 13591: Section: 7.4 Diagrams text on page 144 Jira Issue UML23-25
Issue 13592: "Table 7.3 - Graphic paths included in structure diagrams" on pp.143-144 Jira Issue UML23-26
Issue 13651: UML2.2. Contradications in 14.3.10 Jira Issue UMLR-160
Issue 13653: UML2 : Lifeline identity for InteractionUse Jira Issue UML23-27
Issue 13656: UML 2 - appearance of Association Ends as members of the related classes Jira Issue UMLR-161
Issue 13657: Section: 9.3.11 Port Jira Issue UMLR-162
Issue 13659: Figure 12.95 - "Fork node example" Jira Issue UML23-28
Issue 13660: Table 12.1 - "Graphic nodes included in activity diagrams", Jira Issue UML23-29
Issue 13661: Generalizations" for StructuredActivityNode on p. 417 Jira Issue UML23-30
Issue 13662: UML 2 7.3.3 : incorrect text about aggregationKind in associations Jira Issue UML23-31
Issue 13664: UML 2.2 InteractionOperand abstract syntax Jira Issue UMLR-163
Issue 13665: Figure 2.2 contains more than four packages, description referes to four packages Jira Issue UML22-471
Issue 13718: Section 12.3.48 on page 412 Jira Issue UML23-32
Issue 13788: Section 2.3 para 1 needs to be re-written Jira Issue UML23-33
Issue 13789: Figure 7.1 shows no dependency Jira Issue UML23-34
Issue 13790: Parameter is part of the BehavioralFeatures package. Jira Issue UML23-35
Issue 13791: Paragraph 5: The text states that class Comment has no generalizations Jira Issue UML23-36
Issue 13792: The "Generalizations" heading is missing before the "ValueSpecification" bullet. Jira Issue UML23-37
Issue 13793: Two issues regarding Figure 10.2: 1 Jira Issue UML23-38
Issue 13794: Should the definition of Element state that it reuses the definition of Element from Abstractions::Elements? Jira Issue UML23-39
Issue 13795: Section 13 "Core::Profiles" inconsistency Jira Issue UML23-40
Issue 13796: Figure 13.2 shows class InfrastructureLibrary::Profiles::Element. Section 13 doesn't define a class named Element. Jira Issue UML23-41
Issue 13797: Figure 13.2 shows an association between ProfileApplication and Profile that has role "appliedProfile Jira Issue UML23-42
Issue 13798: In paragraph 2, the package reference to InfrastructureLibrary::Constructs::Class omits intermediate package "Core" Jira Issue UML23-43
Issue 13799: In paragraph 4, the text should read "Class has a derived association ...". Currently, the sentence is missing "a". Jira Issue UML23-44
Issue 13800: In the Attributes section, "integer" should be capitalized Jira Issue UML23-45
Issue 13834: "Associations" part of the "9.10.3 Slot" chapter/section Jira Issue UML23-46
Issue 13841: Concrete specialization of the Relationship meta-class are missing Jira Issue UMLR-164
Issue 13844: Figure 18.2 (which describes the contents of the Profiles package) is currently misleading Jira Issue UML22-472
Issue 13846: chapter 2.2, p.3 Last paragaph, second sentence Jira Issue UML23-47
Issue 13847: Section: Chapter 2.2 Compliance levels Jira Issue UML23-48
Issue 13848: issue within UPDM with profile diagrams Jira Issue UMLR-165
Issue 13852: Section: Fig. 7.15: subsets at wrong side Jira Issue UML23-49
Issue 13853: 18.3.6 Typo in Profile section Jira Issue UML23-50
Issue 13855: Section: 18.3.2 Jira Issue UML23-51
Issue 13856: Section: 18.3.6 Jira Issue UMLR-166
Issue 13857: The XMI document contains <ownedMember> elements which should be <packagedElement> Jira Issue UML23-52
Issue 13858: Figure 18.9 shows a presentation option for an Interface which has not been introduced before (circle within box) Jira Issue UMLR-167
Issue 13859: The example in Figure 18.11 is badly designed in multiple ways and is strongly misleading Jira Issue UMLR-168
Issue 13860: Figure 18.15 does not reflect the example before Jira Issue UML23-53
Issue 13861: Replace "extensionClock" with "extension_Clock" and "baseClass" with "base_Class" Jira Issue UML23-54
Issue 13862: Section: 18.3.8 Jira Issue UMLR-169
Issue 13863: URIs do not refer to existing resources (404 errors) Annex H Jira Issue UML23-55
Issue 13867: Description of Level 1 diagram does not make sense with respect to figure 2.2 Jira Issue UML23-56
Issue 13868: Table 2.2 Example feature support statement references Note (4) and Note (5) Jira Issue UML23-57
Issue 13898: what's the difference > between weight=1 and weight=*? Jira Issue UML23-58
Issue 13908: there are numerous places where associations between UML elements have only one, navigable role Jira Issue UMLR-170
Issue 13909: Figures 9.17 and 9.19 and related text Jira Issue UML23-59
Issue 13910: Missing keyword? Jira Issue UML23-60
Issue 13911: Clarify how the provided and required interfaces of a Port are calculated Jira Issue UML23-61
Issue 13912: The OCL for /required interfaces of Component is using ports.provided instead of ports.required Jira Issue UML23-62
Issue 13914: Clarify that input pins do not accept more tokens than their actions can immediately consume Jira Issue UML23-63
Issue 13920: current definition of a 'local' transition does not allow the case to have a local transition Jira Issue UML23-64
Issue 13926: Template Binding Question Jira Issue UMLR-171
Issue 13927: Subsets vs. Redefines Jira Issue UMLR-172
Issue 13930: Validator issues with TestCase 2 Jira Issue UML23-65
Issue 13931: Color errors on figures in UML 2.2 Jira Issue UML23-66
Issue 13933: Clarification need on circle plus notation for containment Jira Issue UML23-67
Issue 13936: UML2: Need clarification on circle plus notation for containment Jira Issue UMLR-173
Issue 13943: Activity groups should be named Jira Issue UML23-68
Issue 13947: Figure 7.38 needs to be revised Jira Issue UML23-69
Issue 13948: UML2.2 chapter 16 : Actor constraint [1] has invalid OCL Jira Issue UML23-70
Issue 13991: Operation-interface should subset Feature-featuringClassifier and NamedElement-namespace Jira Issue UML23-71
Issue 13992: lowerBound/upperBound constraints and derivations wrong Jira Issue UML23-72
Issue 13993: UML 2.2 Issue - availability of PrimitiveTypes for UML models Jira Issue UML23-73
Issue 13994: Section 9.9 should classifier be added to the diagram on p 50? Jira Issue UML23-74
Issue 13995: confusion re diagram on p. 83 Jira Issue UML23-75
Issue 14021: UML2: error in definition of Class::nestedClassifier Jira Issue UML23-76
Issue 14022: Visibility and Import relationships Jira Issue UMLR-174
Issue 14023: nestedClassifier Jira Issue UML23-77
Issue 14027: Semantics of the AddVariableValueAction Jira Issue UML23-145
Issue 14034: type mismatch Jira Issue UML23-78
Issue 14035: Currently is it possible for a Classifier to specialize the same classifier directly more than once Jira Issue UML23-79
Issue 14044: Should there be a constraint for extends equivalent to 16.3.6 [4] Jira Issue UMLR-175
Issue 14045: semantics of associating a use case with another use case, or indeed anything other than an actor, are unclear Jira Issue UMLR-176
Issue 14062: UML 2 chapter 17: template model cannot represent templates parameterized by value types Jira Issue UML23-146
Issue 14063: remove StructuredActivities::ActivityGroup Jira Issue UML23-80
Issue 14065: UML2: Missing semantics in definition of RedefinableTemplateSignature with multiple parents Jira Issue UML23-81
Issue 14066: Properties need not be owned Jira Issue UML23-82
Issue 14078: UML 2: notation and concepts for unbound and un-owned template parameters are not clear Jira Issue UMLR-177
Issue 14081: Package merge is missing a rule Jira Issue UMLR-178
Issue 14083: Profile::allOwningPackages Jira Issue UML23-83
Issue 14084: Subsets vs. Redefines Jira Issue UMLR-179
Issue 14090: authorize a reference to an operation in a realized interface. Jira Issue UMLR-180
Issue 14092: Ambiguity in the names of the stereotypes in the standard profiles Jira Issue UML23-84
Issue 14093: BNF of Constructs::Property Jira Issue UML23-85
Issue 14114: Remove InputPint from StructuredActivities Jira Issue UML23-86
Issue 14115: Need to copy down merged content to make constraints parse in receiving package Jira Issue UML23-87
Issue 14116: Propagate RTF 2.3 changes to Infrastructure Jira Issue UML23-88
Issue 14123: Remove redundantant constraint [2] in 7.3.4 Jira Issue UML23-89
Issue 14135: Difference between OCL and text in constraint [2] of 15.3.15 Jira Issue UML23-90
Issue 14183: Need notation option to show type stereotype on typed element Jira Issue UMLR-181
Issue 14186: The spec may require some clarification regarding figure 14.16 Jira Issue UMLR-182
Issue 14192: The primitive types in the UML 2.3 infrastructure.xmi are private; they should be public Jira Issue UML23-91
Issue 14216: Documentation of merge increments in the superstructure Jira Issue UML23-92
Issue 14220: Language unit of Usage Jira Issue UML23-93
Issue 14227: UML: Issue with stereotype icons in a profile Jira Issue UMLR-183
Issue 14228: Incorrect OCL in Infrastructure.xmi for 'Core-Constructs-Operation-isConsistentWith' Jira Issue UML23-94
Issue 14235: Setting Classes-Interfaces-Interface-ownedAttribute would fail to populate Classes-Kernel-Property-owner Jira Issue UML23-95
Issue 14258: Japan Superstructure PAS Ballot Comments - comment 1 Jira Issue UML23-96
Issue 14259: Japan Superstructure PAS Ballot Comments - comment 2 Jira Issue UML23-97
Issue 14260: Japan Superstructure PAS Ballot Comments - comment 3 Jira Issue UML23-98
Issue 14261: Japan Superstructure PAS Ballot Comments - comment 4 Jira Issue UML23-99
Issue 14262: Japan Superstructure PAS Ballot Comments - comment 5 Jira Issue UML23-100
Issue 14263: Japan Superstructure PAS Ballot Comments - comment 6 Jira Issue UML23-101
Issue 14264: Japan Superstructure PAS Ballot Comments - comment 7 Jira Issue UML23-102
Issue 14265: Japan Superstructure PAS Ballot Comments - comment 8 Jira Issue UML23-103
Issue 14266: Japan Superstructure PAS Ballot Comments - comment 9 Jira Issue UML23-155
Issue 14267: Japan Superstructure PAS Ballot Comments - comment 10 Jira Issue UML23-104
Issue 14268: Japan Superstructure PAS Ballot Comments - comment 11 Jira Issue UML23-105
Issue 14269: Japan Superstructure PAS Ballot Comments - comment 12 Jira Issue UML23-106
Issue 14270: Japan Superstructure PAS Ballot Comments - comment 13 Jira Issue UML23-107
Issue 14271: Japan Superstructure PAS Ballot Comments - comment 14 Jira Issue UML23-108
Issue 14272: Japan Superstructure PAS Ballot Comments - comment 15 Jira Issue UML23-109
Issue 14273: Japan Superstructure PAS Ballot Comments - comment 16 Jira Issue UML23-110
Issue 14274: Japan Superstructure PAS Ballot Comments - comment 17 Jira Issue UML23-111
Issue 14275: Japan Superstructure PAS Ballot Comments - comment 18 Jira Issue UML23-112
Issue 14276: Japan Superstructure PAS Ballot Comments - comment 19 Jira Issue UML23-113
Issue 14277: Japan Superstructure PAS Ballot Comments - comment 20 Jira Issue UML23-114
Issue 14278: Japan Infrastructure PAS Ballot Comments - comment 1 Jira Issue UML23-115
Issue 14279: Japan Infrastructure PAS Ballot Comments - comment 2 Jira Issue UML23-116
Issue 14280: Japan Infrastructure PAS Ballot Comments - comment 3 Jira Issue UML23-117
Issue 14281: Japan Infrastructure PAS Ballot Comments - comment 4 Jira Issue UML23-118
Issue 14282: Japan Infrastructure PAS Ballot Comments - comment 5 Jira Issue UML23-119
Issue 14283: Japan Infrastructure PAS Ballot Comments - comment 6 Jira Issue UML23-120
Issue 14284: Japan Infrastructure PAS Ballot Comments - comment 7 Jira Issue UML23-121
Issue 14285: Japan Infrastructure PAS Ballot Comments - comment 8 Jira Issue UML23-122
Issue 14286: Japan Infrastructure PAS Ballot Comments - comment 9 Jira Issue UML23-123
Issue 14287: Duplicate association in normative UML 2.3 superstructure file Jira Issue UML23-124
Issue 14355: Names of ownedEnds that were there in UML 2.1.1 are missing in UML 2.2 Jira Issue UML23-125
Issue 14356: Reconcile the algebra of collections across OCL & UML’s intentional & extensional semantics Jira Issue UMLR-184
Issue 14426: Association class notation with just class or association Jira Issue UMLR-185
Issue 14429: UML 2.3 draft, 11.3.1 - AcceptCallAction Jira Issue UML23-126
Issue 14430: UML2::Constraint Jira Issue UMLR-422
Issue 14431: notation of objet flow <<selection>> and <<transformation>> Jira Issue UML23-127
Issue 14439: errors in OCL statements of Additional Operations? Jira Issue UML23-128
Issue 14448: UML 2.3: Errors in example serialization for Profiles in Chapter 18 Jira Issue UML23-129
Issue 14449: PrimitiveType has missing constraints Jira Issue UMLR-186
Issue 14536: Stereotyped Constraints in UML Jira Issue UMLR-187
Issue 14544: Stereotyped Constraints in UML Jira Issue UMLR-188
Issue 14552: Ordered derived unions Jira Issue UML23-130
Issue 14554: Interface-redefinedInterface should subset Classifier-redefinedClassifier Jira Issue UML23-131
Issue 14555: UML 2 TemplateParameterSubstitution inconsistency about multiplicity of Actual and OwnedActual Jira Issue UMLR-189
Issue 14560: Value of a Property Jira Issue UML23-132
Issue 14563: Cyclick dependency Jira Issue UML23-133
Issue 14565: typo in new attribute name Jira Issue UML24-1
Issue 14566: CMOF missing several redefined property relationships Jira Issue UML24-2
Issue 14569: Constraint [1] for WriteStructuralFeatureAction is incorrect Jira Issue UML24-3
Issue 14570: Constraint [3] on TestIdentityAction is incorrect Jira Issue UML24-4
Issue 14580: Parameter type of MultiplicityElement::includesMultiplicity() Jira Issue UML24-5
Issue 14588: are Create messages aynch or synch, or doesn't it matter? Jira Issue UMLR-190
Issue 14613: UML2 - non-unique association names in L3.merged.cmof Jira Issue UML24-6
Issue 14621: UML2 - derivation for DeploymentTarget.deployedElement is invalid Jira Issue UML24-7
Issue 14626: UML2 - definition of Property.opposite is wrong Jira Issue UML24-8
Issue 14627: UML2: Incomplete definition for Activity.structuredNode Jira Issue UML24-9
Issue 14629: UML 2 Events referred to by OccurrenceSpecifications should be optional Jira Issue UML24-10
Issue 14630: Some owned operations with OCL expression bodies but without their "isQuery" set to "true" Jira Issue UML24-11
Issue 14631: All enumertion literals in the model have their "classifier" collections empty Jira Issue UML24-12
Issue 14632: Associations with same name that live in different packages violate unique name constraint Jira Issue UML24-13
Issue 14633: Attributes without a type Jira Issue UML24-14
Issue 14634: Errros with some "subsets" and redefines" where the contexts of subsetting/redefintion do not conform Jira Issue UML24-15
Issue 14635: Errors with types of association ends not conforming to their subsetted ends Jira Issue UML24-16
Issue 14636: Cycles in package imports Jira Issue UML24-17
Issue 14637: Namespace collission due to package import Jira Issue UML24-18
Issue 14638: Some associations in the normative XMI has one memberEnd Jira Issue UML24-19
Issue 14643: AcceptEventAction notation Jira Issue UML24-20
Issue 14862: Issue on generalization Jira Issue UML24-21
Issue 14875: wrong Actor's constraint [1]" Jira Issue UML24-22
Issue 14889: Wrong Spelling for "development" Jira Issue UML23-134
Issue 14926: is composite, but does not subset ownedElement Jira Issue UML24-23
Issue 14927: is composite and subsets not derived composite property: Jira Issue UML24-24
Issue 14928: Property subsets other regular property, non-derived union Jira Issue UMLR-191
Issue 14929: lowered multiplicity Jira Issue UML24-25
Issue 14930: One association end is derived, another is not Jira Issue UMLR-192
Issue 14931: remove BehavioredClassifier::ownedTrigger Jira Issue UML24-26
Issue 14933: UML Issue: Refactor UML to separate SW-Specific Aspects from Foundation Language Jira Issue UMLR-193
Issue 14934: Simplify by Making UML More Consistent: Apply class and composite structure diagram rules to behavior modeling Jira Issue UMLR-194
Issue 14935: Simplify by Making UML More Consistent: Allow States to be model as classes supporting inheritance and composition Jira Issue UMLR-195
Issue 14936: UML: Need more robust value model that would enable capture of values vs time Jira Issue UMLR-196
Issue 14937: UML: Incorporate SysML Requirements Model into UML Jira Issue UMLR-197
Issue 14938: UML: Include text description field with model element Jira Issue UMLR-198
Issue 14939: UML Associate an image/icon with each model element Jira Issue UMLR-199
Issue 14940: UML: Provide unique URL/URI Reference to/from Model Elements Jira Issue UMLR-200
Issue 14941: UML: Include text description field with model element --- additional information added Jira Issue UMLR-201
Issue 14942: UML:Notational option to display inherited features in a subclass Jira Issue UMLR-202
Issue 14943: Provide notational mechanism to represent any group of model elements based on some criteria w/o stealing ownership Jira Issue UMLR-203
Issue 14944: UML: A strong ability to support reviewing packages Jira Issue UMLR-204
Issue 14945: UML: Support for maintaining what-if models in repository without massive duplication Jira Issue UMLR-205
Issue 14946: UML Support for multiple library levels Jira Issue UMLR-206
Issue 14947: UML: A strong ability to support generating Documents Jira Issue UMLR-207
Issue 14948: UML: Diagrams as Model Elements Jira Issue UMLR-208
Issue 14949: UML: Provide mathematical formalism for UML semantics to provide precise meaning to language constructs Jira Issue UMLR-209
Issue 14950: UML: Better Definition of Compliance Jira Issue UMLR-210
Issue 14951: UML: Large Scale Model Support:Federated/Distibuted Models Jira Issue UMLR-211
Issue 14952: UML: Cross model dependencies Jira Issue UMLR-212
Issue 14953: UML: Improve Sequence Diagram Semantics (3-issues) Jira Issue UMLR-213
Issue 14954: UML: Add abilities to specifiy intent of Assert, Negate, Consider, Ignore fragments Jira Issue UMLR-214
Issue 14955: UML:Access to standardized ontologies within models Jira Issue UMLR-215
Issue 14956: UML: Better Profile Capabilitiy Jira Issue UMLR-216
Issue 14957: UML: Timing semantics for activity diagram Jira Issue UMLR-217
Issue 14958: UML: Higher-level reusable frameworks Jira Issue UMLR-218
Issue 14959: UML has no way of distinguishing Notes from Comments Jira Issue UMLR-219
Issue 14960: UML is vague about which Element should own Comments Jira Issue UML24-27
Issue 14961: Unclear constraint on stereotype associations Jira Issue UML24-28
Issue 14962: loopVariable ownership Jira Issue UML24-29
Issue 14963: Context of a behavior owned as a nested classifier Jira Issue UML24-30
Issue 14964: Definition of Behavior::context is not correct Jira Issue UML24-31
Issue 14977: Matching subsettting across association ends Jira Issue UML24-32
Issue 14978: NamedElements whose owners do not subset Namespace Jira Issue UMLR-220
Issue 14989: TestIdentityAction for datatypes Jira Issue UML25-674
Issue 14991: Expansion nodes using all the tokens in them as a single collection Jira Issue UML24-33
Issue 14993: UML 2: property redefinitions should be symmetric across associations Jira Issue UML24-34
Issue 14994: The containment between Activity and StructuredActivityNode has one end redefining and the other subsetting Jira Issue UML24-35
Issue 14995: Subsetting clauses should show the subsetted property fully qualified. Jira Issue UML24-36
Issue 15001: Incomplete resolution to 10826 Jira Issue UML24-37
Issue 15006: serialization of a profile should always include the nsURI and nsPrefix tags Jira Issue UML24-38
Issue 15019: Package Extension Jira Issue UML23-135
Issue 15020: Contents of Dependencies package Jira Issue UML23-136
Issue 15046: Poor example of Dependency notation Jira Issue UML24-39
Issue 15047: Lack of graphical example of multi-element Dependency Notation Jira Issue UML24-40
Issue 15050: Parameter Jira Issue UMLR-221
Issue 15056: Figure 7.15 Jira Issue UML24-41
Issue 15107: Enumeration Literal Jira Issue UML24-42
Issue 15120: Activity vs Action completion Jira Issue UML24-43
Issue 15123: Sequence diagram and Communication diagrams should support instances as lifelines Jira Issue UMLR-222
Issue 15125: UML2.3: Missing subsetting from A_redefinedClassifier_classifier in XMI Jira Issue UML24-44
Issue 15126: UML2.3 definition of Classifier::hasVisibilityOf is circular Jira Issue UML24-45
Issue 15128: Association owned derived union Jira Issue UML24-46
Issue 15136: MessageEvents Jira Issue UML24-47
Issue 15144: Detailed modeling of the Standard Profiles Jira Issue UML24-48
Issue 15145: Modeling sent messages in State Machines Jira Issue UML25-675
Issue 15162: UML2 - Invalid constraint for Actor Jira Issue UML24-49
Issue 15167: composite tags Jira Issue UML24-50
Issue 15207: Timing Diagram and interchange Jira Issue UMLR-223
Issue 15208: Invalid type for Slot.value Jira Issue UML23-137
Issue 15209: Invalid type for NamedElement.namespace Jira Issue UML23-138
Issue 15216: Minor bug in Namespace::importMembers() query Jira Issue UML23-139
Issue 15221: Bug in Core::Abstractions::Super::Classifier::hasVisibilityOf Jira Issue UML23-140
Issue 15236: not sure it is possible to define a constraint without a context Jira Issue UMLR-224
Issue 15237: issue10087 and association-like notation Jira Issue UMLR-225
Issue 15239: Chapter 14 is ambiguous and contradictory about how to link up messages and execution specifications Jira Issue UMLR-226
Issue 15240: Owning of interaction fragments is ambiguous when InteractionOperands are present Jira Issue UMLR-227
Issue 15248: Initialization of complex fields Jira Issue UMLR-228
Issue 15251: Guard of activity edge should be optional Jira Issue UML23-141
Issue 15259: Meaning of BodyCondition and its alignment with OCL Jira Issue UML24-51
Issue 15263: UML 2 issue - misleadingly named associations Jira Issue UML24-52
Issue 15264: Resolution to issue 14063 Jira Issue UML24-53
Issue 15265: UML 2 Subclasses of Classifier should subset redefinedClassifier when they redefine Jira Issue UML24-54
Issue 15266: Issue 14287 and 13330 resolutions are inconsistent and incorrectly applied. Jira Issue UML24-55
Issue 15267: UML2 Issue: OCL in resolution 11114 is incorrect Jira Issue UML24-56
Issue 15268: Term "method activation" deprecated? Jira Issue UML24-57
Issue 15269: UML 2.3, Figure 18.1 Jira Issue UML24-58
Issue 15274: split the addition of generalization relationships among association in 14977 in two parts Jira Issue UML24-59
Issue 15278: Auxiliary Jira Issue UML24-60
Issue 15279: Create Jira Issue UML24-61
Issue 15280: It seems odd to say that Service “computes a value”. Jira Issue UML24-62
Issue 15281: 'false' is not a member of VisibilityKind Jira Issue UML23-142
Issue 15283: issues relating to Figure 7.14 - The Packages diagram of the Kernel package Jira Issue UML24-63
Issue 15285: Figure 7.10 shows Feature::isStatic as abstract Jira Issue UML24-64
Issue 15288: NamedElement::clientDependency constrained to subset DirectedRelationship::source Jira Issue UML24-65
Issue 15290: Ports Jira Issue UMLR-229
Issue 15303: How to specify actual parameters to pass to parameterized submachine StateMachine Jira Issue UMLR-230
Issue 15312: Issue on UML 2.3 - Use of isAbstract for Interfaces Jira Issue UMLR-231
Issue 15315: Aggregation missing from Property string syntax Jira Issue UMLR-232
Issue 15356: UML 2.3 Issue: Constraint InformationFlow.sources_and_target_kinds Jira Issue UML24-66
Issue 15369: UML 2.4: Add Property::isId Jira Issue UML24-67
Issue 15370: UML 2.4: Add package:URI Jira Issue UML24-68
Issue 15371: UML 2.3 Superstructure: Non-sensible text for modelLibrary stereotype Jira Issue UML24-69
Issue 15372: Over-general sentence about MOF and Profiles Jira Issue UML24-70
Issue 15378: UML 2.4: Inconsistent rendering of OCL in UML metamodel Jira Issue UML24-71
Issue 15384: Typo: isStric => isStrict Jira Issue UML24-72
Issue 15394: Ambiguous constraints for transitions Jira Issue UML24-73
Issue 15399: "unique" annotation Jira Issue UML24-74
Issue 15400: Nasty UML 2.x Issue - /qualifiedName is not unambiguous Jira Issue UMLR-233
Issue 15401: Qualified name is incorrectly claimed to be unambiguous Jira Issue UML24-75
Issue 15413: Figure 9.2 (Abstractions subpackage dependencies) has wrong dependency Jira Issue UML24-76
Issue 15419: The stereotype «Create» and keyword «create» are both defined in the UML 4 document Jira Issue UML24-77
Issue 15421: UML Interactions: Misleading suggestion of relationship between Interactions and Activities modeling Jira Issue UMLR-234
Issue 15427: coveredBy : InteractionFragment [0..1] should be [*] Jira Issue UML24-78
Issue 15429: "isStatic" property of Feature no longer appears in any diagram Jira Issue UML24-79
Issue 15438: xmi files in the 2.4 RTF deliverables have cmof tags contained in a non-XMI root element Jira Issue UML24-80
Issue 15439: UML2.4: StandardProfileL2 & L3 are incomplete as delivered Jira Issue UML24-81
Issue 15440: Issue on UML 2.4 - notation for Component::provided Jira Issue UMLR-235
Issue 15449: Under-specified associations in UML2.4 & the need for clarifying the semantic directionality for all UML associations Jira Issue UMLR-236
Issue 15451: Clarifying the support for and semantics of subsetting/redefinition for a pair of properties defined in different contex Jira Issue UMLR-237
Issue 15485: UML 2 issue: connectors typed by Association Class Jira Issue UMLR-238
Issue 15499: Operation::isConsistentWith Jira Issue UML24-82
Issue 15500: isConsistentWith Jira Issue UML24-83
Issue 15501: bodyCondition and isQuery Jira Issue UML24-84
Issue 15525: redefinitionContext of Property Jira Issue UML24-85
Issue 15526: Missing subsetting of redefinitionContext by Property::owningAssociation Jira Issue UML24-86
Issue 15529: The resolution to issue 13993 that moved PrimitiveTypes to an independent package contained a mistake Jira Issue UML24-87
Issue 15530: UML 2 issue: UML 2.4 normative deliverables should be published in MOF2.4 / XMI 2.4 format Jira Issue UML24-88
Issue 15560: Message's signature is still derived property (in text only): Jira Issue UML24-89
Issue 15561: DestructionOccurenceSpecification is inherited from OccurenceSpecification instead of MessageOccurenceSpecification Jira Issue UML24-90
Issue 15562: DestructionOccurenceSpecification text in Semantics still refers to events Jira Issue UML24-91
Issue 15563: Association-owned association end name changes Jira Issue UML24-92
Issue 15564: Fix 14977 vs. 14638 Jira Issue UML24-93
Issue 15565: Fix association end multiplicities Jira Issue UML24-94
Issue 15566: Association conflicts with MemberEnds IsDerived flags Jira Issue UML24-95
Issue 15567: Redefinition of association-owned ends requires association generalization Jira Issue UML24-96
Issue 15568: Derived properties that are not marked read-only Jira Issue UML24-97
Issue 15569: Multiplicity Element Is MultiValued With Default Value Jira Issue UML24-98
Issue 15570: InstanceValue has no type Jira Issue UML24-99
Issue 15571: Parameter have Effects Jira Issue UML24-100
Issue 15572: EnumerationHasOperations : UML::VisibilityKind::bestVisibility Jira Issue UML24-101
Issue 15573: The metamodel contains instances of Model Jira Issue UML24-102
Issue 15574: Give all constraints unique names within their context. Jira Issue UML24-103
Issue 15575: Change all properties typed by data types to aggregation=none Jira Issue UML24-104
Issue 15622: UML 2.4 - Interaction Jira Issue UML24-105
Issue 15664: Property::isID should not be optional Jira Issue UML24-106
Issue 15668: isDerived with DefaultValue Jira Issue UML24-107
Issue 15669: UML state machines: inconsistent subset of StateMachine::extendedStatemachine Jira Issue UML24-108
Issue 15708: DecisionNode at all guards evaluated to false Jira Issue UML24-109
Issue 15711: UML 2.4 - ConditionalNode - Semantics Jira Issue UML24-110
Issue 15762: Problem with ExtensionEnd::lower Jira Issue UML24-111
Issue 15763: No Constraint for multiple associations Jira Issue UMLR-239
Issue 15765: stereotype <<bind>> for defining parameterized classes is nowhere defined Jira Issue UML24-112
Issue 15766: navigation only possible to generalization but not to specializations of elements Jira Issue UML24-152
Issue 15768: Wrong constraint on Operation::bodyCondition Jira Issue UML24-113
Issue 15769: Operation with multiple return parameter Jira Issue UML24-114
Issue 15774: Missing relation between "Namespaces" package and "Ownerships" package in fig. 9.2 (p. 30)? Jira Issue UML24-115
Issue 15778: Fix minor inconsistencies between infrastructure specification document & metamodel Jira Issue UML24-116
Issue 15779: Be explicit that type does not need to be set for LiteralBoolean etc. Jira Issue UML24-117
Issue 15781: Property.isReadOnly is redundant with StructuralFeature.isReadOnly Jira Issue UML24-118
Issue 15787: Parameter semantics related to Behavior and BehavioralFeature Jira Issue UML24-119
Issue 15788: UML 2.3 Infra 12 Incomplete conformance for infinity Jira Issue UMLR-240
Issue 15791: Deep history for orthogonal states Jira Issue UML24-120
Issue 15804: Big UML 2.4 problem: missing defaults in XMI Jira Issue UML24-121
Issue 15822: Part document structures in Infrastructure need to conform to ISO Standard Document Template Conventions Jira Issue UML24-122
Issue 15823: Part document structures in Superstructure need to conform to ISO standard Document Template Conventions Jira Issue UMLR-241
Issue 15849: Creation of an expansion node under an activity is allowed by UML and SysML specifications Jira Issue UMLR-242
Issue 15850: Restrictions on decision nodes Jira Issue UMLR-243
Issue 15870: UML 2: Multiplicity of Lifeline's coveredBy is incorrectly specified Jira Issue UML24-123
Issue 15873: UML 2.4: “Figure 7.31 shows the dot at the wrong end.” Jira Issue UML24-124
Issue 15880: Wrong Classifier Name Jira Issue UML24-125
Issue 15881: Constraint is Wrong Jira Issue UML24-126
Issue 15889: Retationships and composite structures Jira Issue UMLR-244
Issue 15890: New notation for attribute Jira Issue UMLR-245
Issue 15898: Statement mistake Jira Issue UML24-127
Issue 15899: Figure 7.31 propose an “association-like” notation for attributes Jira Issue UML24-128
Issue 15903: XMI representation of stereotype application Jira Issue UMLR-246
Issue 15930: Tags typed by classes/blocks Jira Issue UMLR-247
Issue 15991: Notation of Lifelines Jira Issue UMLR-248
Issue 15993: Can a Generalization really be in multiple GeneralizationSets? Jira Issue UML241-1
Issue 16002: Presentation options of statemachine transitions: Figure 15.45 is ambiguous or wrong Jira Issue UML241-2
Issue 16043: Section numbering Jira Issue UML24-129
Issue 16110: typo on page 46 Jira Issue UML241-3
Issue 16111: Figure 15.32 Jira Issue UML241-4
Issue 16115: No Rules for Element Names Jira Issue UML241-5
Issue 16116: Package URI Attribute Uses Obsolete RFC 2396 Jira Issue UMLR-249
Issue 16117: Profile URI Attribute - Mingled URI Definition and Use in XMI Jira Issue UMLR-250
Issue 16118: Metaclass stereotype notion Jira Issue UMLR-251
Issue 16119: Metaclass stereotype notion (02) Jira Issue UMLR-252
Issue 16120: Wrong package name on several Figures Jira Issue UML241-6
Issue 16164: Typo: "joint" should say "join" Jira Issue UML241-7
Issue 16169: Figure 15.32 Jira Issue UML241-8
Issue 16210: Property::isID Jira Issue UML241-9
Issue 16232: No unambiguous way in UML 2.4 to serialize StructuredActivityNode Jira Issue UML241-47
Issue 16249: State::stateInvariant multiplicity too restrictive Jira Issue UMLR-253
Issue 16267: Missing Namespace in Dependencies package definition? Jira Issue UML241-10
Issue 16268: Interface element - associations multiplicity not defined Jira Issue UML241-11
Issue 16292: Use cases specifying the same subject cannot be associated: exception Jira Issue UMLR-254
Issue 16301: UML type Real specification Jira Issue UML241-12
Issue 16307: A deferrable trigger may have a guard Jira Issue UMLR-255
Issue 16342: Ambiguous stereotype notation Jira Issue UMLR-256
Issue 16350: Navigability orthogonal to end ownership or not? Jira Issue UMLR-257
Issue 16357: UML: unification of OCL declarations Jira Issue UMLR-258
Issue 16359: Number of Compliance Levels Jira Issue UML241-13
Issue 16360: XML Metadata Interchange (XMI) Jira Issue UML241-14
Issue 16361: XML Metadata Interchange (XMI) - p9 Jira Issue UML241-15
Issue 16362: Core Package versus Construct Package Jira Issue UML241-16
Issue 16363: XMI in small caps Jira Issue UML241-17
Issue 16400: ProfileApplication::appliedProfile as "importedProfile" instead of "appliedProfile" Jira Issue UML241-18
Issue 16412: property.opposite Jira Issue UML241-19
Issue 16483: UML Appendix A : Figure A.3 Two Diagrams of Packages” Jira Issue UML241-20
Issue 16484: UML Appendix A: After Figure A.4 Jira Issue UMLR-259
Issue 16493: UML 2.4: NamedElement.ownedRule could be ordered Jira Issue UML241-21
Issue 16494: Irritating occurrence of subsystem stereotype in use case example diagrams Jira Issue UML241-22
Issue 16567: Clarification about serializing the application of SysML 1.3 to a UML2.4.1 model Jira Issue UMLR-260
Issue 16569: Relation of message arguments to signature parameters ambiguous Jira Issue UMLR-261
Issue 16570: Message arguments for a Signal signature too restrictive Jira Issue UMLR-262
Issue 16571: Message arguments should not be contained in a message Jira Issue UMLR-263
Issue 16572: OccurrenceSpecification should have at least an optional notation Jira Issue UMLR-264
Issue 16581: UML 2.3: Transitions outgoing junction vertexes should be allowed to have triggers Jira Issue UML25-630
Issue 16584: EnumerationLiterals in the XMI Jira Issue UML25-631
Issue 16590: ChangeEvent association mismatch Jira Issue UML25-632
Issue 16595: MultiplicityElement constraint 1 inconsistent with possible [0..0] multiplicity Jira Issue UML24-130
Issue 16596: UML Superstructure Specification Jira Issue UML25-633
Issue 16634: Subpart I and II are missing in Bookmarks Jira Issue UML25-634
Issue 16635: "A_realization_abstraction_component" is useless Jira Issue UML25-635
Issue 16638: RedefinableElement (from Kernel) is preferable Jira Issue UML25-636
Issue 16639: poor figure resolution and a misspelling: fal...( false ) Jira Issue UML25-637
Issue 16642: {ordered} is rather far from +bodyOutput Jira Issue UML25-638
Issue 16643: OpaqueBehavior#body attributes "nonunique" truncated as "nonuni..." Jira Issue UML25-639
Issue 16644: role "interval" appears "interva" Jira Issue UML25-640
Issue 16645: OpaqueBehavior#body attributes "nonunique" truncated as "nonuni..." Jira Issue UML25-641
Issue 16646: misspelling: io-oargument Jira Issue UML25-642
Issue 16647: Figure 15.2 does not include TransitionKind Jira Issue UML25-643
Issue 16648: Implicit parameter assignment may cause name clashes Jira Issue UML241-23
Issue 16649: Validity duration of implicitly assigned parameters in SignalEvent/CallEvent Jira Issue UML241-24
Issue 16650: default value of ClassifierTemplateParameter#allowSubstitutable is "..." Jira Issue UML25-644
Issue 16651: V2.4.1 from 11-08-05 on page 14 in Figure 7.3 Jira Issue UML25-645
Issue 16656: default is wrong Jira Issue UML25-646
Issue 16658: The included use case is always required for the including use case to execute correctly Jira Issue UMLR-265
Issue 16723: Suggestions for editorial changes Jira Issue UML25-647
Issue 16724: Error in UML diagrams? Jira Issue UML25-648
Issue 16725: Reference in index to item that does not exist in contents Jira Issue UML25-649
Issue 16875: V2.4.1 from 11-08-05 on page 14 in Figure 7.3 Jira Issue UML25-650
Issue 16896: ChangeEvent::changeExpression should be of type ValueSpecification Jira Issue UML241-25
Issue 16897: Abstraction::mapping should be of type ValueSpecification or OpaqueExpression Jira Issue UMLR-266
Issue 16946: Use of term "locus of control" Jira Issue UML25-651
Issue 16999: UML 2.4/2.5 Aliases Jira Issue UMLR-267
Issue 17096: Concerning Transition and its owned elements Jira Issue UMLR-268
Issue 17127: incorrect upper value of coveredBy of Lifeline Jira Issue UML25-652
Issue 17131: Core package caption wrong Jira Issue UML25-653
Issue 17160: how to instantiate associations between stereotypes Jira Issue UML25-654
Issue 17172: Opposite ends of derived unions should be derived unions Jira Issue UML25-655
Issue 17202: The property “packagedElement: PackageableElement [*]” is not a derived property and should not be prefixed with "/" Jira Issue UML25-656
Issue 17226: Message Signature in Interactions and Reception.ownedParameter Jira Issue UMLR-269
Issue 17266: color of the notation is specified Jira Issue UML25-657
Issue 17268: Add an example for the lifeline head shape Jira Issue UML25-658
Issue 17283: Package merge on Class metatype causes semantic issues - particularly with state machine context Jira Issue UML25-659
Issue 17289: Behavior should be derived from Classifier, not Class Jira Issue UML25-660
Issue 17315: Interaction.action should subset ownedMember in lieu of ownedElement Jira Issue UMLR-270
Issue 17328: LifeLine instead of Lifeline Jira Issue UML25-661
Issue 17333: Inconsistency: CentralBufferNode (ch .12.3.16) and fig. 12.15 Jira Issue UML25-662
Issue 17366: Constraint [1] uses undefined attribute "ownedAttribute Jira Issue UML25-663
Issue 17370: What is "top-tier packages of the UML metamodel"? Jira Issue UML23-143
Issue 17390: Migrate UML::Component's ability to own UML::PackageableElements to UML::Class Jira Issue UMLR-271
Issue 17393: Generalization should be allowed to be cyclic and should no be restricted to be owned by the specialized classifier Jira Issue UMLR-272
Issue 17398: Question About Arrows In Communication Diagramms Jira Issue UML25-664
Issue 17461: missing words in section 14.1 Jira Issue UML25-665
Issue 17464: Link notation for stereotype property value Jira Issue UMLR-273
Issue 17466: DurationObservation#event should be ordered Jira Issue UML25-666
Issue 17507: Surplus classifier field serialized in Superstructure.xmi Jira Issue UML25-667
Issue 17530: A comment is a specialization of Element Jira Issue UML25-668
Issue 17536: Specifying the multiplicity of a part with an attribute Jira Issue UMLR-274
Issue 17547: Operation "isConsistentWith" is not overridden for any RedefinableElement Jira Issue UML25-669
Issue 17550: Attribute is represented by Property Jira Issue UML25-670
Issue 17564: applying and associating stereotypes and explanation of all aspects of their serialization Jira Issue UMLR-275
Issue 17565: an instance spec should be a legitimate value of a property typed by a classifier Jira Issue UML25-671
Issue 18239: test Jira Issue UMLR-276
Issue 18611: UML 2.5 beta issue - Operation notation is wrong Jira Issue UMLR-423
Issue 18951: isReplaceAll=true and lowerBound > 1 Jira Issue UMLR-277
Issue 18955: Problems with OCL definition of Package::makesVisible Jira Issue UMLR-278
Issue 18969: Relax Association::/endType from [1..*] to [0..*] Jira Issue UMLR-279
Issue 18971: ExtensionEnd upper/lower inconsistent with MultiplicityElement Jira Issue UMLR-280
Issue 18972: Semantic error in Lifeline::interaction_uses_share_lifeline Jira Issue UMLR-281
Issue 18973: Semantic error in UMLAssociationOrConnectorOrLinkShape::edge_instancespec invariant Jira Issue UMLR-282
Issue 18982: XMI.xmi is not merged Jira Issue UMLR-283
Issue 19009: In the Use Case section, it is unclear whether a use case requires an actor Jira Issue UMLR-284
Issue 19010: Abstract Syntax diagram for Use Cases Jira Issue UMLR-285
Issue 19011: Even if Use Cases need not have an actor, there is some ambiguity when there is an «include»d or «extension» use case Jira Issue UMLR-286
Issue 19012: Use cases and use of arrows Jira Issue UMLR-287
Issue 19013: Extension point Jira Issue UMLR-288
Issue 19014: Description of the OCL Jira Issue UMLR-289
Issue 19017: Improving the association direction notation Jira Issue UMLR-290
Issue 19024: Sequence Diagram: Message limitation Jira Issue UMLR-291
Issue 19069: Problems with OCL definition of Package::makesVisible Jira Issue UML25-672
Issue 19070: About behavior ports Jira Issue UMLR-292
Issue 19122: About prescribed port implementation Jira Issue UMLR-293
Issue 19133: Cannot set an activity as the source or target of an information flow Jira Issue UMLR-294
Issue 19167: Information flow instantiation Jira Issue UMLR-295
Issue 19179: BehavioredClassifier should redefine Classifier::conformsTo to include interfaceRealization Jira Issue UMLR-296
Issue 19185: Problem with MultiplicityELement::lower redefinition in UML 2.5 Beta 2 Jira Issue UMLR-297
Issue 19186: Problem with NamedElement::clientDependency subsets in UML 2.5 Beta 2 Jira Issue UMLR-298
Issue 19187: Problems with normative UML 2.5 Beta 2 Standard profile Jira Issue UMLR-299
Issue 19188: Notation for PrimitiveTypes Jira Issue UMLR-300
Issue 19189: Can PrimitiveTypes be user-defined and where? Jira Issue UMLR-301
Issue 19190: A PrimitiveType can/cannot have owned attributes. Jira Issue UMLR-302
Issue 19191: Clause 21 Primitive Types is misnamed Jira Issue UMLR-303
Issue 19193: Descriptions missing for PseudostateKind literals Jira Issue UMLR-304
Issue 19194: Rg. Reception.ownedParameter Jira Issue UMLR-305
Issue 19199: How to access a token value in a guard? Jira Issue UMLR-306
Issue 19202: Type conformance for classifiers Jira Issue UMLR-307
Issue 19209: Generalization should be limited to relate similar UML-elements Jira Issue UMLR-308
Issue 19253: Missing OpaqueXXX body constraint Jira Issue UMLR-309
Issue 19254: InstanceSpecification validity is not modelable Jira Issue UMLR-310
Issue 19282: Name of Package in Figure 7.3 should be "Core" rather than "Constructs" Jira Issue UMLR-311
Issue 19285: UML 2.5 Figure 10.10 Error Jira Issue UMLR-312
Issue 19288: Multiple Generalization Sets Jira Issue UMLR-313
Issue 19293: LiteralReal has no default value. It would make sense if it had a value of 0 as for LiteralInteger. Jira Issue UML23-147
Issue 19320: UML 2.5 Figure 14.25 Choice Pseudostates Jira Issue UMLR-314
Issue 19322: Rename Specialization/Generalization between abstract classes Jira Issue UMLR-315
Issue 19323: Ambiguous Profile::profileApplication Jira Issue UMLR-316
Issue 19324: UML 2.5 Issue on DI for reply arrows Jira Issue UMLR-317
Issue 19325: UML 2.5 Visibility of a packagedElement Jira Issue UMLR-318
Issue 19329: UML transition-centric state machine arrows (01) Jira Issue UMLR-319
Issue 19330: UML transition-centric state machine arrows (02) Jira Issue UMLR-320
Issue 19334: UML 2.5 issue on examples in 17.4.5 Jira Issue UMLR-321
Issue 19335: UML 2.5 Overly strict restriction on message slope in seq diagrams Jira Issue UMLR-322
Issue 19337: Unclear statement regarding Lifeline shape Jira Issue UMLR-323
Issue 19338: Including use case depends on included use case but Include is no subclass of Dependency Jira Issue UMLR-324
Issue 19342: Unnamed elements in a namespace Jira Issue UMLR-325
Issue 19345: Incorrect drawing of non-navigable redefined opposites Jira Issue UMLR-326
Issue 19346: Incorrectly drawn ParameterableElement.owningTemplateParameterSubstitution multiplicity Jira Issue UMLR-327
Issue 19348: Typo in Interaction Example Jira Issue UML25-684
Issue 19349: NamedElement::allNamespaces is invalida at model root Jira Issue UMLR-328
Issue 19350: TypeElement / TypedElement typo Jira Issue UMLR-329
Issue 19351: Incorrect OrderedSet returns Jira Issue UMLR-330
Issue 19353: Specification should not contain any methodology Jira Issue UMLR-331
Issue 19364: UML 2.6 Issue --- SignalEvent Triggers Jira Issue UMLR-332
Issue 19365: UML 2.5 Mandatory but suppressible compartments Jira Issue UMLR-333
Issue 19406: Incorrect Result in ReduceAction Example Jira Issue UMLR-334
Issue 19409: Figures 15.45 and 15.46 in the spec are bad examples as they are of malformed activity diagrams Jira Issue UMLR-335
Issue 19419: Incomplete sentence Jira Issue UML25-673
Issue 19420: meaning is not clear Jira Issue UMLR-336
Issue 19422: Message should extend Namespace Jira Issue UMLR-337
Issue 19427: Incomplete sentence Jira Issue UMLR-338
Issue 19430: Incorrect sentence Jira Issue UMLR-339
Issue 19438: ExpansionNodes owned by ExpansionRegions? Jira Issue UMLR-340
Issue 19454: UML wording in Superstructure 2.4.1 Jira Issue UMLR-341
Issue 19455: BehavioralParameter should be BehavioralFeature Jira Issue UMLR-342
Issue 19468: Semantics of static features Jira Issue UMLR-343
Issue 19472: No specification of which visibility marking corresponds to which VisibilityKind value Jira Issue UMLR-344
Issue 19488: Issue against UML: implementation of OCL constraint containingProfile Jira Issue UMLR-345
Issue 19511: Classifier::ownedTemplateSignature needs to subset Element::ownedElement Jira Issue UMLR-346
Issue 19512: UML 2.5 Beta 2 XMI invalid Jira Issue UMLR-347
Issue 19523: Actor association constraint makes UseCase subclass of Class Jira Issue UMLR-348
Issue 19538: Another UML 2.5 Beta 2 XMI invalidity Jira Issue UMLR-349
Issue 19540: UML 2.5 Section 15.2.3 p392 description for the ActivityEdge weight Jira Issue UMLR-350
Issue 19545: Section 15.5.3: a missed word Jira Issue UMLR-351
Issue 19564: Pin multiplicity and token upper bound Jira Issue UMLR-352
Issue 19569: MIssing Property::default Jira Issue invalid
Issue 19593: State machine semantics for transition between regions of an orthogonal state Jira Issue UMLR-354
Issue 19599: UML should support proxies for linking models Jira Issue UMLR-355
Issue 19637: Minor error in ptc-13-09-05 Jira Issue UMLR-360
Issue 19640: A type defines a set member (not a set) Jira Issue UMLR-362
Issue 19648: History pseudo states in protocol state machines Jira Issue UMLR-383
Issue 19658: Ambiguity in description of TransitionKind Jira Issue UMLR-397
Issue 19669: ActivityEdge weight examples Jira Issue UMLR-404
Issue 19696: adding error Jira Issue UMLR-405
Issue 19710: These are typographical errors Jira Issue UMLR-411
Issue 19723: Missing Example of TemplateBinding with model element "Class" Jira Issue UMLR-421
Issue 19726: UML 2.5: Property::isConsistentWith() error Jira Issue UMLR-424
Issue 19732: UML 2.5: UML redefinition mechanism insufficiently granular Jira Issue UMLR-616
Issue 19741: isDirectlyInstantiated is defined in reverse Jira Issue UMLR-618
Issue 19756: Class.isAbstract attribute is not necessary Jira Issue UMLR-619
Issue 19772: Clarify Property Qualifiers with a full Example Jira Issue UMLR-621

Issue 3898: Specify XMI parameters for the UML / XMI interchange format (uml2-rtf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: DSTC (Dr. Stephen Crawley, crawley(at)dstc.edu.au)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
When the UML spec standardises an XMI-generated interchange format for 
UML
models, it should include:

  * the "input" MOF meta-model for UML that was used to generate the
    interchange format, and

  * a formal statement of the other XMI "parameters" used to generate
    the interchange format.

If possible, the UML spec should include a definitive meta-model for 
UML
expressed as a MOF / XMI document.  This is a MOF alignment issue.



Resolution:
Revised Text: In appendix G of the Superstructure document (formal/05-07-04) and appendix A of the Infrastructure document (ptc/04-11-16) add the following sentence as the last sentence in The XMI specification corresponding to this specification can be found in OMG document Editor’s note: This is actually redundant and superseded by the resolution to 8678
Actions taken:
September 22, 2000: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
alignment is strong 2.0 requirement


Issue 4110: Semantics of firing compound transitions still appears to be circular (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary:
In UML 1.4 beta R1, the semantics of firing compound transitions still appears to be circular and therefore incorrect. At any rate I am confused by the text so it may be confusing to others. 

As far as I can see the "Least Common Ancestor" is needed to determine the "main source", but actions following exit from the "main source" must be performed before the targets following a choice point are known, so without known targets there is no known LCA and therefore no specified "main source". 

On page 2-173 of 2.12: 

*** The least common ancestor (LCA) state of a transition is the lowest composite state that contains all the explicit source states and explicit target states of the compound transition. In case of junction segments, only the states related to the dynamically selected path are considered explicit targets (bypassed branches are not considered). 

If the LCA is not a concurrent state, the main source is a direct substate of the least common ancestor that contains the explicit source states, and the main target is a substate of the least common ancestor that contains the explicit target states. In case where the LCA is a concurrent state, the main source and main target are the concurrent state itself. The reason is that if a concurrent region is exited, it forces exit of the entire concurrent state. 

[...] 

Once a transition is enabled and is selected to fire, the following steps are carried out in order: 

• The main source state is properly exited. 

• Actions are executed in sequence following their linear order along the segments of the transition: The closer the action to the source state, the earlier it is executed. 

• If a choice point is encountered, the guards following that choice point are evaluated dynamically and a path whose guards are true is selected. 

• The main target state is properly entered. *** 

This is certainly much better than 1.3. But I still find it difficult to follow: 

Since guards following a choice point are evaluated dynamically, the targets are still unknown when the "main source" is exited. Therefore the LCA is still unknown. How then does one determine the "main source" as a "direct substate" of the (unknown) LCA? 

The (target) "states related to the dynamically selected path" referred to above for determining the LCA cannot be determined in the case of choice points, without having first determined which branches will be taken from the choice points. That requires performing exit actions for the "main source", then additional actions along the path to the choice point, in order to determine which branch will be taken. So the "main source" must be already known in order to determine the targets. 

If one defined the "initial source" as the LCA of the source states then the "main source" might be any superstate of that "initial source". 

With different targets, there might be additional actions to "properly exit" from enclosing superstates of the "initial source" before actions along the transition to a choice point. These could affect which branch is taken and therefore which enclosing superstate of the "initial source" must be "properly exited", which would affect which actions are performed before reaching the choice, and therefore affect the branch taken from the choice. 

Resolution: Remove the paragraph explaining the LCA from the “Transition execution sequence” section and add an explanation of LCA to the “Transition ownership” section
Revised Text: In the subsection titled “Transition execution sequence” of the section titled “Event Processing for StateMachines” in clause 14.5, remove the following paragraph: The least common ancestor (LCA) of a compound transition is the innermost Region that contains (directly or indirectly) both the source and target States of the compound transition. In the subsection titled “Transition ownership” of the section titled “Transitions” in clause 14.5, replace the sentence: A suggested owner of a Transition is the LCA Least Common Ancestor of the source and target Vertices (see below). with the following text: A suggested owner of a Transition is the innermost Region that contains both its source and target Vertices. This Region is sometimes referred to as the Least Common Ancestor (LCA) of the source and target Vertices.
Actions taken:
December 7, 2000: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:
It is no longer necessary to compute the LCA to determine the main source and main targets of an enabled
transition. This was only necessary for the case when transitions that crossed region boundaries. However,
this capability was eliminated in an earlier revision of UML.
The reference to the LCA in the discussion of transition execution sequence is misleading and should be
removed, since it is irrelevant. Reference to LCA only makes sense in the discussion of transition ownership.
Note that the utility LCA operation defined for StateMachine is unaffected by this change.


Issue 4448: Does visibility apply to creating an destroying links? (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
  It isn't clear whether visibility of association ends applies to
     creating and destroying links.  If it does, then what if one end is
     private and the other public, can the private end create or destroy
     a link?

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: In Superstructure, Classes, and in Infrastructure, Core::Abstractions, Visibility package NamedElement Attribute, visibility entry, change description to “Determines where the NamedElement appears within different Namespaces within the overall model, and its accessibility.” Semantics, second paragraph in Superstructure, first paragraph in Infrastructure first sentence, replace “in different namespaces within a model” with “, either in namespaces or in access to the element. second sentence, replace “import and generalization” with “import, generalization, and access”. VisibilityKind, Semantics, first paragraph, replace "and Packages packages" with ", Packages, and Classes packages" in Superstructure, and with “, Packages, and Classifiers packages” in Infrastructure. In Superstructure, Classes, and in Infrastructure, Core::Basic Class, Semantics, at end, add new paragraph: "A class cannot access private features of another class, or protected features on another class that is not its supertype. When creating and deleting associations, at least one end must allow access to the class." In Superstructure, Actions WriteLinkAction, Constraints, add new constraint "The visibility of at least one end must allow access to the class using the action." CreateLinkObjectAction, Semantics, first sentence, after "semantics" add "and constraints".
Actions taken:
August 3, 2001: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
More time is needed to consider the interaction of visibility with associations, to align it
with visibility of properties....The specification inadvertently omitted that visibility constrains access, as well as
importation and inheritance. In the particular case of classes, visibility constrains the
actions of methods of the class. Creation and destruction of links should be allowed by
methods that have access to at least one end of the association.


Issue 4932: Starting state machine (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Industrial Internet Consortium (Mr. Stephen J. Mellor, mellor(at)iiconsortium.org)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
[Steve Mellor] The action semantics has an action that starts a state
machine.  The state machine starts in some known initial (pseudo-)state.

There are many cases where one wants to initialize a state
machine so that starts in a specified (non-initial) state.

Therefore the StartStateMachineAction needs to accept a state
(possibly multi-leveled) as an input.  The state machine will 
not execute any procedures or actions until after the state 
machine is in the target state and then detects an event.

Resolution: Disposition: Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF
Revised Text: Discussion This can be resolved by having the initial transition terminate on a choice point with guards that use the input parameter values used to start the state machine. There does not appear to be a need to add new features to state machines to support this. Disposition: Closed - No Change
Actions taken:
March 5, 2002: received issue
October 22, 2002: Deferred
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:
Application: restoring state.
Requires static specification of state, so complexity will be the same
  as having transitions to each state, and sending an event.
Would make a dependence of actions on state machines.
Similar problems with restoring attribute values, etc, of objects.
Requires tracking and restoring execution execution.
Too much for FTF to do consistently [Action Semantics FTF]:
Application: restoring state.
Requires static specification of state, so complexity will be the same as having transitions
to each state, and sending an event.
Would make a dependence of actions on state machines.
Similar problems with restoring attribute values, etc, of objects.
Requires tracking and restoring execution execution.
Too much for FTF to do consistently
[UML 2 FTF]
There is too much debate around this for the FTF to resolve. The use case is to bring up a
software system that is embedded in a larger physical system. The embedded system has
objects reflecting the state of the physical objects. The filer would like to start the
software system by instantiating classes, with the new instance reflecting the state of the
physical objects. Using triggers/guards on constructor inputs makes too cumbersome a
model.
There was some concern about referring to states from actions outside the object.
However, states are not always internal. There was also concern that the details of
restarting an application are not properly part of modeling. However, modeling is not
limited to a particular level of implementation. There was debate on whether entry points
could be used for the applications, but in any case, the action would need to refer to a
state.


Issue 4937: Sending a signal after a delay (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Industrial Internet Consortium (Mr. Stephen J. Mellor, mellor(at)iiconsortium.org)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
 Sending a signal after a delay

Resolution: The feature requested is already supported in UML 2.1: Precede an action by an AcceptEventAction, where the latter references a trigger that refers to a TimeEvent. Thus, for example, if you have a sequence of an AcceptEventAction with a TimeEvent specifyinig the desired delay and a SendSignalAction, then the signal will not be sent until the delay has passed. Note that this feature is extremely generic, probably giving the user even too much support (you can define a statemachine purely with actions, if there are not proper constraint placed on the events allowed in the AcceptEventAction).
Revised Text: closed no change
Actions taken:
March 5, 2002: received issue
October 22, 2002: Deferred
October 27, 2008: closed issue

Discussion:
Can't handle time the way state machines, with expressions, because
  action model needs to be more precise.
Why not on other actions besides SendSignalAction?
What is the relation to the time submission?
Too much for FTF. [Action Semantics FTF]: Can't handle time the way state machines, with expressions,
because action model needs to be more precise. Why not on other actions besides
SendSignalAction? What is the relation to the time submission? Too much for FTF.
Too much of an enhancement for FTF, as indicated in the issue report. In the meantime,
modelers can define actions for time delay.


Issue 5107: Starting a state machine (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Model Driven Solutions (Mr. Ed Seidewitz, ed-s(at)modeldriven.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Description: 
The State Machines chapter (Section 2.12) does not provide a clear description of what it means to "start" a state machine.

Syntactically, we have the following: 

o Well-formedness rule [1] for Pseudostate (p. 2-157) says "An initial vertex [i.e., a initial pseudostate] can have at most one outgoing transition and no incoming transitions". Presumably, it is the single transition from the initial pseudostate at the top level that is taken when the state machine starts. 

o Well-formedness rule [6] for Transition (p. 2-160) says "An initial transition at the topmost level either has no trigger [i.e., event] or it has a trigger with the stereotype 'create'." Thus, the ONLY kind of event allowed on an initial transition is a "creation event".

o The definition of the stereotype <<create>> is (p. 2-149): 

"Create is a stereotyped call event denoting that the instance receiving 
that event has just been created. For state machines, it triggers the 
initial transition at the topmost level of the state machine (and is the 
only kind of trigger that may be applied to an initial transition)." 

Thus, a "creation event" MUST be a call event. 

o However, well-formedness rule [5] for Transition (p. 2-160) states without qualification, that "Transitions outgoing pseudostates may not have a trigger"! This prohibits all together the "creation events" allowed by rule [6].

Semantically, there is no specific discussion of how a state machine "starts". Section 2.12.4.3 describes "Entering a non-concurrent composite state" on p. 2-162 and "Entering a concurrent composite state" on p. 2-163. Since the top state of a state machine must be a composite state, one could assume that "starting" a state machine has the semantics of entering the composite top state. However, this does not provide an explanation of the "creation events" allowed (or at least seem intended to be allowed) in the special case of the initial transition at the top level.

Now, well-formedness rule [5] of StateMachine says "If a StateMachine describes a behavioral feature, it contains no triggers of type CallEvent, apart from the trigger on the initial transition (see OCL for Transition [8])" (this is probably intended to refer to Transition rule [6]). Presumably, then, the call event on the initial transition is suppose to be the call event for the behavioral feature described by the state machine, at least in this case, but this is not described in the semantics (and it doesn't make sense for this event to be a "creation" event, anyway).

This issue came out during the finalization of the Action Semantics. In the Action Semantics, when an object is created, any state machine associated with the object (via its classifiers) are NOT started automatically. Instead, there is an explicit "StartStateMachineAction" which is supposed to "start the execution of the state machines." However, it is not clear from the current state machine semantics what it really means to do this.

Recommendation: 

1. Describe the "start" of the execution of a state machine as an RTC step from an implicit "not started" state (that is, not explicitly modeled in the state machine) to the target of the initial transition of the state machine (that is, the single transition with the top-level initial pseudo-state as its source). This RTC step includes the execution of any relevant transition actions and entry actions, per the usual state machine semantics.

  
2. Define that, if no other explicit specification is given in a model, a state machine associated with a classifier is assumed to start when an instance of the classifier is created and a state machine associated with a behavioral feature is assumed to start when that feature is invoked. (When the action semantics is included, a formal specification of the start of a state machine can be given with the StartStateMachineAction.)

3. Change well-formedness rule [5] to exclude the top initial pseudo-state. 

4. Change well-formedness rule [6] to allow, if the state machine describes a behavioral feature, a trigger (call event or signal event) on the initial transition that corresponds to that behavioral feature. 

5. If the state machine describes a classifier, then, in the absence of the action semantics, it is unclear whether a "creation event" is really useful at all (particularly since it would only allow for a single creation operation). With the action semantics, such an event is probably unnecessary, since the procedure for a creation operation will then be able to explicitly create an instance (using CreateObjectAction), start the state machine of that instance (using a StartStateMachineAction), which will get the state machine into a "real" state, and then send the instance a message (using an ExplicitInvocationAction), which can be handled by an event on the state machine, with any additional data required for initialization.


 


Resolution: Disposition: Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF
Revised Text: Discussion Most of the issues raised here refer to constraints and capabilities that are no longer applicable. Thus, an initial transition cannot have a trigger (this capability was removed in an earlier revision predating UML 2.5) and the corresponding constraints have been removed or changed appropriately. As for describing how state machines start, this is now covered by the general discussion in the Common Behaviors clause on how behaviors in general start. This covers the starting behavior to the point when the initial pseudostate is reached. The remainder of the startup sequence is then covered in the current description in the state machines clause. Disposition: Closed - No Change
Actions taken:
April 4, 2002: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed 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.


Issue 5593: Namespace issue (UML 1.4 formal/2002-09-67, 2.5.3.26 Namespace ) (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The Namespace has the following definition constraint (p. 2-64): [1] The operation contents results in a Set containing all ModelElements contained by the Namespace. contents : Set(ModelElement) contents = self.ownedElement -> union(self.namespace, contents) 

The errors: 1. Syntax error in the union operation. According to Object Constraint Language Specification set has operation (p. 6-38) set->union(set2 : Set(T)) : Set(T) with the single parameter ! 

2. The functions contents and allContents are used to receive all composite and aggregate elements of namespace according to specification of these functions (Is that right ?). For example all overriden functions in the descedent elements (Package, DataType) release these functions in this manner. In this case function contents must be realized as: contents = self.ownedElement 3.The functions contents and allContents is sometimes used to receive list of «accessable» objects ! For example: definition constraint #2 for BehavioralFeature (p. 2-54): [2] The type of the Parameters should be included in the Namespace of the Classifier. self.parameter->forAll( p | self.owner.namespace.allContents->includes (p.type) ) Why parameter can't use imported DataType ? Why parameter can't use DataType located in the Namespace binded with the namespace of classifier by «friend» Permission ? Note that DataType may be included in the namespace of namespace of owner. It also may be included directly into owner ! I may send the collection of such errors («contents» instead of «acessable»). 

Resolution: Discussion: This is an issue raised against the UML 1 metamodel, which is no longer valid. Revised Text: N/A Disposition: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
August 25, 2002: received issue
December 28, 2004: moved to UML2 RTF
October 27, 2008: closed issue

Issue 5794: Designates a Generalization (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The text: 

Designates a Generalization whose parent GeneralizableElement is the immediate ancestor of the current GeneralizableElement. 

disagrees in plurality with the * cardinality of the generalization association end between GeneralizableElement and Generalization in the Core Package - Relationships diagram (Figure 2-6) on page 2-14.

Resolution: closed no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 15, 2002: received issue
December 28, 2004: moved to UML2 RTF
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
This pertains to a part of the UML 1.4 spec which is completely changed in UML 2.0.


Issue 5804: 2.5.2.27 ModelElement (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The text "deploymentLocation The set of locations may differ. Often it is more restrictive on the child." has no corresponding association in any diagram. The closest match is documented in 2.5.2.12 Component on pages 2-31 and 2-32. If this is the non-inherited feature discussed on page 2-44 is it not redundant and doesn't it cloud the meaning of the feature?

Resolution: closed no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 19, 2002: received issue
December 28, 2004: moved to UML2 RTF
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
The referenced section 2.5.2.27 is from the UML 1.5 specification (formal/03-03-01,
page 2-43). The reference to deploymentLocation was not carried forward into UML 2.0.
In UML 2.0, “deploymentLocation” is a String attribute of DeploymentSpecification
(formal/05-07-04, section 10.3.5, page 199).


Issue 5886: behaviour of the shallow history state and deep history state (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Remedy IT (Mr. Johnny Willemsen, jwillemsen(at)remedy.nl)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary:
In the UML specification the behaviour of the shallow history state and deep history state are described (added below). The final state is seen as a real state in UML which can have entry actions and in which can be stayed. When a child composite state is in its final state and at a higher level a transition is taken to an other state and then to the deep history state we expect that the final state is set active again, instead that then default history state is made active. For example we have a composite state that does the setup of a piece of hardware and it is in the final state, but it doesn't leave the composite state because another condition is not true yet. When now the composite state is left at a higher level (for example emergency), then we go back according to the spec to the default history state, so we do the complete setup again, but we expect to return in the final state. 

Shallow history entry: If the transition terminates on a shallow history pseudostate, the active substate becomes the most recently active substate prior to this entry, unless the most recently active substate is the final state or if this is the first entry into this state. In the latter two cases, the default history state is entered. This is the substate that is target of the transition originating from the history pseudostate. (If no such transition is specified, the situation is illegal and its handling is not defined.) If the active substate determined by history is a composite state, then it proceeds with its default entry. • Deep history entry: The rule here is the same as for shallow history except that the rule is applied recursively to all levels in the active state configuration below this one.

Resolution: Disposition: Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 21, 2003: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:
Discussion
There are many possible variants of the statechart formalism underlying UML state machines, including the
one suggested by the submitter. The semantics of history pseudostates proposed in this issue may be suitable
for some scenarios, but may not be appropriate for others. (It is not realistic to expect that a single semantics
will satisfy all possible cases.) This issue calls for a change in the semantics of history pseudostates, which,
at the very least would affect numerous existing models.
Even if the proposed semantics might be “better” in some undefined sense, it is far too late to change their
semantics at this point.
Disposition: Closed - No Change


Issue 5896: logic upperbound is the same as the lower bound. (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
3] The operation lowerbound returns the lowest lower bound of the ranges in a multiplicity. lowerbound( ) : Integer; lowerbound = self.range->exists(r : MultiplicityRange |r.lower = result) and self.range->forall(r : MultiplicityRange |r.lower <= result) [4] The operation upperbound returns the highest upper bound of the ranges in a multiplicity. upperbound( ) : UnlimitedInteger; upperbound = self.range->exists(r : MultiplicityRange |r.upper = result) and self.range->forall(r : MultiplicityRange |r.upper <= result) ============================================= 

according to the logic upperbound is the same as the lower bound. 

should the upperbound read as r.upper >= result instead of r.upper <= result on the last line?

Resolution: closed no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
April 4, 2003: received issue
December 28, 2004: moved to UML2 RTF
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
This pertains to an area in previous versions of UML that has completely changed in
UML 2.0. The issue is no longer relevant.


Issue 5907: formal/03-03-01 : Omission of definition of Class "Action" (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
I believe I found an omission from the UML 1.5 Specification formal/03-03-01:


  p. 2-112, Fig. 2-18: Association between "Message" and "Action (from Common Behavior)"


  In Sec. 2.9 Common Behavior; none of the diagrams or text specify Class "Action".


  p. Index-1 cites "Action" p 2-103.


  p. 2-103 has no mention of "Action".


  The first item in Sec. 2.9.3 is "2.9.3.1 AttributeLink", not "2.9.3.1 Action" as would be alphabetized.


My question is what is definition of the "Action" Class in Fig. 2-18?

Resolution: closed no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
April 21, 2003: received issue
December 28, 2004: moved to UML2 RTF
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
UML 2 Revision Task Force Disposition: Closed, no change
OMG Issue No: 5907
Document ptc/06-01-01 Page 621
OMG Issue No: 5907
Title: Formal/03-03-01: Omission of Definition of Class “Action”
Source:
Kurt Stephens, ks@kurtstephens.com
Summary:
I believe I found an omission from the UML 1.5 Specification formal/03-03-01:
• p. 2-112, Fig. 2-18: Association between "Message" and "Action (from Common
Behavior)"
•
In Sec. 2.9 Common Behavior; none of the diagrams or text specify Class
"Action".
•
p. Index-1 cites "Action" p 2-103.
• p. 2-103 has no mention of "Action".
• The first item in Sec. 2.9.3 is "2.9.3.1 AttributeLink", not "2.9.3.1 Action" as
would be alphabetized.
My question is what is definition of the "Action" Class in Fig. 2-18?
Discussion:
This pertains to parts of an older version of the UML spec (1.5) which has completely
changed in UML 2.0. This issue is no longer relevant.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 5977: saying {nonunique} on one end of a binary association is meaningless (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Escape Velocity (Mr. Don Baisley, donbaisley(at)live.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Also, saying {nonunique} on one end of a binary association is
meaningless by the current rules, because the other end remains {unique} by
default, so no duplicate links would be allowed

Resolution: Also, saying {nonunique} on one end of a binary association is meaningless by the current rules, because the other end remains {unique} by default, so no duplicate links would be allowed Disposition: Merged with 6464
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
June 19, 2003: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed 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.


Issue 6002: relationship should just be a cross-reference (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Critical
Summary:
There is no clear relationship between NamedElement, TypedElement and Type as defined in Core::Basic and items by the same name in Core::Abstractions::Namespaces and Core::Abstractions::TypedElements. There is no reference between the two although the concepts seem identical. 

It seems like the relationship should just be a cross-reference. However, is it a type-instance relationship? Or is a refinement relationship (as can be seen in other parts of the spec)? Or is it something else? What is going on here?

Resolution: closed no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
July 19, 2003: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
It was an explicit design decision to split off the Abstractions hierarchy from the part of
the Infrastructure that supports the UML and MOF modeling languages. The general idea
behind the Abstractions concepts is to provide a potentially useful “grab-bag” of
metamodeling patterns that might prove useful some day in as yet unknown modeling
languages. On the other hand, the Basic and Constructs packages are specifically
designed to support the MOF and UML languages. The separation is intended to ensure
that MOF and UML remain unaffected by the needs of future modeling languages.


Issue 6003: document appears to be inconsistent in how it handles concepts (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Honeywell (Mr. Steve Hickman, steve.hickman(at)honeywell.com)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Critical
Summary:
This document appears to be inconsistent in how it handles concepts with the same name. In some cases, the class diagrams make it clear that a concept is being imported from one package to another by reference. However, there are a lot of cases where the same concept name is used in separate packages but it is not clear if it is the same concept, a parallel concept, or a refinement of the concept. 

In many cases the documentation of the concepts is the same (or nearly so) everywhere it appears. This tends to imply that it is, in fact, the same concept. However, if this were the case, then it should be defined in one package and imported by reference in other packages. On the other hand, since the import by reference is actually done in some cases, that tends to imply that, where the import by reference is not done, something else significant is going on. What that significant thing "is" is never made clear - at least not as far as I can tell. 

I suspect the same problem exists in the UML 2.0 Superstructure submission because they were both written by the same group. 

Proper understanding of the metamodel becomes impossible without this issue getting resolved. Someone needs to go through both of these documents and locate every place the same concept name is used in multiple packages and make sure it is clear how the concepts with the same name in different packages relate to each other.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
July 19, 2003: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
This issue relates to the old version of Infrastructure. In this case, there is clearly a
misunderstanding on part of the submitter about the architecture of the Infrastructure and
the semantics of package merge. Once these are understood, the issue disappears.
However, it is definitely the case that the introductory text describing the architecture and
the role of package merge are extremely unclear and need to be fixed. These will be dealt
with as part of the resolution to issue 6002.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 6004: Relationship and DirectedRelationship in Core::Constructs (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Honeywell (Mr. Steve Hickman, steve.hickman(at)honeywell.com)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
There doesn't seem to be any value in the specialization of Relationship and DirectedRelationship in Core::Constructs from their definitions in Core::Abstractions::Relationships. The documentation clearly states that the specializations don't add anything to the either concept. In fact, it appears that this can be said for everything in the Core::Constructs Root Diagram. 

If this is the case, why do these specializations exist? The UML spec is big enough - there is no point in adding things that don't need to be there. If the goal is to merely create a single diagram that includes concepts and relationships that were previously spread across multiple diagrams, then why not simply create the diagram and have every contained concept refer to the package where it was originally defined? 

If there is a compelling reason for these specializations, then that reason needs to be spelled out in the spec - because it isn't obvious to me.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
July 19, 2003: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
See the resolutions to issue 6002 and 6003.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 6005: cross-reference missing (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Honeywell (Mr. Steve Hickman, steve.hickman(at)honeywell.com)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary:
The reference to TypedElement in the Expressions diagram for Core::Constructs makes no cross-reference to the definition of TypedElement in Core::Abstractions::TypedElements or Core::Basic. 

Is it a reference to either of these or is it yet another definition of a concept with the same name?

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
July 19, 2003: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
This is intentional because Abstractions and Basic are de-coupled from each other in the
latest version of the Infrastructure. This allows the two to evolve independently.
However, this is not explained very well (and is even incorrect) in the introduction to the
Infrastructure, which needs to be rewritten substantively to clarify how these things relate
to each other. That will be handled as part of the resolution to issue 6002.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 6006: Classes diagram of the Core::Constructs package (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Honeywell (Mr. Steve Hickman, steve.hickman(at)honeywell.com)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary:
In the Classes diagram of the Core::Constructs package, the references to StructuralFeature, Relationship, Type, and Classifier have no cross-reference to the package where they were originally defined, whereas other concepts in this diagram do. It is clear from the fact that some of these concepts are involved in derived roles or relationships, that they MUST have been defined somewhere else. 

The document needs to be fixed so that it is self consistent and so that proper cross-references are indicated.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
July 19, 2003: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
See the resolutions to issues 6005, 6003, and 6002.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 6071: Conditional Node and Loop Node notation missing (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: CA Technologies (Mr. Andrew John Haigh, andrew.haigh(at)ca.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity: Significant
Summary:
In 03-07-06 there was notation for conditional nodes and loop nodes for activities. These are missing in 03-08-02. Makes taking the certification difficult

Resolution: Disposition: Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
August 21, 2003: 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.


Issue 6082: Suspension Region (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: SINTEF (Dr. Oystein Haugen, oystein.haugen(at)sintef.no)
Nature: Enhancement
Severity: Minor
Summary:
“Supspension region” is a concept from MSC-2000 that occurred in earlier drafts of UML 2.0. It was removed since the metamodel had not been properly updated. A suspension region is an area of a lifeline where no events should occur since the lifeline is waiting for reply from an operation call. 

This has been flagged as a potential FTF issue before. 


Resolution: Discussion: This is a concept that highlights a syntactic requirement. Often users think that suspension is always the case between call and reply, but since lifelines may be decomposed into independent sub-parts, this is not necessarily the case. That is why it is useful to clarify a synchronization situation. Still it is a new concept, and cannot be considered critical for the use of Interactions. Let us bring this up again at a larger revision. Disposition: ClosedOutOfScope
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
August 29, 2003: received issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue

Discussion:
This is a concept that highlights a syntactic requirement. Often users think that
suspension is always the case between call and reply, but since lifelines may be
decomposed into independent sub-parts, this is not necessarily the case. That is why it is
needed to clarify a synchronization situation. Still it is a new concept, and cannot be
considered critical for the use of Interactions.


Issue 6083: More examples (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. James J. Odell, email(at)jamesodell.com)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The Interaction chapter contains a number of examples, but there have been requests for even more examples especially on the different kinds of combined fragments (Section 14.3.1) 


Resolution: Disposition: Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
August 29, 2003: received issue

Discussion:
This is indeed a reasonable request and additional examples would indeed be helpful.
However, since it is not a critical issue or an inconsistency in the spec itself, the issue is
deferred to an RTF.


Issue 6086: More explanation needed on Figure 339 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: SINTEF (Dr. Oystein Haugen, oystein.haugen(at)sintef.no)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The Figure 339 on page 425 needs more explanation. The use of lifelines to represent return value, and the notation for interaction occurrences with return value should be explained in greater length. Furthermore it should be made clear how the operations put and get are used to set and read values from lifelines representing attributes and parameters.

Resolution: Disposition: Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
August 29, 2003: 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.


Issue 6088: Parameterization of lifelines (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: SINTEF (Dr. Oystein Haugen, oystein.haugen(at)sintef.no)
Nature: Enhancement
Severity: Significant
Summary:
In general there is a need to have lifelines as formal parameters such that Interactions can be used in slightly different contexts. This may now be partly achieved through templates, but more notation etc. is needed for this to be really practical. 

Resolution: Disposition: Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
August 29, 2003: received issue

Discussion:
This is a feature enhancement and, therefore, outside of the scope of an FTF,
whose purpose is to fix inconsistencies and add clarifications. 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.


Issue 6111: Reentrancy 1 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:
How is the effect if isReentrant achieved for actions other than call
actions?  isReentrant is only on behaviors.  Perhaps it should also be
available on actions and operations

Resolution: The current semantics of isReentrant on behaviors leads to unexpected global mutual exclusion of invocation of a behavior if isReentrant=false, the default (see Issue 9873). However, at the level of the invocation of a behavior in an activity, it is often the case that one execution of such an invocation action should complete before a second can begin (for example, if the activity is modeling a business process with the invoked behavior assigned to a single person, or a manufacturing process with the behavior carried out by a single piece of equipment). Thus, it is reasonable to have "local" non-reentrancy as the default. In this case, however, it makes as much sense to allow the specification of reentrancy or non-reentrancy on any action, not just on the invocation of a behavior, as requested by the issue submitter. This also allows locally non-reentrant semantics, without the unexpected consequences of global non-reentrancy.
Revised Text: In Figure 12.2, add the attribute declaration "isLocallyReentrant: Boolean = false" inside the class box for Action. In Subclause 12.3.2 Action, under Attributes, add at the beginning: Package FundamentalActivities · isLocallyReentrant: Boolean If true, the action can begin a new, concurrent execution, even if there is already another execution of the action ongoing. If false, the action cannot begin a new execution until any previous execution has completed. The default is false. Under Semantics, replace the paragraph If a behavior is not reentrant, then no more than one execution of it will exist at any given time. An invocation of a nonreentrant behavior does not start the behavior when the behavior is already executing. In this case, control tokens are discarded, and data tokens collect at the input pins of the invocation action, if their upper bound is greater than one, or upstream otherwise. An invocation of a reentrant behavior will start a new execution of the behavior with newly arrived tokens, even if the behavior is already executing from tokens arriving at the invocation earlier. with: If an action is not locally reentrant (isLocallyReentrant=false, the default), then no more than one execution of it will exist at any given time within the context of a single execution of the containing activity. Even if the action would normally begin an execution according to the rules above, it will not start a new execution if there is already one ongoing within the same activity execution. In this case, the action simply does not accept any tokens offered to it until its ongoing execution has finished. At this point, if the required tokens are still available, the action may accept the offers and begin a new execution. On the other hand, if an action is locally reentrant (isLocallyReentrant=true), then it will begin a new execution any time the rules above allow it, even if there are one or more executions already going within the same activity execution. This means that there may be, within any one execution of the containing activity, more than one concurrent execution of the action ongoing at any given time. A call action for a non-reentrant behavior will also act locally non-reentrant, whatever the value of the isLocallyReentrant property for the action. Moreover, an invocation action for a non-reentrant behavior will not execute if there is any currently running execution for the behavior, whether invoked by this action or any other (see "CallAction" (from Basic Actions) on page xxx). In Subclause 11.3.8, under Semantics, after the first paragraph, add: If the behavior invoked by a call action is not reentrant, then no more than one execution of it will exist at any given time. An invocation of a non-reentrant behavior does not start the behavior when the behavior is already executing. An invocation of a reentrant behavior may start a new execution of the behavior when offered the required tokens, even if the behavior is already executing. However, it will not invoke the behavior if there is an ongoing behavior execution invocated by the same action within the same activity execution, and the action has isLocallyReentrant=false (see "Action" (from CompleteActivities, FundamentalActivities, StructuredActivities) on page xxx). Disposition: Resolved
Actions taken:
August 30, 2003: received issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue

Discussion:
A resolution of this issue has to await further clarification of the activity view of
reentrancy. This issue should be resolved in a manner consistent with activities, if
possible. 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.


Issue 6114: State extension (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:
State should be an extension of type rather than object node.

Resolution: Disposition: Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
August 30, 2003: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:
Discussion
This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
Disposition: Closed - No Change


Issue 6126: Target pin notation (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:
On CallOperationAction, etc, how do you tell graphically which pin is
the target?

Resolution: Disposition: Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF
Revised Text: Discussion There is no standard way to distinguish the target pin, but this can always be done using the pin name, if the modeler wishes. Disposition: Closed - No Change
Actions taken:
August 30, 2003: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:
This is does not affect usage or implementability enough for the FTF to address. 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.


Issue 6137: Promote local conditions to ExecutableNode (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Promote local precondition to ExecutableNode.  There might be other
associations on Action that should be at ExecutableNode

Resolution: Disposition: Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
August 30, 2003: received issue

Discussion:
It may be that local preconditions should apply to object nodes also. Postpone
for discussion in RTF. 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.


Issue 6150: Notation for method (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Provide a notation for a behavior used as a method of an operation

Resolution: Disposition: Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
August 30, 2003: received issue

Discussion:
OMG Issue No: 6150
NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock@nist.gov conradb@cme.nist.gov)
It is probably worthwhile to define a graphical syntax representing
BehavioralFeature.method. This could take the form of either
• showing the name of the instance of Behavior which is the method along in the
compartment where the behavioral feature is exhibited
• having a graphical link between the behavioral feature and a symbol representing
the behavior instance (similar to how it is shown that a CollaborationOccurrence
represents a Classifier (see Figure 106).
The downside of either is that users typically don’t think of the behavioral feature and the
behavior as separate things and usually would not dream of naming the behavior (of
course, this is not required). In particular, if the behavior is described by a body string a
convenient way of showing that body string with the behavioral feature would be desired.
Today tools typically use the property sheet for the behavioral feature to show the
associated behavior. There are already different vendor specific solutions for some
behaviors as methods. We need to gain better experience before standardizing as solution.
Disposition: Deferred                                                                                                                                                                                                       It is probably worthwhile to define a graphical syntax representing BehavioralFeature.method. This could take the form of either . showing the name of the instance of Behavior which is the method along in the compartment where the behavioral feature is exhibited . having a graphical link between the behavioral feature and a symbol representing the behavior instance (similar to how it is shown that a CollaborationOccurrence represents a Classifier (see Figure 106). The downside of either is that users typically don.t think of the behavioral feature and the behavior as separate things and usually would not dream of naming the behavior (of course, this is not required). In particular, if the behavior is described by a body string a convenient way of showing that body string with the behavioral feature would be desired. Today tools typically use the property sheet for the behavioral feature to show the associated behavior. There are already different vendor specific solutions for some behaviors as methods. We need to gain better experience before standardizing as solution. The situation has not changed from the discussion in 2003. There have been no new developments in tool specific notations for method, nor have there been further requests for such notation. However, the issue seems still relevant. Therefore, the suggestion is to defer further. Revised Text: N/A Disposition: Deferred


Issue 6176: UML 2 Super/Metamodel::Constructs/owningComment (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Simula Research Laboratory (Mr. Bran Selic, selic(at)acm.org)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Constructs association owningCommet:Element[0..1] c--> ownedCommet:Comment[0..*] should have been owningElement:Element[0..1] c--> ownedCommet:Comment[0..*] as defined in Kernel/Root. 

Resolution: see below
Revised Text: The issue identifies as real problem in the Rose model InfrastructureLibrary.cat file. The offending "owningComment" association end name appears only in this file (most recent version: ftp://ftp.omg.org/pub/UML_2.0_superstructure-ftf/_UML2 Super.MDL.040711.zip) and does not appear in either the UML 2.0 Superstructure FAS (ptc/03-08-02) or the UML 2.0 Infrastructure FAS (ptc/03-09-15). Proposed Resolution: In the InfrastructureLibrary.cat file, change the name of the association end InfrastructureLibrary::Core::Abstractions::Comments::owningComment to InfrastructureLibrary::Core::Abstractions::Comments::owningElement. Revised Text: Editor’s note: This was fixed in the metamodel – however, it also required a change to the diagram in figure 9.10 In the InfrastructureLibrary.cat file, change the name of the association end InfrastructureLibrary::Core::Abstractions::Comments::owningComment to InfrastructureLibrary::Core::Abstractions::Comments::owningElement.
Actions taken:
September 7, 2003: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
The issue identifies as real problem in the Rose model InfrastructureLibrary.cat file. The
offending "owningComment" association end name appears only in this file (most recent
version: ftp://ftp.omg.org/pub/UML_2.0_superstructure-ftf/_UML2-Super.MDL.040711.zip) and does
not appear in either the UML 2.0 Superstructure FAS (ptc/03-08-02) or the UML 2.0
Infrastructure FAS (ptc/03-09-15).
Resolution: In the InfrastructureLibrary.cat file, change the name of the association end
InfrastructureLibrary::Core::Abstractions::Comments::owningComment to
InfrastructureLibrary::Core::Abstractions::Comments::owningElement.


Issue 6187: UML 2 Super/Metamodel::Super/missing merge (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Simula Research Laboratory (Mr. Bran Selic, selic(at)acm.org)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Package Super isn't merged anywhere, so the constraints it adds to Classifier are never included in L3

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
September 7, 2003: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
No packages from Abstractions are currently merged into any compliance level pending
reorganization of Abstractions.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 6194: UML 2 Super/Package merge/redefinitions issue - lost association ends (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Simula Research Laboratory (Mr. Bran Selic, selic(at)acm.org)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
There is a subtle problem with redefinitions resulting from package merge. Property names have to match by name or the merging property has to redefine the merged property, AND the property types have the same name. Otherwise association ends are lost. For example, consider package Communications which is merged into BehaivorStateMachines. Communications has association ownedBehavior:Behavior <--> context:BehavioredClassifier (ignoring multiplicities to keep the text simpler). BehaviorStateMachines has class StateMachine which specializes Behavior, and has association ownedStateMachine:StateMachine {redefines ownedBehavior} <--> context:BehavioredClassifier. After the merge, merging BehavioredClassifier must contain two properties for ownedBehavior:Behavior and ownedStatemachine:StateMachine. Otherwise the association to the superclass is lost. This is a case where a class ends up redefining one of its own properties, and where ! the redefined and redefining properties both appear in the merged result.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
September 7, 2003: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
Property ownedStateMachine:StateMachine has been removed as a result of other issue
resolution, so this particular problem no longer exists. Other instances of lost association
ends resulting from package merge are handled in their own specific issue.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 6197: UML 2 Super/Metamodel::Kernel/missing merges (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Simula Research Laboratory (Mr. Bran Selic, selic(at)acm.org)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Kernel does not merge Abstractions::Namespaces, Abstractions, Multiplicities, Ownerships, and Visibilities

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
September 7, 2003: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
No packages from Abstractions are currently merged into any compliance level pending
reorganization of Abstractions.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 6200: UML 2 Super/Metamodel/redefinition and substitutability (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Simula Research Laboratory (Mr. Bran Selic, selic(at)acm.org)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Redefinition, as used in UML2, sometimes violates superclass substituitability rules. For example, redefining multiplicity from many to 1 breaks some OCL constraints. For example, Statemachines changed a multiplicity from many to 1. Statemachines redefines association to OwnedBehaviors to OwnedStateMachines which does not allow other types of owned behaviors.

Resolution: Discussion The specific issue with state machines no longer applies, having been resolved in an earlier RTF. The general issue about redefinition is a complaint about a fundamental characteristic of UML semantics which are by now quite well understood. Changing these semantics would be very fundamental and disruptive. This also resolves issue 14929. Disposition: Closed - No Change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
September 7, 2003: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:
Indeed. However, this is a serious and contentious theoretical issue and it’s resolution is
beyond the scope of the FTF. Fortunately, the specific issue with state machines has been
eliminated by the resolution to issue 6185. 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.


Issue 6201: UML 2 Infra/Metamodel::Constructs/invalid OCL constraint for "opposite" (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Simula Research Laboratory (Mr. Bran Selic, selic(at)acm.org)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Is OCL for InfrastructureLibrary::Core::Constructs::Property::opposite() incorrect? Should it be:
opposite =
   if owningAssociation->empty() and association.memberEnd->size() = 2 then
       let otherEnd = (association.memberEnd - self)->any() in
           if otherEnd.owningAssociation->empty() then otherEnd else Set{} endif
   else Set {}
   endif 

Resolution: See issue 8451 for disposition
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
September 7, 2003: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 6216: UML 2 Super/pg.75/kinds of changeability (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Simula Research Laboratory (Mr. Bran Selic, selic(at)acm.org)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
pg. 75: StructuralFeature::isReadOnly 
Limits severely limits previous capabilities to define various kinds of changeability. Even if some people think that the varieties of changeablity are not right, we should make this an enumerated value to provide extensibility for profiles. Call it "changeablity" as before. Should have enum values: 

Changeable (unrestricted) 

readOnly (no changes after initialization) 

[Note that the meaning and semantics of  "initialization" are completely undefined, so this isn't all that useful.] 

The following additional choices were available in UML1: 

CreateOnly (add a set any time after initialization but no further changes) 

addOnly (may add members to the set but not change or remove any) 

Both of these occur in practice often enough. 


Resolution: see above
Revised Text: Infrastructure Spec: Remove section 9.2.1 ChangeabilityKind. It s not part of the UML2 metamodel and is not referenced anywhere else in the InfrastructureLibrary or Superstructure specification.
Actions taken:
September 7, 2003: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
The only subclass of abstract metaclass StructuralFeature in UML2 is Property which
already has ownedAttribute isReadOnly: Boolean. This property comes from package
Basic and is part of the alignment with MOF2.
MOF2 also has a number of rules about initialization of read-only properties that may
make the distinctions between changeable and readOnly unnecessary. It is not clear what
the value for createOnly would be over having a default for a read-only property. And
addOnly semantics may be better handled by the containing class rather than the feature
itself.


Issue 6262: UML 2 Super / Templates / TemplateParameter not named (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Simula Research Laboratory (Mr. Bran Selic, selic(at)acm.org)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
TemplateParameters do not appear to be namable.  They inherit from Element and not NamedElement.  In UML 1.5 they inherited from ModelElement (i.e. were namable).  They need to be named to be referred to in the implementation of the template. 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
September 23, 2003: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
TemplateParameters do not appear to be namable. They inherit from Element and not
NamedElement. In UML 1.5 they inherited from ModelElement (i.e. were namable).
They need to be named to be referred to in the implementation of the temp late.
Discussion:
The real problem is not the one stated above. This is because there is a mistaken
assumption here that the metamodel element called TemplateParameter models the actual
parameter. Instead, it is merely a “pointer” to the parameter. A more precise name might
be to call it ParameterReference or ParameterSelector. But, such a change would require
a very careful examination of the very, very many references to the term “template
parameter” to distinguish whether it refers to the actual parameter or to the reference to
the parameter. This is a significant change that, arguably, is out of scope of this FTF,
since it is not something that is broken or inconsistent in the spec. The metamodel element called TemplateParameter is merely a “pointer” to some named
element owned by the templateable element (e.g., an attribute) that has been designated
as a template parameter. Therefore, there is no need for TemplateParamter to be a named
element, since it is never referenced.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 6275: raisedException (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: TimeWarp Engineering Ltd. (Mr. Steven T. Cramer, scramer(at)timewarpllc.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Reviewing of the Rose MDL file the diagram Constructs::Operations (Class Diagram) displays raisedException as a reference from both BehavioralFeature as well as Operation.  Operation inherits from BehavioralFeature as well.

 

I believe this violates a well-formedness rule that all structural features must be distinguishable.


Resolution: See issue 8461 for disposition
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
September 18, 2003: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
The spec explicitly states that such redefinitions need to be made explicitly. This is
related to the resolution to more general issue 8461. Any resolution to this issue will be
resolved as part of the resolution to 8461.


Issue 6346: Activity OCL (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Simula Research Laboratory (Mr. Bran Selic, selic(at)acm.org)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Not all the constraints in the Activities section have corresponding OCL
specifications. These should be added

Resolution: Discussion This issue is obsolete. All constraints related to Activities that can be given OCL now have OCL in UML 2.5. Disposition: Closed - No Change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 20, 2003: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:
This is does not affect usage or implementability enough for the FTF to address,
and is a very large and time-consuming change. 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.


Issue 6353: Deployment a dependency? (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:
If Artifact and Node are classifiers, why is deployment a dependency?
Then runtime artifacts cannot be deployed to runtime nodes.

Resolution: Disposition: Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 20, 2003: received issue

Discussion:
Run-time artifacts can be deployed to runtime models, but the type consistency
is not formally guaranteed (that is, if Artifact A is deployed to Node B, then
instances of A are deployed to instances of B, but there is no ‘instantiation’ of the
deployment relationship).
In order to formalize the instantiation aspect, Deployment would need to be
modeled as a subtype of Association. This solution has been touched on in the
submission process as a simplification and tightening of the model but requires
some time to work out and bed down, as it would be a non-trivial change. Hence,
it would be best tackled in an RTF process. Note (if this solution direction is
accepted) that the notation would need to be changed to not use a dependency,
but rather an association (possibly with keyword <<deploy>>).


Issue 6368: Join nodes that destroy tokens (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Would be useful if join nodes optionally destroyed tokens not accepted,
especially when using join expressions.

Resolution: Disposition: Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 20, 2003: 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.


Issue 6372: Notes versus curly braces (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity:
Summary:
Why do decision input behaviors use the note notation and join
specification use curly braces?

Resolution: A decision input behavior is a behavior, and it could potentially involve a lengthy computation. A join specification is a value specification and will typically be very short, perhaps even just a single operator (the default is "and"). Revised Text: None Disposition: Closed, no Change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 20, 2003: received issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue

Discussion:
This is does not affect usage or implementability enough for the FTF to address,
and requires too many changes. 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.


Issue 6389: Syntax of names (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Issue:  The UML infrastructure specification does not specify the syntax for names.  This prevents model interchange.


Proposal:  Specify the syntax for the string in Name.  At least, the characters that may be used in names, and any rules about where in the name certain characters may not (or may) appear.


Include in the syntax specification a list of characters used in (or excluded from) names using (seven and) eight bit characters and a list of characters used in (or excluded from) names using sixteen bit characters.


[After a quick glance, the rules sent to the UML 2 Superstructure FTF mail list looks like it will do the job.  Or, in any event, get us started.]

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 22, 2003: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
The name of a metaclass is captured in a MOF String, which in XMI is enclosed in
quotation marks. Therefore, there is no problem with model interchange here.
The reason there are no syntax restrictions on names is that it provides latitude to support
different naming conventions used in different contexts and languages. Restricting this
could prove to be an impediment to the use of UML in situations that have their own
idiosyncratic rules for names.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 6395: UML 2 Super / State machines / Transition triggers cannot be redefined (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Simula Research Laboratory (Mr. Bran Selic, selic(at)acm.org)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Transition triggers do not appear to be redefinable in the current metamodel. There does not seem to be any reason for this restriction and it should be removed

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 31, 2003: received issue

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 6398: UML 2 Super / Kernel features / cannot exclude superclass properties (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Simula Research Laboratory (Mr. Bran Selic, selic(at)acm.org)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
In practice it is not always possible to refactor class hierarchies to ensure that all attributes are defined in the appropraite classes in that hierarchy. For example, a class hierarchy may be supplied by a third party or may be used by multiple products whereas the refactoring may only be required in a subset of them. In such cases, it is extremely useful to be able to exclude undesirable features inherited from a superclass. This einently practical technique should be supported in UML to allow those systems that use that feature to be properly modeled. 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 31, 2003: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
This may be the case, but modifying this aspect of UML exceeds the bounds of FTF
scope. Excluding inherited properties makes the meaning of specialization/generalization
unpredictable and violates a common invariant of object-oriented systems. Generalization
is not always the best way to model relationships between classes, and the desire to
redefine or remove inherited properties is often a good indication that delegation should
be used instead. Delegation is especially useful in situations where classes need to be
decoupled for change management or other reasons.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 6405: UML 2 super / Dependencies / improper subsetting? (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Simula Research Laboratory (Mr. Bran Selic, selic(at)acm.org)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Should Dependency::supplier subset DirectedRelationship::target and Dependency::client subset DirectedRelationship::source? Otherwise, the source and target properties of specializations that add no additional properties (e.g. Usage) will be empty... 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 31, 2003: received issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue

Discussion:
Resolution:
This is already resolved in the UML 2.2 specification.
Revised Text:
None.
Disposition:	Closed No Change


Issue 6409: UML 2 Super/Interactions/missing OCL constraints (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: KDM Analytics (Dr. Nikolai Mansourov, nick(at)kdmanalytics.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Not all the constraints in the Interactions section (14.3). They should  be added

Resolution: Discussion This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification. Disposition: Closed - No Change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 3, 2003: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:
These constraints should definitely be added. This should be done in an RTF. 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.


Issue 6422: Section 9.3.3 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Sparx Systems Pty Ltd (Mr. James D. Baker, omg(at)objectsandaspects.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
The Collaboration example on page 159 appears to be a CollaborationOccurrence rather than a Collaboration.  I recommend that the Collaboration example be revised to a description of the Observer pattern (or some other collaboration) and the example be continued in the CollaborationOccurrence section.  In addition to fixing the example, I believe it is important to make the Collaboration and CollaborationOccurrence examples cohesive

Resolution: Original discussion: The submitter is incorrect in believing that the example (Figures 104 and 105) represent a collaboration occurrence. They are indeed collaborations. However, the submitter makes a good point on having a single example between the collaboration and the collaboration occurrence section. To this effect, it would be possible to update this example by replacing Figures 104 and 105 by an updated version of the example in Figure 107 (albeit one would have to add types to the parts in that example) and make it a little more interesting. The current example in Figures 104 and 105 was adapted from UML 1.4. New comments (March 2009): This issue dates back to 2003. I propose we close it on the grounds of cost/benefit. Revised Text: None. Disposition: Closed, no change.
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 4, 2003: received issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue

Discussion:
The submitter is incorrect in believing that the example (Figures 104 and 105) represent a collaboration occurrence. They are indeed collaborations. However, the submitter makes a good point on having a single example between the collaboration and the collaboration occurrence section. To this effect, it would be possible to update this example by replacing Figures 104 and 105 by an updated version of the example in Figure 107 (albeit one would have to add types to the parts in that example) and make it a little more interesting. The current example in Figures 104 and 105 was adapted from UML 1.4. Disposition: Deferred


Issue 6423: Section 9.3.4 page 161, Presentation Option (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Sparx Systems Pty Ltd (Mr. James D. Baker, omg(at)objectsandaspects.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
The statement "A dashed arrow with a stick arrowhead may be used to show that a collaboration is used in a classifier, optionally labelled with
the keyword «represents»." and the accompanying example are confusing.  Please clarify what this presentation option is trying to accomplish.

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: In Section 9.3.4., delete subsection “Presentation Option”.
Actions taken:
November 4, 2003: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
I do agree with the submitter that this presentation option could be confusing. It has been
taken over from UML 1.4 for reasons of backwards compatibility. While I have not seen
any examples of actual use, it would be unwise to change this further in a backwards
incompatible way without being able to point to practical experience of the use of this
construct. If no practical experience can be found, it might be best to delete this
presentation option.


Issue 6430: UML2 super/ad-03-04-01/Derived attributes and associations (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: David Frankel Consulting (Mr. David Frankel, david(at)dfrankelconsulting.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Issue:  There are many places where the specification indicates that an
attribute or association is derived, but does not state how it is derived;
that is, the specification does not state, in English or in OCL, how to
compute the derivation.


Recommendation: Specify, in English and OCL, how to compute the derivations
of all derived attributes and associations.

Resolution: Discussion This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification. Disposition: Closed - No Change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 4, 2003: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:
These specifications should definitely be added. This should be done in an RTF. 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.


Issue 6433: 03-04-01 Chap 2 p. 112/Components: Different ways to wire components (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: David Frankel Consulting (Mr. David Frankel, david(at)dfrankelconsulting.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Issue: Re Chapter 2, Components, Figure 2-15, p. 112: The text of the fifth
paragraph says: “A component has a number of provided and required
Interfaces, that form the basis for wiring components together, either using
Dependencies, or by using Connectors.”   Is this really an either or choice?
What is the real semantic distinction?  And what is the semantic distinction
between wiring via connectors without ports vs. wiring via connectors with
ports?


Recommendation: Clearly specify the semantic distinctions among the three
ways of wiring components together:


1) Via Dependencies
2) Via Connectors without Ports
3) Via Connectors with Ports.


If there are no semantic distinctions--that is, if the distinctions are
purely mechanical--then the specification should probably changed such that
there is one way to wire components together.

Resolution: Dependencies are used for wiring components at the type level, and indicate some policies about how components might be wired. Connectors are used for wiring component internals and show how parts and ports are actually wired. We will not resolve the issue about distinguishing between the presence and absence of ports: this is fundamental to composite structures and too big a change for the RTF.
Revised Text: In 8.3.1 Semantics, replace: "The wiring between components in a system or other context can be structurally defined by using dependencies between component interfaces (typically on structure diagrams). Optionally, a more detailed specification of the structural collaboration can be made using parts and connectors in composite structures, to specify the role or instance level collaboration between components (See Clause Composite Structures)." By: "The wiring between components in a system or other context can be structurally defined by using dependencies between compatible simple Ports, or between Usages and matching InterfaceRealizations that are represented by sockets and lollipops on Components on component diagrams. Creating a wiring Dependency between a Usage and a matching InterfaceRealization, or between compatible simple Ports, means that there may be some additional information, such as performance requirements, transport bindings, or other policies that determine that the interface is realized in a way that is suitable for consumption by the depending Component. Such additional information could be captured in a profile by means of stereotypes." Also delete the following sentence: "The mapping between external and internal view is by means of dependencies (on structure diagrams), or delegation connectors to internal parts (on composite structure diagrams)." and replace it by "Dependencies on the external view provide a convenient overview of what may happen in the internal view; they do not prescribe what must happen." Delete the word "Again" from the following sentence that starts "Again, more …" and capitalize "More …" Insert the following text before figure 8.14: "When a Dependency is wired from a Usage to an InterfaceRealization, the dependency arrow should be shown joining the socket to the lollipop. A Dependency may be wired from a simple Port with a required interface to a simple Port to a provided interface, in which case it is a notational option to show the dependency arrow joining the socket to the lollipop. A Dependency may be shown from a simple Port to an internal realizing Classifier to indicate that the interface provided or required by the Port is in fact provided or required by the Dependency's supplier. All of these options are shown in Figure 8.14" Replace figure 8.14 with this: Delete the following paragraph below 8.15: "The wiring of components can be represented on structure diagrams by means of classifiers and dependencies between them (Note: the ball-and-socket notation from Figure 8.15 may be used as a notation option for dependency based wiring). On composite structure diagrams, detailed wiring can be performed at the role or instance level by defining parts and connectors." Disposition: Resolved
Actions taken:
November 4, 2003: received issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue
April 26, 2010: closed 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.


Issue 6441: Integration between behavioral "sublanguages": Interactions and Activities (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Pivot Point (Mr. Cris Kobryn, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Although both Sequence Diagrams and Activity Diagrams have
added many advanced features in UML 2, these features appear to have been
added independently, so that they appear as two separate behavioral
languages. Consider improving the integration between them by supporting the
following:
a) Allow for an activity in an activity diagram to represent an invoked
operation in a message on a sequence diagram.
b) Allow for interaction diagram notations to be applied to activity
diagrams, such as the use of references, alternates, and gates.
c) Clarify that time and other constraints can be applied to an activity
diagram in a manner similar to how they are applied to sequence diagrams.

Resolution: Disposition: Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 6, 2003: received issue

Discussion:
This issue is part of a much larger discussion that cannot be handled by one working
group alone. In fact this issue has to be covered in face-to-face meetings resulting in a
commitment to unify the language even further. It is still an important topic and an
obvious desire for many of us for the future. 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.


Issue 6444: Activity diagram problems (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Pivot Point (Mr. Cris Kobryn, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Description: The following are some recommendations to improve Activity
diagrams for systems engineering applications:
a) Generalize pins so that they can be applied to control as well as data.
b) Clarify how activity diagrams can be used to represent continuous
behavior (e.g., streaming input).
c) Clarify how an object node to represent a role.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 6, 2003: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
This is too vaguely stated to act on. Part of item a) is covered in 6348. defer. From FTF: This is too vaguely stated to act on. Part of item a) is covered in 6348. defer
RTF: Could not obtain clarification from filer. The part of item a) referred to in the FTF
comment is that 6348 enabled pins to treat data as control (Pin.isControl) and allowing
control edges to be used with object nodes (ObjectNode.isControlType). Part of item b)
was addressed in FTF issue 6902, which added text to section 6.3 explaining that UML is
for discrete modeling, but it “does not dictate the amount of time between events, which
can be as small as needed by the application, for example, when simulating continuous
behaviors.”
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 6445: Clarification of use case semantics (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Pivot Point (Mr. Cris Kobryn, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Use cases and associated sequence and activity diagrams are
widely used by systems engineers to specify the functionality of the system,
and describe the interaction between the system and the actors. However,
there is much confusion regarding use case semantics. Consider the following
recommendations to clarify use case semantics:
a) Establish an explicit representation to depict the relationship between a
use case and its realization as a sequence diagram, activity diagram, etc.
In addition, allow for a similar representation to show the relationship
between an included/extended use case, and the interaction fragments which
realize the included/extended use case.
b) Clarify the relationship between a use case (solid oval) and a
collaboration (dashed oval), and determine whether they can represent the
same or a similar concept.

Resolution: Disposition: Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 6, 2003: received issue

Discussion:
UML already supports this capability since it allows a classifier (in this case a use case)
to have associated a number of behaviors that are in some ways related to the classifier
(e.g., they may represent realizations of the classifier in some way, or illustrations of
specific executions related to the classifier, etc.) However, the proposed resolutions are
asking for a specialization of these general (meta)associations that would have special
realization semantics. Such semantics might prove to be tricky to define in the case of use
cases, and require some study (i.e., what does it mean for a behavior to “realize” a use
case? Is it just an illustration of one possible realization or is it more general?) These are,
in effect, requirements for new modeling features and, therefore, fall outside the scope of
an FTF or RTF. This should be the subject of a separate RFP.


Issue 6446: Clarification of Information Flow semantics (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Pivot Point (Mr. Cris Kobryn, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Description: Consider the following recommendations to improve Information
Flow semantics:
b) Allow Information Flow to be specialized and decomposed using
aggregation.
c) Allow Information Flow between classifiers with ports and interfaces.
Make provisions for relating the information flow to a port, such that an
Information Flow can flow through a port.
d) Allow Information Flows between classifiers with object flows across
activity partitions.
e) Change the name from Information Flow to Item Flow (or something similar)
to allow for the flow of non-information, such as physical items specified
in systems engineering applications.

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: In section 17.2.1 InformationFlow – Constraints Change: 1] The sources and targets of the information flow can only be of the following kind: Actor, Node, UseCase, Artifact, Class, Component, Port, Property, Interface, Package, and InstanceSpecification except when its classifier is a relationship (i.e. it represents a link). into: 1] The sources and targets of the information flow can only be one of the following kind: Actor, Node, UseCase, Artifact, Class, Component, Port, Property, Interface, Package, ActivityNode, ActivityPartition and InstanceSpecification except when its classifier is a relationship (i.e. it represents a link).
Actions taken:
November 6, 2003: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
These are very good suggestions but such changes clearly qualify as new
features – since they extend the current definition of Information Flows – and are,
therefore, out of scope of the FTF.  Resolution:
b) needs an entire new specification. The combination of these new mechanisms with the
relations between targets & sources, the association Information Items is not at all
defined. That door is dangerous to open now. I suggest to reject this one.
Regarding c): Information flow are explicitly allowed between ports and interfaces. (may
be the issue is outdated)
d) OK, although I have never seen a dependency drawn between partitions. It also shows
an inconsistency in the spec that does not allow sources & target being ActivityNodes.
Regarding e) "Information" is purposely a very broad word that encompasses anything
we want to exchange between sources and targets. It does not prevent at all "physical
items": their circulation is also information.


Issue 6451: UML 2 Super / Dependency / ownership of dependencies (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Simula Research Laboratory (Mr. Bran Selic, selic(at)acm.org)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
At present, a dependency is not owned by any other element except a package. It seems to make sense for a dependency to be owned by its source. For example, the client of a usage should own it, since that would mean that the usage would be deleted along whenever its client is deleted -- it makes no sense to have a dependency independently of the depending (source) element. 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 7, 2003: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
Unfortunately, this recommended fix would not solve the problem since more than one
model element can be the source (client) of a Dependency. Since, in general, each source
element is equal to all the others, there is no basis for singling out one of them to be the
“owner”.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 6452: UML 2 Super / Missing OCL constraints (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Simula Research Laboratory (Mr. Bran Selic, selic(at)acm.org)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
In the final adopted spec, there are numerous constraints associated with the various metaclasses that do not have corresponding OCL written. This should be fixed.

Resolution: Discussion This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification. Disposition: Closed - No Change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 7, 2003: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:
These constraints should definitely be added. This should be done in an RTF. defer 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.


Issue 6455: instantiations of Classifiers (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
7 and 14:  "An instance specification is a model element that represents an instance in a modeled system." [7.7.1]  There are no objects in a UML 2 model, but only models of objects, that is, instance specifications.  The instantiation of a UML class is not in the model, but in the modeled system.  At the same time, "an ExecutionOccurrence is an instantiation of a unit of behavior ..." [14.3.4] Suggested resolution:  Abandon the idea that there are no objects in a model.  Specify that an instanceSpecification with a class is an object in the model, the instiantiation of a class is an object in the model.  Likewise for an association and its links, and so on.


This brings the theory of classifiers and their instances and instantiations into alignment with the theory of behaviors and their occurrences.


It is consistent with the existence of power types in the language.


It is consistent with the MOF specification of meta-layers.


It removes the conflation of the type conformance and instatiation relationships with the representation relationship.  It reduces the meanings conflated into 'instance of' by one.



Thus, the UML places instantiations of Classifiers in the modeled system (not in the UML model) and, at the same time, places instantiations of Behaviors in the UML model (not in the modeled system).

Resolution: Discussion The change proposed in the issue is fundamentally different than the basic interpretation of models in UML. Further, the assertion that UML “places instantiations of Behaviors in the UML model (not in the modeled system)” is not correct. An instance of a Behavior is an execution (in the modeled system), while an ExecutionOccurrence is a model of such an instance. This is quite similar to the difference between an instance and an InstanceSpecification. The UML 2.5 specification is now clearer on this. Disposition: Closed - No Change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 7, 2003: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed 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.


Issue 6456: Use 'represent' for the relationship of a model (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
"An instance specification is a model element that represents an instance in a modeled system." [7.7.1]  That is, the relationship of the instanceSpecification with a class to an object of that class is the representation relationship.


At the same time, a lifeline represents a connectable element. [14.2]


This is an example of a recurrent problem in the specification: model elements that represent other model elements.


At the same time, "attributes of a class are represented by instances of Propert[ies]..."


This is an example of an occassional and quite striking problem in the specification: items in the modeled system that represent model elements.


The theory of representation needs to be settled.  That done, the specification needs to be reviewed with this in mind and all improper uses of representation corrected.


Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 7, 2003: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
Indeed. It would be useful if the theory of representation was settled. However, this is a
deep issue that exceeds the scope of an F/RTF. Hence, it is better to defer this issue to a
subsequent revision of UML. The submitter is absolutely right and that more care should have been taken in the use of
this term and many others. Unfortunately, the problem is endemic in both the Infra and
Super specs (and, likely, many other OMG specs). A count reveals close to 500 uses of
the word “represent” or its derivatives scattered throughout the document. Each of these
would have to be examined and appropriate action taken. Of course, this would only
solve this particular case of loose terminology but not the overall problem. The FTF
punted this issue by deferring it. However, it is unrealistic to expect that any future RTF
will have the resources or the time to fix this particular problem, let alone the more
general problem.
What is really required is a set of OMG-wide style guidelines and, possibly, a glossary of
approved defined terms that should be used in writing all submissions related to
modeling. This is a problem that exceeds this particular specification and should be posed
as an issue to the OMG as a whole.
Furthermore, although the loose use of “represents” is confusing in certain spots, in most
cases, it is not a problem that will lead to errors in tool implementation or significant
misinterpretation by readers. Therefore, it is proposed to close this issue in the context of
this specification. Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 6460: UML 2 Issue: definition of navigability (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Simula Research Laboratory (Mr. Bran Selic, selic(at)acm.org)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
PROBLEM STATEMENT
There is no definition for navigability or navigation in the Spec. Other
concepts of similar importance, such as visibility, multiplicity, etc., are
defined in the Spec, so it is not clear why it should be assumed that this
concept does not require a definition.

PROPOSED SOLUTION
Add definition in Section 4 (Terms and definitions): The navigability of a
binary association specifies the ability of an instance of the source
classifier to access the instances of the target classifier by means of the
association instances (links) that connect them. Navigability is closely
related to the possibility of sending messages through associations (a
message cannot be sent through an association instance against its
navigability, that is, navigability is required for sending messages through
associations), but they remain nonetheless different concepts.

Resolution: Discussion: This issue was resolved in UML 2.1 where an explanation of navigability was provided (see page 41 top in formal/07-02/05) Revised Text: N/A Disposition: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 7, 2003: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
October 27, 2008: closed issue

Issue 6462: UML 2 Issue: AssociationEnd (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Simula Research Laboratory (Mr. Bran Selic, selic(at)acm.org)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
PROBLEM STATEMENT
In UML 1 the navigability of an association end was specified by the
meta-attribute AssociationEnd.isNavigable. In UML 2 apparently this
meta-attribute dissapears, and AssociationEnd is substituted by Property. We
know whether an association end is navigable by the following rule: if the
property is owned by a class, it represents a navigable end; if the property
is owned by an association, it represents a non-navigable end (see
Superstructure, p. 89). However, references to old metaclass AssociationEnd
and old meta-attribute isNavigable still appear in the Spec in several
places and OCL expressions (AssociationEnd appears in: Infrastructure, p.
33; Superstructure, pp. 119, 245; isNavigable appears in: Superstructure, p.
245). 

PROPOSED SOLUTION
Add derived meta-attribute /isNavigable to metaclass Property.
Eliminate references to AssociationEnd.

Resolution: Discussion This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification. Disposition: Closed - No Change
Revised Text: In the UML 2.2 Superstructure specification (ptc/08-05-05): In Subclause 7.3.4 (AssociationClass), Constraint [1] text, change "AssociationEnds" to association ends. In Subclause 11.3.33 (ReadLinkAction), in the OCL for Constraints [2] to [5], change "AssociationEnd" to "Property". In the UML 2.2 Infrastructure specification (ptc/08-05-04), Subclause 8.1, the last sentence of the last paragraph, change "AssociationEnd" to "Property".
Actions taken:
November 7, 2003: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 6463: UML 2 Issue: Message notation (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Simula Research Laboratory (Mr. Bran Selic, selic(at)acm.org)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
PROBLEM STATEMENT
According to Superstructure, p. 430, the notation for messages in
interaction diagrams is as follows (we put assumptions between parenthesis):

asynchronous message - (solid line) open arrowhead
synchronous message - (solid line) filled arrowhead
reply message - dashed line (filled or open arrowhead?)
object creation - dashed line open arrowhead

However, the example given in Figure 333, p. 414, shows a different
notation:

asynchronous message - solid line open arrowhead (not shown in this diagram,
but in others)
synchronous message - solid line filled arrowhead
reply message - dashed line OPEN arrowhead
object creation - SOLID line open arrowhead

Another confusing aspect of the notation is that in a reply message, which
is not a true message, the message name is the name of the operation invoked
on the callee (same as in the corresponding synchronous call), but it
suggests instead that there is an operation with this name in the caller. In
Figure 333, the reply labeled as "foo(_)" visually suggests that there is an
operation named foo in class C1, which is wrong: foo is defined in C2, not
in C1. It would make more sense to label a reply message with the name of
the value returned.

PROPOSED SOLUTION
The simplest solution would be to fix Figure 333 using a dashed arrow to
represent object creation, although this would yield the same notation for
object creation and reply message. Therefore, beyond this simplest solution,
we propose something more advanced: First, state explicitly the notation for
all kinds of messages, leaving no place for assumptions. Second, use a
filled arrowhead for reply messages, since this emphasizes the conceptual
proximity to the synchronous message it is a reply from. Third, use the
notation for object creation also for object deletion, which currently is
not mentioned. That is:

asynchronous message - SOLID LINE open arrowhead
synchronous message - SOLID LINE filled arrowhead
reply message - dashed line FILLED ARROWHEAD
object creation OR DELETION - dashed line open arrowhead

Or better, simply drop object creation as an special kind of message. Object
creation (and deletion) was not considered a special kind of message in UML
1, and it is not at all clear why it should be in UML 2. Probably, an object
creation is either synchronous or asynchronous, but not "something else" in
the same meta-specialization row. In fact, the constraints and semantics of
Message (Superstructure, p. 429) do not consider object creation as
messages: "The signature must either refer an Operation (...) or a Signal",
"A Message reflects either an Operation call (...) or a sending and
reception of a Signal". Neither does the meta-attribute Message.messageSort,
which has the following permitted values: synchCall, synchSignal,
asynchCall, asynchSignal. By the way, what do synchSignal and asynchCall
mean? The "sorts" of message are not defined in the Spec. Although calls are
considered in other places to be either synchronous or asynchronous, signals
are explicitly defined to be asynchronous (Superstructure, pp. 15, 371, 394
and 395), therefore at least synchSignal is banned.

Finally, we also propose to label reply messages with the name of the value
returned by the operation call, not the operation name itself. In Figure
333, this would leave the replies foo(_) and doit(_) without label, and the
last reply would be labeled simply as "x".

Resolution: see above
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 7, 2003: received issue
March 5, 2004: moved to the Superstructure FTF from Infrastructure
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
We have here 3 different problems:
1. There is an error in the illustration (partly due to Visio problems)
2. Notation needs to be fairly backward compatible
3. Notation needs to be fairly consistent with its semantics
The first problem is easily fixed.
The two latter problems are potentially in conflict. Here are the individual problems:
1. Create and reply messages use the same notation
a. This is true, but it does not seem to trouble users of these constructs  UML 2 Revision Task Force Disposition: Resolved
OMG Issue No: 6463
Document ptc/06-01-01 Page 44
b. They are distinguishable as the create message arrowhead always ends at
the head of a new lifeline. That is never the case for any other message.
2. Reply message uses open arrowhead even though it is the reply of a synchronous
call.
a. Again this does not seem to bother users, but filled arrowhead would be
preferable, but not backward compatible.
3. Textual notation for reply messages
a. The current notation does include what is needed, and the suggested
changes fail to address what is needed. In the example we have on the last
reply message “x=bar(_):15” and this means the following:
i. “x=” tells where the value of the reply should be stored. x is an
attribute of the lifeline receiving the reply.
ii. “bar” is the name of the operation and it is true that this may be
redundant if we demand always to use execution occurrences to tie
call and reply, but in fact we do not require this. It seems
reasonable to indicate the name of the operation called to obtain
the result.
iii. “(_)” means that there is one parameter and it is not a return
parameter and is therefore insignificant at the reply. There may
have been return parameters and we would have needed this
parenthesis.
iv. “:15” gives the value of the operation returned. Since sequence
diagrams describe very concrete runs, the returned value is
important.
4. The create, delete and reply messages are not properly coded in the metamodel
a. this is unfortunately the case and should be corrected.
Conclusion: We do not do any changes of the notation, mainly because confusion is not
so high and it is backwards compatible. We need to correct the figure and the coding of
the special messages.
Revised Text:
Add to the enumeration of MessageSort the following items:
• createMessage – the message designating the creation of another lifeline object
• deleteMessage – the message designating the termination of another lifeline
• reply – the message is a reply message to an operation call   


Issue 6464: UML 2 Issue: isUnique (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Simula Research Laboratory (Mr. Bran Selic, selic(at)acm.org)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
PROBLEM STATEMENT
"When one or more ends of the association have isUnique=false, it is
possible to have several links associating the same set of instances."
(Superstructure, p. 81)

As Pierre-Alain Muller demonstrated in an informal conversation with Bran
Selic during a lunch in San Francisco in the last UML Conference (I also was
taking part in that conversation), isUnique must have the same value for all
ends in an association. 

This has implications, for example, for the property strings that can be
placed near the association ends ({ordered}, {bag}, {seq}). According to the
table in Superstructure, p. 92, if one end is a Set or an OrderedSet, then
the opposite end must be a Set or an OrderedSet, too; and if one end is a
Bag or a Sequence, then the opposite end must be a Bag or a Sequence, too.

PROPOSED SOLUTION
Explain this in the Spec.

Resolution: This topic is discussed in detail in DraganMilicev’s paper at http://afrodita.rcub.bg.ac.rs/ dmilicev/pubs/mdd/ trumlassoc.zip. In the paper he proposes that the collection that provides the value of a property that is an association end is derived from the links that instantiate the association as modified by the isUnique marking. So, even if there are two links targeting an instance in the extent of the association, if the property is marked as unique then there will only be one instance in the collection. This interpretation allows there to be associations with mixed unique/nonunique ends. After discussion the FTF thinks that this interpretation is in fact the intended interpretation of the current spec, and should be clarified as such. Milicev also points out that AssociationClasses make the identity of links visible in the semantics, and in contrast to what the spec currently suggests, it is possible to have multiple instances of an AssociationClass that associate the same set of end instances, regardless of the uniqueness marking of the ends. This is clarified in the current resolution. Milicev proposes adding an isUnique property to AssociationClass to give the power to rule out such multiple instances. Adding such a property is outside the scope of UML 2.5. This resolution also clarifies that property subsetting applies to property values coerced to sets. Currently nonunique B could be marked as subsetting unique A. If B contains the same value twice and A contains it once, then that should be legal, even though the size of the value of B is larger than that of A. The resolution also accounts for the use of qualifiers, makes some improvements to the definition and use of the term “cardinality”, and corrects the semantics of CreateLinkAction to correspond to the clarified definition. This also resolves issue 5977.
Revised Text: In clause 7.5.3, replace the sentence: The multiplicity is a constraint on the number of values that may validly occur in that set. by: The size of that collection is called its cardinality. The multiplicity is a constraint on the cardinality, which must be not less than the lower bound and not greater than the upper bound. In clause 11.5.3, replace the following paragraph: For an Association with N memberEnds, choose any N-1 ends and associate specific instances with those ends. Then the collection of links of the Association that refer to these specific instances will identify a collection of instances at the other end. The multiplicity of the other end constrains the size of this collection. If the other end is marked as isOrdered, this collection will be ordered. If the other end is marked as isUnique, this collection is a set; otherwise, it allows duplicate elements. Replace it with: For an Association with N memberEnds, choose any N-1 ends. Let the Property that constitutes the other end be called oep, so that the Classifiers at the chosen N-1 ends are the context for oep (see 9.5.3). Associate specific instances with the context ends. Then the collection of links of the Association that refer to these specific instances will identify a set of instances at oep. The value represented by oep (see 9.5.3) is a collection calculated from this set as follows: All of the instances in the set occur in the collection, and nothing else does. If oep is marked as unique, each instance will occur in the collection just once, regardless of how many links connect to it. If oep is marked as nonunique, each instance will occur in the collection once for each link that connects to it. If oep is marked as ordered, the collection will be ordered in accordance with the ordering information in the links. The cardinality of this collection is its size. The multiplicity of oep constrains this cardinality, or in the case of qualified associations, the size of the collection partition that may be associated with a qualifier value. In 11.5.3, the semantics of AssociationClasses, replace this: NOTE. When one or more ends of the AssociationClass have isUnique=false, it is possible to have several instances associating the same set of instances of the end Classes. By this: NOTE. Even when all ends of the AssociationClass have isUnique=true, it is possible to have several instances associating the same set of instances of the end Classes. In the semantics of Property 9.5.3, replace this: A Property may be marked as the subset of another subsettedProperty. In this case, the collection of values denoted by the subsetting property in some context shall be included in (or the same as) the collection of values denoted by the subsettedProperty in the same context. By this: A Property may be marked as the subset of another subsettedProperty. In this case, calculate a set by eliminating duplicates from the collection of values denoted by the subsetting property in some context. Then that set shall be included in (or the same as) a set calculated by eliminating duplicates from the collection of values denoted by the subsettedProperty in the same context. In the semantics of Association, replace this paragraph: Subsetting represents the familiar set-theoretic concept. It applies to the collections represented by Association ends, not to the Association itself. It means that the subsetting Association end represents a collection that is either equal to or a proper subset of the collection that it is subsetting. Subsetting is a relationship in the domain of extensional semantics. By this: Subsetting of association ends has the meaning specified for Property (see 9.5.3). And replace this sentence: Semantically this implies that the collections representing the ends of the specializing association are subsets of the corresponding collections representing the ends of the specialized association; this fact of subsetting may or may not be explicitly declared in a model. By this: Semantically this implies that sets calculated by eliminating duplicates from the collections representing the ends of the specializing association are subsets of the corresponding sets calculated by eliminating duplicates from collections representing the ends of the specialized association; this fact of subsetting may or may not be explicitly declared in a model. In clause 16.6.3, semantics of CreateLinkAction, replace this sentence: The cardinality of an end is equal to the number of links with objects participating in the other ends that are the same as those participating in those other ends in the new link, and with qualifier values on all ends the same as the new link, if any. By the following: The cardinality of an end is defined in 11.5.3. Use the omg-property style correctly throughout these substitutions.
Actions taken:
November 7, 2003: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 6466: UML 2 Issue: Qualified pathnames (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Simula Research Laboratory (Mr. Bran Selic, selic(at)acm.org)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
PROBLEM STATEMENT
The notation for qualified names is double-colon ('::'). However, the Spec
always and everywhere uses a different notation: instead of
"Kernel::Comment", "Comment (from Kernel)". 

PROPOSED SOLUTION
Use the standard notation for qualified names.


Resolution: Discussion This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification. Disposition: Closed - No Change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 7, 2003: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 6470: Section 7.11.2 Association (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Sparx Systems Pty Ltd (Mr. James D. Baker, omg(at)objectsandaspects.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
What is the sematics of an association with neither end navigable? Provide an example of when this might be used. (C to D page 85).

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 7, 2003: received issue

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 6487: Conditions for parameter sets (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Selection behavior on object nodes should be changed to allow execution
at insertion time, keeping the queue

Resolution: Disposition: Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 7, 2003: received issue

Discussion:
This issue should be titled “Selection behavior”..
Requires more discussio n on how to express sorting procedures in the model. 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.


Issue 6489: Ports in Protocol State Machines (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Protocol machines should not have ports in them.  It should be an
extension in the ports package.  Otherwise there is a backwards
dependency onto composite structure.

Resolution: Discussion Statemachines already depend on ports via triggers, so the proposed change will not remove the dependency. Furthermore, creating a dependency from composite structures to statemachines would create a more serious layering problem. Therefore, resolving this dependency requires a non-trivial restructuring that shall be done by an RTF at this point. UML 2.5 has a different modular structure than UML 2.4 and earlier versions, with a single-level “flat” structure in which inter-module dependency concerns, which are at the core of this issue, are no longer relevant. Disposition: Closed - No Change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 7, 2003: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:
Statemachines already depend on ports via triggers, so the proposed change will not
remove the dependency. Furthermore, creating a dependency from composite structures
to statemachines would create a more serious layering problem. Therefore, resolving this
dependency requires a non-trivial restructuring that shall be done by an RTF at this point.


Issue 6492: ptc-03-09-15/Non-navigable ends with no role names nor multiplicities (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: David Frankel Consulting (Mr. David Frankel, david(at)dfrankelconsulting.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Issue: It appears that associations with neither end names nor
multiplicities on non-navigable ends are used in parts of the UML Core that
are defined via CMOF.  See, for example, section 9.9, figure 35, p. 62, for
example.  I understand that for elements defined via EMOF, this signifies a
simple property.  But is it appropriate for elements defined with CMOF.


Recommendation: Either correct this by adding multiplicities and end names
or explain in the specification why it is alright to omit them in these
cases

Resolution: The meaning of this convention should be explained in the document.
Revised Text: OMG Issue No: 6492 Title: ptc-03-09-15/Non-navigable Ends with No Role Names Nor David Frankel Consulting (Mr. David S. Frankel, df@davidfrankelconsulting.com) Summary: Issue: It appears that associations with neither end names nor multiplicities on non-navigable ends are used in parts of the UML Core that are defined via CMOF. See, for example, section 9.9, figure 35, p. 62, for example. I understand that for elements defined via EMOF, this signifies a simple property. But is it appropriate for elements defined with CMOF? Recommendation: Either correct this by adding multiplicities and end names or explain in the specification why it is alright to omit them in these cases Resolution: The meaning of this convention should be explained in the document. Revised Text: In the Superstructure document, add to section 6.5.2 on page 16, as the second last bullet of the list, the following item: • If an association end is unlabeled, the default name for that end is the name of the class to which the end is attached, modified such that the first letter is a lowercase letter. (Note that, by convention, non-navigable association ends are often left unlabeled since, in general, there is no need to refer to them explicitly either in the text or in formal constraints – although there may be needed for other purposes, such as MOF language bindings that use the metamodel.) • Associations that are not explicitly named, are given names that are constructed according to the following production rule: “A_” <association-end-name1> “_” <association-end-name2> where <association-end-name1> is the name of the first association end and <association-end-name2> is the name of the second association end. In the Infrastructure document, add to section 6.3.1 on page 6, as the second last bullet of the list, the following item: • If an association end is unlabeled, the default name for that end is the name of the class to which the end is attached, modified such that the first letter is a lowercase letter. (Note that, by convention, non-navigable association ends are often left unlabeled since, in general, there is no need to refer to them explicitly either in the text or in formal constraints – although there may be needed for other purposes, such as MOF language bindings that use the metamodel.) OMG Issue No: 6492 Associations that are not explicitly named, are given names that are constructed according to the following production rule: “A_” <association-end-name1> “_” <association-end-name2> where <association-end-name1> is the name of the first association end and <association-end-name2> is the name of the second association end. Disposition: Resolved
Actions taken:
November 7, 2003: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 6493: ptc-03-09-15/Constructs::Class superClass property (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: David Frankel Consulting (Mr. David Frankel, david(at)dfrankelconsulting.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Issue: Constructs::Class has a superClass property that redefines general,
which is from Constructs::Classifier (section 11.3, figure 73, p. 111); but
Constructs::Class also inherits from Basic::Class, which has superClass as a
property (section 10.2, 66, p. 97).  What does this mean?  Is this a bug?
Is it something correct having to do with package merge?


Recommendation: Determine whether this is intended or an oversight.  If it
is an oversight, correct it.  If not, explain the meaning of having these
both of these properties.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 7, 2003: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
This is not a problem, since the rules of package merge unify these two properties as
defined in rule 2 of the general transformation rules of package merge (see page 118 of
ptc/04-10-02)
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 6495: ptc-03-09-15/Separate classification and generalization in Core::Basic (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: David Frankel Consulting (Mr. David Frankel, david(at)dfrankelconsulting.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Issue: One of the main requirements for a core that can be reused by CWM
hinges on whether it is possible to reuse the abstract syntax that supports
classification and supports having properties (or features), without pulling
in generalization constructs.  U2P’s Core::Basic package, upon which EMOF is
based, does not appear to adequately separate these concerns.


The most abstract level of Core::Basic's inheritance hierarchy at which the
ability to have properties appears is in the Class metaclass.  But Class
also carries the “baggage” of a definition of superclass.


The Core::Abstractions package does appear to adequately separate these
concerns.  It does so by defining a simple Classifier in the
Core::Abstractions::Classifiers package that supports features but not
generalization.  The Core::Abstractions::Super package defines another
Classifier metaclass that subclasses
Core::Abstractions::Classifiers::Classifier and adds support for
generalization.


Presumably, then, the intent is that CWM metamodels that support
classification and properties but not generalization can reuse
Core::Abstractions::Classifiers::Classifier.  However, Core::Basic does not
reuse either of these basic definitions of Classifier from
Core::Abstractions, and EMOF is based on Core::Basic.  Thus, if a CWM
metamodel reuses Core::Abstractions::Classifiers::Classifier, it will not
share a common definition of Classifier with EMOF.  That could mean that a
metamodel expressed solely via EMOF will not be able to be the source or
target in a unified approach to transformations.  This is not a problem for
CMOF, though, because CMOF is based on Core::Constructs, whose Classifiers
are based on Core::Abstractions.


Recommendation: Solving the problem for EMOF would require some refactoring
of Core::Basic to separate concerns between classification and
generalization.

Resolution: Discussion This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification. Disposition: Closed - No Change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 7, 2003: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 6496: ptc-03-09-15/Relationships among Core packages (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: David Frankel Consulting (Mr. David Frankel, david(at)dfrankelconsulting.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Issue: The superficial impression that Core::Abstractions is the lowest
layer in the U2P Core does not stand up under close examination.
Core::Basic is closer to being the fundamental layer because it uses none of
the new association modeling constructs (such as derived unions and subsets)
to define itself; but is not entirely so because it imports two packages
from Abstractions.


Recommendation: It would be worth considering whether the two packages that
Basic imports from Abstractions can be placed in Basic, so that Basic is
unambiguously the lowest layer in Core.  This would also make EMOF
unambiguously the lowest-—i.e. the most fundamental—-layer of MOF, since
EMOF is based on Core::Basic while CMOF is based on Core::Constructs.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 7, 2003: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
Resolved by Issue 7956. Basic (and no other UML2 or MOF2 compliance level) no
longer merges anything from Abstractions. Figure 64 on page 91 of the Infrastructure
specification is simply a schematic diagram to show that model elements in Basic were
influenced and/or derived (by copy) from elements in Abstractions. But there is no longer
any connection between Basic and Abstractions.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 6497: ptc-03-09-15/Need for examples to include instance models (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: David Frankel Consulting (Mr. David Frankel, david(at)dfrankelconsulting.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Issue and Recommendation: In general the specification of the Core would
benefit from instance diagrams accompanying example models, especially in
cases where there is significant change from UML 1.x.  An instance diagram
accompanying an example model would show how the model instantiates the
elements of metamodel.  This will contribute to a greater level of common
understanding among readers of the specification and thus will help ensure
interoperability.


For example, consider Figure 3-23 from the submission document and which
defines the abstract syntax for the elements of the
Core::Constructs::Constraints package.  Despite the existence of
accompanying explanatory text, the distinction between the Namespace that
owns a Constraint and the Namespace that provides the context for a
Constraint may be difficult for the reader to grasp completely.  Figures
3-24, 3-25, and 3-26 from the submission document, respectively, provide
example models.  An instance diagram for at least one of the examples that
shows how the elements of the example model instantiate elements of
Core::Constructs::Constraints would go a long way toward preventing
misunderstandings.  Such misunderstandings would compromise
interoperability, since there is a high probability (in my opinion) that
different implementers would render models to XMI differently.


This example is only one of many that I could cite from the submission where
examples *plus* associated instance diagrams would be beneficial.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 7, 2003: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 6498: ptc-03-09-15/Explain the new association modeling constructs (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: David Frankel Consulting (Mr. David Frankel, david(at)dfrankelconsulting.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Issue: The Core’s abstract syntax makes heavy use of new association
modeling constructs.  Two of them in particular may be unfamiliar to many
who read the submission:
·       Subsets
·       Derived unions


The submission provides only a brief explanation of these two new
constructs, which I quote below:


"A navigable property may be marked as a subset of another, as long as the
owner of the subsetting property is the same as or a specialization of the
owner of the subsetted property. In this case, the collection associated
with an
instance of the subsetting property must be included in (or the same as) the
collection associated with the corresponding instance of the subsetted
property.


A property may be marked as being a derived union. This means that the
collection of values denoted by the property in some context is derived by
being the strict union of all of the values denoted, in the same context, by
properties defined to subset it. If the property has a multiplicity upper
bound of 1, then this means that the values of
all the subsets must be null or the same."


Recommendation: Since these constructs are so heavily used to define the
Core itself, it would be useful for the submission to provide some overall
guidance on how to use them.  Providing rationale for why specific ones are
chosen in specific places in the definition of the Core would be an
effective way of disseminating understanding of these constructs and
understanding of the Core as well.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 7, 2003: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 6500: Federated models - UML2 issue (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Pivot Point (Mr. Cris Kobryn, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
When creating a complete environment for agreements and BCF we need 
to 
work with ModelElements, classes, package, models etc created and 
managed by many unrelated person and organisations. This means that 
we 
need to support loosely coupled models (federated models) where an 
association starts in one model (stored in doc A) and ends in another 
model (stored in document B).


This may mean that we need to add references to an external 
modelelement 
so the assoication that references "out" to external ME need to be 
annotated with for example UUID of remote modelelement, name of model 
where the remote/external model , physicial location of remote model 
(URL) etc.
We may also want to attach constraints to the remote modelement that 
restricts "incomming" associations.


The question is how are loosely coupled model handled in UML 2 ?

Resolution: closed no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 7, 2003: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
April 25, 2011: closed issue

Discussion:
Model is a kind of Package and can be imported and referenced. There is no implication about storage units. XMI supports references that cross document boundaries. This is a tool issue, and many tools do support the requirements listed in the summary.


Issue 6501: Rose Model of UML 2.0 spec (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Pivot Point (Mr. Cris Kobryn, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Class Diagram:Constructs/Packages in the Rose file shows the
nestedPackage/package association the spec shows
nestedPackage/nestingpackage


 


I believe the spec to be in error... 


 


I am not sure where to report this and or who keeps this model up to
date. Any recommendations would be appreciated


Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 7, 2003: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
This problem was detected and resolved in the FTF.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 6502: Multiplicity seems to be broken - UML2 Infra & Super (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Daimler AG (Mr. Mario Jeckle, mario(at)jeckle.de)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
The current Infastructure document defines it at page 54 as (line 
numbers have been added by me):
(1) multiplicity ::= multiplicity_range
(2) multiplicity_range ::= [lower '..'] upper
(3) lower ::= integer
(4) upper ::= unlimited_natural | '*'


But at page 56 (also page 20 of the Superstructure document which 
copies 
the definition) it says:


(5) multiplicity ::= multiplicty_range [{order_designator}]
(6) multiplicity_range ::= [lower '..'] upper
(7) lower ::= integer | value_specification
(8) upper ::= unlimited_natural | '*' | value_specification
(9) order_designator ::= ordered | unordered
(10) uniqueness_designator ::= unique | nonunique


There are several problems arising from this definition:


(P1) (9) and (10) are never used
(P2) Defining the lower bound as "integer" (according to page 142 of 
the 
  Infrastructure document) allows it to specify multiplicities with 
lower bounds *below* 0 (e.g. [-5..7], [-42..0])
(P3) (4) and (8) include the asterisk symbol (*) to denote an 
infinite 
upper bound. Though, this is redundant since the symbol is already 
there 
as part of the lexical representation of unlimited_natural (according 
to 
page 144 of the Infrastructure document)
(P3) (4) and (8) define the upper bound using the datatype 
"unlimited_natural" which comprimises all integer numbers starting 
from 
zero. Thus multiplicities like [0..0] would be legal.
(P4) It should be mentioned that the lower part is lower or equal to 
the 
value given for the upper part (where '*' is geater than any other 
element of the set named integer). Otherwise multiplicities like 
[8..2] 
would be considered legal.
(P5) What is the role of the value_specification mentioned at (8) and 
(9) isn't it redundant there?


Or am I just misreading the spec?

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 7, 2003: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
UML 2 Revision Task Force Disposition: Closed, no change
OMG Issue No: 6502
Document ptc/06-01-01 Page 641
Or am I just misreading the spec?
Discussion:
The response to these items is embedded below each:
• (P1) (9) and (10) are never used
This claim is simply incorrect: both of these designators can be used in specifying
a multiplicity
• (P2) Defining the lower bound as "integer" (according to page 142 of the
Infrastructure document) allows it to specify multiplicities with lower bounds
*below* 0 (e.g. [-5..7], [-42..0])
Technically, this is true, but the possibility is prevented by an OCL constraint.
The BNF is used merely to define the valid notational forms and does not deal
with semantic constraints, which are covered elsewhere. The case where a lower
bound would require an UnlimitedNatural does not seem to be required and may
confuse some readers and would likely cause a disruption in numerous
implementations.
•
(P3) (4) and (8) include the asterisk symbol (*) to denote an infinite upper bound.
Though, this is redundant since the symbol is already there as part of the lexical
representation of unlimited_natural (according to page 144 of the Infrastructure
document)
This was fixed in the FTF.
• (P4) (4) and (8) define the upper bound using the datatype "unlimited_natural"
which comprimises all integer numbers starting from zero. Thus multiplicities like
[0..0] would be legal.
Once again (see the response to (P2)), the submitter is mistakenly assuming that
the BNF is used to define the semantic constraints, whereas it merely specifies the
notation.
•
(P5) It should be mentioned that the lower part is lower or equal to the value
given for the upper part (where '*' is geater than any other element of the set
named integer). Otherwise multiplicities like [8..2] would be considered legal.
Again, there is a constraint that deals with that case.
• (P6) What is the role of the value_specification mentioned at (8) and (9) isn't it
redundant there?
Value specifications allow the use of various symbolic references. Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 6503: Why not using the UML1 activity symbol for UML2 actions? (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG (Dr. Tim Weilkiens, tim.weilkiens(at)oose.de)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
I didn't recognize it before, but now I am surprised that the action 
symbol
is not the same as the UML1 activity symbol ("shape with straight top 
and bottom 
and with convex arcs on the two sides").
Actions are no activities, but the semantic is similar for 
the "normal" UML user.
In UML1 the user has to distinguish between the activity symbol and
the state symbol ("round-cornered rectangle"), especially if states 
and activities
are shown within the same diagram. 
Now you has to use the UML1 state symbol for actions. I think that 
this is confusing
for the normal UML user.
Another point is that the action symbol is the same as the state 
symbol. There will
be no chance for a misunderstanding, because both symbols are not 
allowed within the same
diagram. But it would be much clearer if the action symbol has a 
different notation and
looks like the UML1 activity symbol.


So, why not using the UML1 activity symbol for UML2 actions?

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 7, 2003: received issue
March 5, 2004: moved to the Superstructure FTF from Infrastructure
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
This is too large and debatable a change for the FTF to address, and does not
affect implementability. UML2 completely separates state machine and activity semantics and notation. This
eliminates the need to have different symbols to distinguish states from activities on the
same diagram. UML2 could have used the UML1.x activity notation for actions in an
activity, but rounded rectangles are somewhat easier to draw by hand, and there shape
may be simpler to manage. At this point, the cost of changing this is probably greater
than its value.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 6524: class "InfrastructureLibrary.core.constructs.Association", (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Pivot Point (Mr. Cris Kobryn, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
 found something strange in the specification of UML 2.0.
First of all, in the 
class "InfrastructureLibrary.core.constructs.Association", there is 
an attribute "ownedEnd" with return type 
of "InfrastructureLibrary.Core.Constructs.Property" and 0...*; and it 
its direct subclass "infrastructurelibrary.profiles.Extension", there 
is an attribute "ownedEnd" which redefines ownedEnd in 
class "Association", but with return 
type "infrastructurelibrary.profiles.ExtensionEnd" and multiplicity 
of 1. It causes conflicts of generated JMI interface.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 7, 2003: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
Extension is a subclass of Association, and ExtensionEnd is a subclass of Property. So
Extension::ownedEnd: ExtensionEnd is an implicit redefinition of inherited property
Association::ownedEnd: Property. Redefinitions of this sort are used throughout the
UML2 metamodel, many of them occurring as the result of package merges.
Unfortunately, there is no way to have this fixed without a major reworking of the entire
UML metamodel and a change in the definition of UML 2. This is because the concept of
property redefinition is (a) a fundamental capability of UML 2.0 and (b) very tightly
integrated into the metamodel. Removing it, which is what would be required to deal with
this issue, is far outside the scope of an RTF.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 6525: two classes "NamedElement (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Pivot Point (Mr. Cris Kobryn, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Secondly, there are two classes "NamedElement" holding un-redefined 
attribute "name", one is in the 
package "InfrastructureLibrary.Core.Basic", and the other is in the 
package "InfrastructureLibrary.Core.Abstractions.Namespaces". The 
problem is that there are a lot of classes directly or indirectly 
inheriting both of them e.g. class "InstanceSpecification" in package 
uml.classes.kernel, and it causes problem of duplicated parameters in 
class creation in the generated JMI interfaces. e.g. 
"
public InstanceSpecification createInstanceSpecification
(java.lang.String name, 
infrastructurelibrary.core.abstractions.visibilities.VisibilityKind 
visibility, java.lang.String name, java.util.Collection classifier); 
"
Similiar cases happen to attribute "type", "isAbstract" etc.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 7, 2003: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
The submitter seems to be unfamiliar with the rules for redefinition and package merge,
which resolve such issues in general. In this particular case, due to the fact that
Abstractions and Basic have been de-coupled in the FTF work, the two are completely
distinct elements and are not intended to be used together. If someone does decide to use
them together, however, package merge would resolve any contention. See also the
resolution to issue 6003 and 6002.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 6616: UML Superstructure FTF : isRoot property disappeared (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
The property isRoot has disappeared from Classifier. INtention was to move it to RedefinableElement but it seems to have dropped through the cracks.


On page 399 FAS: section 13.3.4


The metaattributes isLeaf and isRoot have been replaced by properties inherited from RedefinableElement.


On page 86 FAS section 7.8.3 RedefinableElement:


isLeaf: Boolean Indicates whether it is possible to further specialize a RedefinableElement. If the value is
true, then it is not possible to further specialize the RedefinableElement. Default value is
false.


But no  mention of isRoot....

Resolution: Discussion This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification. Disposition: Closed - No Change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 14, 2003: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 6624: freeing namespace (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: XTG, LLC (Mr. Joaquin Miller, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
I know ODP is <adjective>, so i'd like to add mention of a couple of other places where we will find name space standing on its own, and not conflated with package or other container.


An IETF namespace is exactly "a set of terms usable as names."


As Karl reminded me, a C++ name space is also "a set of terms usable as names," declared with the keyword 'namespace' and used with the keywords 'using namespace' (providing a naming context) or with the scope operator, '::' (converting a simple name to a name that is an identifier).


[Unlike most Java tools, there is no requirement that the things in a C++ namespace all be in any particular container.  Karl tells me that C++ programmers he works with don't like the way Java tools insist that a package-cum-namespace be identified with a directory that contains all elements of that package.  (Of course, tools that do that are following "the extremely simple example" in The Java Language Specification.  Sometimes the effect of simple examples on the future of the world.)  It can be fine to have such simplifications in a programming language, but it's good to have more flexibility in models.]


C++ also provides a form for aliases:
    namespace new_name = current_name ;


Still more flexible is that other approach, which in addition to distinguishing name space from naming context, also allows the same item to have fully qualified names from different namespaces.  If that's in MOF, let's use it.  (Is that accomplished the relaxing, which MOF 2 package import provides?  (If i import C from Pa into Pb, can i identify it with 'Pb::C'?))


If not, let's put it there.


Seems to me to be easy to accomplish, if Namespace is first class.

Resolution: Disposition: Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 17, 2003: received issue

Discussion:
This is a significant change at the core of the metamodel and requires further study. 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.


Issue 6630: UML 2 Super / Classes / dependencies should be unidirectional (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Simula Research Laboratory (Mr. Bran Selic, selic(at)acm.org)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
In the metamodel, UML::Classes::Dependencies::NamedElement::supplierDependency should not be navigable, as it does not make sense for the supplier of a dependency to know about its dependencies 


Resolution: see above
Revised Text: In figure 15 on page 32, make the association end NamedElement::supplierDependency non-navigable. (According to the convention used in the spec (section 6.5.2), this means that the supplier NamedElement does not have a property that explicitly identifies the set of dependencies that target it.) In section 7.3.33 on page 100 in the Associations subsection of NamedElement, remove the entire “supplierDependency” item.
Actions taken:
November 26, 2003: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
This is fully consistent with the pattern used for all the other kinds of directed
relationships (Generalization, PackageMerge, ElementImport and PackageImport.)
Note that this does not prevent tools from readily determining the dependencies targeting
a particular model element if necessary, since that information can be easily computed or
cached by the tool when the dependency is constructed.


Issue 6637: UML 2 Infra/Metamodel/missing derivation indicators (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Simula Research Laboratory (Mr. Bran Selic, selic(at)acm.org)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Package::nestedPackage and Profile::ownedStereotype should be derived, just as Package::ownedType is (all three subset Package::ownedMember). In general, if the contents of a subset are determined soley by type (and the superset property is not derived), the subset property should be derived. 

Resolution: Discussion: This was fixed in release 2.1. Revised Text: N/A Disposition: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 21, 2003: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
October 27, 2008: closed issue

Issue 6639: remove paragraph (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The paragraph starting at the bottom of page 2-200 with "A user model uses instances..." and finishing at the top of page 2-201 describes figure 2-37 which has been removed from the specification 1.4 when transiting to 1.5. Thus, the paragraph should be either adapted to reflect the change or removed.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 25, 2003: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
The offending paragraph was removed during the finalization phase. The issue is no
longer applicable.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 6640: number of the figure is wrong (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:
At the bottom of page 2-216, the paragraph "This life cycle may be depicted informally using a statechart diagram, as shown in Figure 2-39." should actually read "This life cycle may be depicted informally using a statechart diagram, as shown in Figure 2-40." The number of the figure is wrong.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 25, 2003: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
This paragraph was removed in the finalization phase, so the issue is no longer relevant.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 6641: well-formedness rules are not numbered correctly (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Enhancement
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The well-formedness rules are not numbered correctly. After the note in the middle of the page, the numbering scheme starts over at [1] instead of going on to [10].

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 26, 2003: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
This refers to an old version of the spec. The referenced text is not present in the new
version.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 6645: UML 2.0 Superstructure Kernal/Packages (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: TimeWarp Engineering Ltd. (Mr. Steven T. Cramer, scramer(at)timewarpllc.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
The  Property ownedMember of the Class Package is redefined to specialize the EndType from NamedElement to PackageableElement.  But is incorrectly changed from a derived union to NON Derived.  If it is intended to be non derived the property string subsets on all the other members are in error.

 

ownedMember for a Package should be a derived union subset by the following Properties:

ownedType

nestedPackage

ownedRule

 

An OCL equivalent would be as follows:

 

ownedMember=ownedType->union(nestedPackage)->union(ownedRule)


Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 1, 2003: received issue

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 6659: multiplicity of the association named "type" of type DataType (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Enhancement
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The multiplicity of the association named "type" of type DataType is given as [1..1}. It should be [1..1], i.e. with square brackets instead of curly braces

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 2, 2003: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
This refers to an old version of the spec. The referenced text is not present in the new
version.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 6660: The multiplicity of association named subaction of type Action ill formed (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Enhancement
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The multiplicity of the association named subaction of type Action is ill formed. Instead of [1..] it should read [1..1].

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 1, 2003: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
This refers to an old version of the spec. The referenced text is not present in the new
version.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 6661: In paragraph 5, the addition of 2, 5, 7 and -3 does not yield 9 but 11 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Enhancement
Severity: Minor
Summary:
In paragraph 5, the addition of 2, 5, 7 and -3 does not yield 9 but 11. That's why "...subaction Addition is the scalar 9." should read "...subaction Addition is the scalar 11."

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 2, 2003: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
This refers to an old version of the spec. The referenced text is not present in the new
version.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 6662: In the last paragraph, the period after the word "collections" on the secon (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Enhancement
Severity: Minor
Summary:
In the last paragraph, the period after the word "collections" on the second line should be removed

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 2, 2003: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
This refers to an old version of the spec. The referenced text is not present in the new
version.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 6665: UML 1.5 table of contents (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The example text <Company xmi:id="Company_1" name="Acme"> <HQAddress xmi:id="Address_1" Street="Side Street" </Company>City="Hometown"/> should be <Company xmi:id="Company_1" name="Acme"> <HQAddress xmi:id="Address_1" Street="Side Street" City="Hometown"/> </Company> 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 3, 2003: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
This refers to an old version of the spec. The referenced text is not present in the new
version.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 6681: UML2 Super/Kernel Classes (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
section 7.11 Does Property.aggregation have meaning for properties typed by
value types, (Data Type and subtypes)?

Resolution: Discussion The spec now says under the semantics of Property “The semantics of composite aggregation when the container or part is typed by a DataType are intentionally not specified.” Disposition: Closed - No Change
Revised Text: n subclause 7.3.11 (DataType), under "Semantics", replace the first sentence of the second paragraph: All copies of an instance of a data type and any instances of that data type with the same value are considered to be the same instance. Instances of a data type that have attributes (i.e., is a structured data type) are considered to be the same if the structure is the same and the values of the corresponding attributes are the same. With: All copies of an instance of a data type and any instances of that data type with the same value are considered to be equal instances. Instances of a data type that have attributes (i.e., is a structured data type) are considered to be equal if the structure is the same and the values of the corresponding attributes are equal.
Actions taken:
December 8, 2003: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 6692: Operations and derived attributes (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: TimeWarp Engineering Ltd. (Mr. Steven T. Cramer, scramer(at)timewarpllc.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
I am looking at ValueSpecification which introduces Additional Operations, such as integerValue().  My question is : What is the reasoning behind making these Operations vs. Derived attributes?

 

In MultiplicityElement we have a derived attribute lower which is equal to lowerBound().  What logic is used to determine whether an Operation has a corresponding Attribute?

 

Also the spec seems to indicate that all derived values will be implemented via some operation.  Is this a requirement or an assumption of implementation?

 

Why can’t lower in MultiplicityElement simple be defined as if lowerValue->notEmpty() then 1 else lowerValue.integerValue()… what makes the lowerBound() operation required?

 


Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 10, 2003: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
It is usually a question of balance between efficiency and the need to minimize the
storage requirements for storing models (in both dynamic and persistent store). In
principle, anything that can be computed should be defined as an operation. Non-derived
attributes provide the basic input data from which such computations can be effected.
Derived attributes are typically used when the computation is judged to be inefficient in
some sense. (Clearly, there is a discretionary element in this, and such criteria are not
necessarily applied consistently in the spec.)
In the particular case of MultiplicityElement::lowerBound(), this was necessary since it is
possible that no lower bound was actually specified by the modeler.
Concerning derived values, the intent is to provide a specification of how each derived
feature is computed, whether through a formally specified formula (in OCL, for
example), or, where this is impractical or infeasible for some reason, in precise natural
language. However, because this is a lengthy undertaking requiring significant resources,
it was deemed impractical to hold up release of the specification until this task was
completed. Instead, its completion has been relegated to subsequent revision task forces.
The same applies to various constraints.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 6696: Remove one of the dots between protectedAction and availableOutput (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Enhancement
Severity: Minor
Summary:
In the Outputs listing, "self.jumpHandler.protectedAction..availableOutput.type" should read "self.jumpHandler.protectedAction.availableOutput.type" 

Remove one of the dots between protectedAction and availableOutput

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 15, 2003: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
The issue no longer applies. UML 2 replaced JumpHandler with ExceptionHandler.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 6697: Associations section of element JumpHandler (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Enhancement
Severity: Minor
Summary:
In the Associations section of element JumpHandler, the protectedAction association misses appropriate type information. 

The line should read: 

protectedAction: Action [0..*] 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 15, 2003: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
JumpHandler (UML 1.5) is replaced by ExceptionHandler in UML 2. The type of the
protected node is correct (ExecutableNode).
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 6699: UML 2.0 infra and super Constraints Diagram of the Kernel (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: TimeWarp Engineering Ltd. (Mr. Steven T. Cramer, scramer(at)timewarpllc.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
The Constraint:namespace to Namespace:ownedRule association depicted in the super structure spec on page (31) should be made navigable on both ends and the namespace property should be renamed to owningNamespace and this should subset context and subset namespace.


Resolution: see above
Revised Text: Change Figure 7 on page 24 to show Constraint::namespace to be navigable (this was already done in the Rose model). Editor’s note: This change also needed to be made in the Inrastructure document in the Constraints package of Abstractions.
Actions taken:
December 16, 2003: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
Constraint::namespace redefines NamedElement::namespace so it should retain the same
name. Namespace was probably used instead of owningNamespace to keep the name
shorter and to follow the conventional meaning of the word (and its use in XML).


Issue 6700: UML 2.0 Kernel Operations Diagram and Features Diagram and mdl (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: TimeWarp Engineering Ltd. (Mr. Steven T. Cramer, scramer(at)timewarpllc.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
The operations diagram redefines the formalParameter Property and removes the {ordered subsets parameter subsets ownedMember}.

 

The mdl file has an added associtation between Operation: ownedparameter and Parameter:operation that isn’t defined in the spec.

 

I believe the intent was to specialize the property Parameter:operation but I do not find the Operation:formalParameter Parameter:operation association required at all and would recommend its removal.

 

This would require the ownerformalParam be made navigable.  But I feel that this change is already required to sync the OCL and Superstructure specs.

 

An alternative would be to add a unidirectional derived Property to the Parameter Class named operation and the derivation simply being operation=ownerFormalParam

Resolution: No longer applicable closed no chnage
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 16, 2003: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
April 25, 2011: closed issue

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 6702: The numbering of the sub-sections in 2.7.2 is wrong (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:
The numbering of the sub-sections in 2.7.2 is wrong. In "2.7 Data Types", we have "2.7.1 Overview" and "2.7.2 Abstract Syntax". Below that, the numbering starts with "2.7.3.1 AggregationKind" instead of "2.7.2.1 AggregationKind".

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 17, 2003: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
This refers to an old version of the spec. The referenced text is not present in the new
version.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 6703: In "2.9.3.5 Instance", numbering of different well-formedness rules wrong (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:
In "2.9.3.5 Instance", the numbering of the different well-formedness rules is wrong. Below rule [2], there are two rule [3], one of which is not left-aligned properly. 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 17, 2003: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
This refers to an old version of the spec. The referenced text is not present in the new
version.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 6704: The section about Procedure does not contain any well-formedness rules (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The section about Procedure does not contain any well-formedness rules. Instead, the section repeats the content (copy-paste!!) of section 2.9.2.11 about attributes and associations.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 17, 2003: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
This refers to an old version of the spec. The referenced text is not present in the new
version.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 6724: The Composition section does not follow the usual conventions (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The Composition section does not follow the usual conventions of first presenting the attributes and then the associations of the model element.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 18, 2003: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
This refers to an old version of the spec. The referenced text is not present in the new
version.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 6725: missing closing parenthesis (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Enhancement
Severity: Minor
Summary:
In the second additional operation of the model element StateMachine, there is a missing closing parenthesis in the last else branch, i.e. the last else branch should read 


Resolution: Indeed so.
Revised Text: On page 616 of ptc/04-10-02 change the last line of the second additional operation from: else (ancestor (s1, s2.container) to else (ancestor (s1, s2.container))
Actions taken:
December 18, 2003: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 6726: At the bottom of the page, the characters "antics." should be removed (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Enhancement
Severity: Minor
Summary:
At the bottom of the page, the characters "antics." should be removed

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 18, 2003: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
This refers to an old version of the spec. The referenced text is not present in the new
version.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 6727: In 2.13.3, the first sub-section about ActivityGraph is not numbered (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:
In 2.13.3, the first sub-section about ActivityGraph is not numbered, it should be 2.13.3.1. Subsequent sub-sections should be renumbered

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 18, 2003: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
This refers to an old version of the spec. The referenced text is not present in the new
version.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 6866: Part subtype (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Would be useful to be able to assign a subtype for objects that fill a
part, to add additional characteristics.  For example, a person fills
the Employee part of a company, and is reclassified under a subtype of
person that has an office.  It is not sufficient to use the subtype as
the type of the part, because the model wouldn't record what objects are
allowed to fill the parts.  The object is reclassified under the subtype
after filling the part.

Resolution: The issue suggests a new feature of UML. This is strategic and outside the scope of the RTF. Revised Text: None. Disposition: Closed, out of scope
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 5, 2003: received issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue

Discussion:
The issue suggests a new feature of UML. While interesting, such is considered outside
the scope of this FTF. The issue suggests a new feature of UML. While interesting, such is considered outside
the scope of this FTF.


Issue 6878: UML 2 Infrastructure / rule for redefinition of Property (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Simula Research Laboratory (Mr. Bran Selic, selic(at)acm.org)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
The isConsistentWith() query defined on Property implies that in order for a property redefinition to be logically consistent, the redefining property must be derived if the redefined property is derived. Are these the correct semantics for redefinition? There are cases in the metamodel where this constraint is violated (e.g. Package::ownedMember is not derived, but it redefines derived property Namespace::ownedMember). If there is to be a constraint on redefinition, perhaps it makes more sense the other way around, i.e. a redefining property must be non-derived if the redefined property is non-derived. 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 2, 2004: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 6921: Inheritance of 'Enumerations' is not detailed (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Inheritance of 'Enumerations' is not detailed with repsect to their (ordered) owned 'EnumerationLiteral's. 

Proposed resolution: Add a constraint to restrict Enumerations to be unable to inherit from each other (at least favored in MOF) or specify how Literals are ordered. 

Resolution: Discussion The issue is obsolete. The spec defines what generalization means for Enumerations. Disposition: Closed - No Change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 19, 2004: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 6922: Redefinitions of OCL constraints must be aligned with MOF2.0/UML2.0 class R (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Redefinitions of OCL constraints must be aligned with MOF2.0/UML2.0 class Redefinition. I could not find any detailed information with respect to redefinition of (especially OCL class OclExpression) constraints in the docs ptc/03-09-15, ptc/03-10-04. A more precise semantic would help for the QVT redefinitions w.r.t patterns and technology mappings interoperability (JMI <> MOF2IDL alignment). 

Proposed resolution: It would be useful to add more precise abstract semantic for redefinition contexts of constraints (e.g. class 'Constraint' should specify that redefinition context must also be inheritance) 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 19, 2004: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 6923: Class InfrastructureLibrary::Core::Basic::Property (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Class InfrastructureLibrary::Core::Basic::Property contains an attribute named 'default' of type 'String'. If initial values should be provided for a Property instance, then there is no possibility to evaluate the string without a schema. I'm not sure about the intension of this default property, especially for MOF (it seems to be useable only for visualization in UML). 

Proposed resolution: If evaluation should be processable by tools (e.g. code generators), then the type of 'default' must be changed to class "Type" or a schema for evaluation should be provided. 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 19, 2004: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
Property defaults in Basic and Constructs (and therefore EMOF and CMOF) can only be
specified for primitive types, so only String is needed. UML2 Kernel supports more
complex default values through defaultValue:ValueSpecification. In
Kernel::Property:/default is derived from defaultValue.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 6927: UML 2 Super / Interactions / Ambiguous diagram tags (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Simula Research Laboratory (Mr. Bran Selic, selic(at)acm.org)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Diagrams have a frame and a tag that describes the kind of diagram. Most diagrams correspond to a portion of the metamodel, and in most cases there is a one-to-one correspondence between metamodel chapters and diagram types, although variants are allowed for special cases (such as 'package').  There are four kinds of diagrams showing interactions, each with its own unique contents and syntax: sequence diagrams, communications diagrams, interaction overview diagrams, and timing diagrams.  Unlike the difference between class diagrams and package diagrams, for example, each of these is very different in appearance and content from the others, even though they allegedly all map to the same interaction model (which might be dubious in practice, given the very different content, but that's another matter).  However, the examples all use the same tag, 'sd', for all of the kinds of interaction diagram. Clearly 'sd' is an abreviation for 'sequence diagram' and it is inappropriate for the other types.  (The fact that it is an English-language abreviation is another problem that we will let pass for now.)  It would seem that each kind of diagram should have its own tag, given that they have different syntax and usage. For example, we could use 'sd', 'cd', 'iod', and 'td' if we wish to keep the same abbreviated format. But in any case the tags  should be different and they should be descriptive of the diagram, not the underlying modeling chapter. (The official tag for interaction diagrams as a group is 'interaction', not 'sd' (page 589), so 'sd' is already descriptive of just one variant.) 

If the argument is that you can tell apart the different variants of interaction diagram by looking at them, that argument would apply with even more force to the diagrams for different kinds of models, such as class diagrams, state machine diagrams, etc., so we wouldn't need tags at all. (Which may be true, and users will probably not bother most of the time, but let's at least get it right in the standard.) 

Resolution: Disposition: Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 23, 2004: received issue

Discussion:
While this is possibly a reasonable suggestion, it does not represent either a consistency
fix or a clarification and is more appropriately resolved in some future revision. This is an overall discussion and not only for Interactions. The question is about two
different aspects:
1. What should the tab keyword indicate?
a. the type of diagram
b. the object defined by the diagram
c. irrelevant, the tab is only for naming


Issue 6975: missing illustrations of graphical paths for create and destroy messages (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: KDM Analytics (Dr. Nikolai Mansourov, nick(at)kdmanalytics.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Table 15 does not include illustrations for 
  - create message (a graphical path flowing into a Lifeline head). 
  - create message to lost
  - create message from found


More illustrations need to be added to Table 15 as the new sorts of messages are added, for example:
  - synch and async create
  - synch and async destroy

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 16, 2004: received issue

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 6989: UML 2 Super/Interactions/Constraints for create messages (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: KDM Analytics (Dr. Nikolai Mansourov, nick(at)kdmanalytics.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
page 429 Constraints for message need to include "no EventOccurences before receiving the create message". In the graphic notation this is handled by defining the create graphic path as flowing into the Lifeline head symbol, but since we do not want to introduce the concept of a Lifeline head in the meta-model, we need an additional constraint.

Constraints need to be updated as new sorts of messages are added.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 16, 2004: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
The following constraint could be added:
“[9] No EventOccurences should occur before receiving the create message on
the corresponding Lifeline”
However this constraint does not allow modeling a situation where a create message may
be sent to an existing entity either due to error or intent (e.g., to model erroneous
behavior).
The above constraint applies to valid interactions. It is unclear how this constraint
applies to multivalued instances.
Therefore, it seems safer to not add this constraint.    Duplicate of Issue 8327 (even though this came first), see the resolution of 8327
Disposition: See issue 8327 for disposition


Issue 6990: manage simultaneity of events (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA (Dr. Sebastien Gerard, sebastien.gerard(at)cea.fr)
Nature: Enhancement
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Issue 1: to have the possibility to manage simultaneity of events, and be able to 

trigger a transition by a condition on several events. By this way, the triggering 

condition of a transition may be specified through an event formula such as: (e1 and e2) or e3 

This point we then involve to relax a constraint on the semantics of RTC and to introduce then 

the possiblity to dequeue several events of the queue at the same time. May it be just an 

additional open variation semantics point? 

Resolution: Simultaneous events and transitions triggered by a logical combination of events require a major modification or enhancement to the current Run-To-Completion semantics, where events are handled one at a time. This therefore needs to be postponed to a more major revision, when we will have time to investigate this proposal and see if and how it can be accommodated. Revised Text: N/A Disposition: Closed, out of scope
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 17, 2004: received issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue

Discussion:
The RTC model is currently fundamental to UML statemachines. Allowing several
events to be posted to a statemachine has a significant ramification on the current spec
beyond just adding a way to express simultaneity. 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.


Issue 6991: transtion (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA (Dr. Sebastien Gerard, sebastien.gerard(at)cea.fr)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Issue 2: In the same spirit, we would like also to specifiy that a transtion is fired 

only if an event is not available at a given instant. We need the concepts of instant 

and event absence. Note that the absence combined with "and" and "or" can express kinds of 

priorities (e.g., "a and not b"). 

Resolution: Triggering a transition with the absence of an event seems to make sense only under a synchronous semantics which defines slices of time where that event might occur or not. It require a major modification or enhancement to the current, asynchronous Run-To-Completion semantics, where events are handled one by one in a timeless sequence. This therefore needs to be postponed to a more major revision, when we will have time to investigate this proposal and see if and how it can be accommodated. Revised Text: N/A Disposition: Closed, out of scope
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 17, 2004: received issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue

Discussion:
This proposal is relevant in case where simultaneity of events is allowed as requested in
issues 6990. Since 6990 is deferred, this request shall be deferred as well. 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.


Issue 7051: StateMachine - Constraints (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
"[1] The classifier context of a state machine cannot be an interface" 

should be: 

[1] The context classifier of a state machine cannot be an interface. not redefinitionContext.oclIsKindOf(Interface) 


"[2] The context classifier of the method state machine of a behavioral feature must be the classifier that owns the behavioral feature." 

should be: 

[2] The context classifier of the method state machine of a behavioral feature must be one of the classifier that features the behavioral feature 

-- note that a behavorial feature can be associated with 1..* -- classifiers if self.specification->notEmpty() then self.specification.featuringClassifier->includes(redefinitionContext) endif 

"[3] The connection points of a state machine are pseudostates of kind entry point or exit point." 

should be: 

[3] The connection points of a state machine are pseudostates of kind entry point or exit point. connectionPoint->forAll(cp | cp.kind = #entryPoint or cp.kind = #exitPoint ) 

"[4] A state machine as the method for a behavioral feature cannot have entry/exit connection points." 

should be: 

[4] A state machine as the method for a behavioral feature cannot have entry/exit connection points. self.specification->notEmpty() implies ( self.connectionPoint->forAll(cp | not (cp.kind = #entryPoint or cp.kind = #exitPoint) ) ) 

Resolution: Discussion In UML 2.5, all of the above have been rewritten and corresponding OCL inserted. Disposition: Closed - No Change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 29, 2004: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:
The OCL was left out of the final adopted specification and needs to be inserted.
However, the OCL constraints recommended above are mostly incorrect. Instead, the
following OCL expressions need to be inserted for constraints [1] through [4] of
StateMachine on page 490 respectively:
?? context->notEmpty() implies not
context.oclIsKindOf(Interface)
?? specification->notEmpty() implies
(context->notEmpty() and
specification->featuringClassifier->
exists (c | c = context))                                                                                                                                ?? connectionPoint->forAll
(c | c.kind = #entryPoint or c.kind = #exitPoint)
?? specification->notEmpty() implies
connectionPoint->isEmpty()


Issue 7105: In normative XMI file for the metamodel, no Associations have a name. (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Adaptive (Mr. Pete Rivett, pete.rivett(at)adaptive.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
In the normative XMI file for the metamodel, no Associations have a
name.
The name is needed for generating APIs and (in some cases) XMI elements;
and their absence actually makes UML2 an invalid MOF2 metamodel: MOF2
Core has the following constraint for CMOF:
[6] Names are required for all classifiers and features (though there is
nothing to prevent these names being automatically generated by a tool).



(Association is a classifier)


We could get by with not having a name in the MDL and auto-generating a
name into the XMI. This is in fact what the Unisys XMI plug-in did when
no Association name was provided - and this was hence reflected in the
normative XMI for UML 1.x (the names were of the form A_<end1>_<end2>). 


Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 8, 2004: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
This is a duplicate of issue 6492, which was resolved in earlier ballots.
Disposition: See issue 6492 for disposition


Issue 7161: UML 2 Super/Interactions/Need constraints that cover multiple Lifelines (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: KDM Analytics (Dr. Nikolai Mansourov, nick(at)kdmanalytics.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Consider an Interaction that describes collaboration of several parts of a classifier that owns some attributes.
None of the parts own this attribute. I need to be able to describe a constraint, involving these attributes.


Or  when the overall classifier has a State Machine describing its overall behavior, and we want to refer to these states in an Interaction.


In order to achieve this, it would be desirable to use:
1. A guard that covers more than one lifeline (represents a guard involving the attributes, "global" to the set of Lifelines)
2. A state symbol that covers more than one lifeline (represents a state invariant refering to the state of some state machine "global" to the set of Lifelines)
3. A state invariant covering more than one lifeline (represents an invariant involving the attributes, "global" to the set of Lifelines)

Resolution: Discussion: Although this is a reasonable feature to request, it is an enhancement that exceeds the scope of the RTF. One of the main issues with it is that the semantics of defining such constraints in a distributed environment are not simple and require some serious consideration. The issue here is that Interactions consider all lifelines as potentially concurrent, and the restrictions on guards reflect this to prevent specifying distributed decisions that would imply implicit synchronization. The fact is, however, that many systems are such that it is known that the lifelines are not concurrent and checking remotely or on enclosing objects is not really hazardous. The problem is that we do not have a good way to define this in the specification. This is of course not dependent upon Interactions, but is a feature of all of UML. There seems to be a need to define object groups that share the same "thread" and are only pseudo-concurrent. If we had had such a construct, the guard could cover any subset of such a "same-thread-set-of-objects". Disposition: Closed Out Of Scope
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 15, 2004: received issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue

Discussion:
Although this is a reasonable feature to request, it is an enhancement that exceeds the
scope of the FTF. One of the main issues with it is that the semantics of defining such
constraints in a distributed environment are not simple and require some serious
consideration. The issue here is that Interactions consider all lifelines as potentially concurrent, and the
restrictions on guards reflect this to prevent specifying distributed decisions that would
imply implicit synchronization. The fact is, however, that many systems are such that it is
known that the lifelines are not concurrent and checking remotely or on enclosing objects
is not really hazardous. The problem is that we do not have a good way to define this in
the specification. This is of course not dependent upon Interactions, but is a feature of all
of UML. There seems to be a need to define object groups that share the same “thread”
and are only pseudo-concurrent. If we had had such a construct, the guard could cover
any subset of such a “same-thread-set-of-objects”.


Issue 7166: show object flow or interactions (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Enhancement
Severity: Significant
Summary:
There needs to be a way to show object flow or interactions between multiply concurrent threads or processes in Activity Diagrams. Example: In TCP sockets, the interaction between a client and server should be able to be shown with two separate start points, one for the client and one for the server. The connection sequence and packet flow should be able to be shown. With a single start point, the diagrams imply that one action starts both processes. I would like to illustrate multiple concurrent threads or processes and their interactions in an Activity Diagram and be able to distinguish between the flowing threads. I would also like to show access to objects shared by the threads or processes.

Resolution: This issue has already been discussed in previous F/RTFs and considered out of scope: FTF: Activity diagrams only show task dependency, which can be achieved by multiple implemented processes. An activity can have more than one initial node. These are all started when the activity is. The initial nodes can be used in separate partitions to indicate which actions are taken on the client and server. If the two processes are completely independent, then this is a request is for a hybrid diagram, especially when trying to show shared objects. This is too much for an FTF to address. RTF: Hybrid diagrams are too complicated a topic for an RTF to address. There are many combinations and not enough experience to choose among them. Revised Text: None Disposition: Closed Out of Scope
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 19, 2004: received issue
March 22, 2004: moved from infra- to superstructure-ftf
April 26, 2010: closed issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue

Discussion:
Activity diagrams only show task dependency, which can be achieved by multiple
implemented processes. An activity can have more than one initial node. These
are all started when the activity is. The initial nodes can be used in separate
partitions to indicate which actions are taken on the client and server. If the two
processes are completely independent, then this is a request is for a hybrid
diagram, especially when trying to show shared objects. This is too much for an
FTF to address.  FTF: Activity diagrams only show task dependency, which can be achieved by multiple
implemented processes. An activity can have more than one initial node. These are all
started when the activity is. The initial nodes can be used in separate partitions to indicate
which actions are taken on the client and server. If the two processes are completely
independent, then this is a request is for a hybrid diagram, especially when trying to show
shared objects. This is too much for an FTF to address.
RTF: Hybrid diagrams are too complicated a topic for an RTF to address. There are
many combinations and not enough experience to choose among them.


Issue 7223: Questions about DataTypes and generalization (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Red Hat (Mr. Randall M. Hauch, rhauch(at)redhat.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
I have a few questions regarding section 7.12 entitled "Kernel - the
DataTypes Diagram" in the final adopted Superstructure spec (03-08-02).


DataType specializes Classifier, and as such it also inherits the ability to
have generalization relationships with other Classifiers.  Classifier has an
additional operation 'maySpecializeType(Classifier):boolean' that is
described/defined as follows:


"The query maySpecializeType() determines whether this classifier may have a
generalization relationship to classifiers of
the specified type. By default a classifier may specialize classifiers of
the same or a more general type. It is intended to be
redefined by classifiers that have different specialization constraints."
(p. 63)


with the OCL:


        Classifier::maySpecializeType(c : Classifier) : Boolean;
        maySpecializeType = self.oclIsKindOf(c.oclType)


DataType, nor its subtypes PrimitiveType and Enumeration, defines no
additional constraints or additional operations.  These additional
constraints are executed/applied in the UML2 metamodel (rather than in a
UML2 model), correct?  If so, then this implies that a DataType may
specialize another DataType, Classifier, Namespace, Type, etc., but that
DataType may not specialize PrimitiveType or Enumeration.  Please correct me
if I'm interpreting this incorrectly.


Consider an example with:
*       a PrimitiveType named "string"
*       a PrimitiveType named "float"
*       a DataType named "InternationalPrice" that specializes "float" and
adds a new attribute/property called "currency" of type "string"


The "InternationalPrice" DataType is conceptually a qualified type, meaning
it is a float plus a qualifier of the value.  Examples of instances would be
{426.36, "US Dollars"}, {401.23, "Euros"}, {749.42, "Yen"}.


If my interpretations of the Superstructure spec are correct, then this
example cannot be modeled using UML2.  And, in fact, the specification would
actually allow me to create a new PrimitiveType named "double" that actually
specializes my "InternationalPrice" DataType (since DataType is a supertype
of PrimitiveType).  My thought is that this is either a issue with the
'maySpecializeType' operation or it is an issue with DataType, PrimitiveType
and Enumeration not being properly constrained.


Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
April 6, 2004: received issue

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 7227: UML2 Super/Deployment/inheritance (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Adaptive (Mr. Pete Rivett, pete.rivett(at)adaptive.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Deployment should not be a Dependency
Section 10.3.4, figure 126 show the Deployment subclass of Dependency
with location subsetting client and deployedArtifact subsetting
supplier.
This means in effect that a Node is deemed dependent on the Artifacts
that are deployed to it which seems to me the wrong way round if
anything.


Since it is not really true either that an Artifact is dependent on the
Node it is deployed to, it does not seem sensible for Deployment to
inherit from Dependency at all: it should inherit directly from
DirectedRelationship.


[Aside: Figure 126 shows 'subsets source' and 'subsets target' which is
not reflected in section 10.3.4. I had assumed that Dependency would
itself specify client and supplier to subset/redefine source and target
but this oddly appears not to be the case] 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
April 11, 2004: received issue

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 7229: UML2 Super/Deployments/Manifestation (uml2-rtf)

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


In Section 10.3.10 and Figure 124 it would make more sense for
Manifestation to inherit from Realization rather than directly from
Abstraction. The semantics of Realization are described as "A
Realization signifies that the client set of elements are an
implementation of the supplier set,.." which surely includes
manifestation. 
The spec also states that Realization may be used to model
transformations, which fits with the example given in Manifestation:
"<<tool generated>> and <<custom code>> might be two manifestations for
different classes".


BTW There is a missing word in the description of Manifestation "A
manifestation is the concrete physical of one or more model elements by
an artifact."

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
April 11, 2004: received issue

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 7246: Figure 78 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Figure 78 - inconsistencies with Class Descriptions Figure 78 shows an enumeration ConnectorKind which is not defined in this chapter, however (see also Issue #7001). Suggestion: define ConnectorKind in section 8.3 - Class Descriptions. Figure 78 shows an association between Connector and Behavior with association end "+contract". This association is not defined in Section 8.3.2 - Connector, however. 

Resolution: Discussion: Fixed by the resolution to issue 8976 in UML 2.1. Revised Text: N/A Disposition: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
April 15, 2004: received issue
October 27, 2008: closed issue

Discussion:
Resolution deferred for the next RTF


Issue 7247: Connector - "provided Port" and "required Port" not defined Constraint 1 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Connector - "provided Port" and "required Port" not defined Constraint 1, "[1] A delegation connector must only be defined between used Interfaces or Ports of the same kind, e.g. between two provided Ports or between two required Ports." uses the concepts "provided Port" and "required Port". Neither of them is defined in the spec. Furthermore, a Connector is not expected to be defined between Interfaces, but an Association is. A Connector is defined between ConnectableElements whose specializations are Property, Port, Parameter, and Variable, but not Interface. I suggest to replace Constraint [1] with "[1] A delegation connector must only be defined between a ConnectableElement (i.e. a Port) of the component and a ConnectableElement (i.e. a Property or a Port) of one of its internal parts." 

Resolution: The proposed resolution is still incorrect because a connector in general is n-ary not binary. Also the need for such a constraint is altered because of the resolution of 7364 which makes Connector::kind derived. Instead we need a constraint that ensures that a delegation connector only delegates from one port: it would make no sense to have an n-ary connector that delegated from more than one port. Furthermore the entire Semantics section for Connector in this chapter needs rewriting because of this issue.
Revised Text: Replace 8.3.3 constraint [1] which currently says: [1] A delegation connector must only be defined between used Interfaces or Ports of the same kind (e.g., between two provided Ports or between two required Ports). By [1] Each feature of each of the required interfaces of each Port or Part at the end of a connector must have at least one compatible feature among the features of the provided interfaces of Ports or Parts at the other ends, where the required set of (interface) features of a delegating port from the context of the delegating connector is the set of features that exist in the port's provided interfaces, and the provided set of (interface) features of a delegating port from the context of the delegating connector is the set of features that exist in the port's required interfaces. Replace the whole of the section 8.3.3 Semantics by the following: "A delegation connector is a declaration that behavior that is available on a component instance is not actually realized by that component itself, but by one or more instances that have "compatible" capabilities. These situations are modeled through a delegation connector from a Port to compatible Ports or Parts. Delegation connectors can be used to model the hierarchical decomposition of behavior, where services provided by a component may ultimately be realized by one that is nested multiple levels deep within it. The word delegation suggests that concrete message and signal flow will occur between the connected ports, possibly over multiple levels. It should be noted that such signal flow is not always realized in all system environments or implementations (i.e., it may be design time only). A port may delegate to a set of ports on subordinate components. In that case, these subordinate ports must collectively offer the delegated functionality of the delegating port. At execution time, signals will be delivered to the appropriate port. In cases where multiple target ports support the handling of the same signal, the signal will be delivered to all these subordinate ports. The execution time semantics for an assembly connector are that signals travel along an instance of a connector. Multiple connectors directed to and from different parts, or n-ary connectors where n> 2, indicates that the instance that will originate or handle the signal will be determined at execution time. The interface compatibility between ports that are connected enables an existing component in a system to be replaced by one that (minimally) offers the same set of services. Also, in contexts where components are used to extend a system by offering existing services, but also adding new functionality, connectors can be used to link in the new component definition." Note: I have not attempted the OCL for the constraint in this resolution. That can be a subsequent issue.
Actions taken:
April 15, 2004: received issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue

Discussion:
Resolution deferred for the next RTF


Issue 7248: Connector - inconsistencies in Constraint [2] (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Connector - inconsistencies in Constraint [2] Constraint [2] says: "[2] If a delegation connector is defined between a used Interface or Port and an internal Part Classifier, then that Classifier must have an “implements” relationship to the Interface type of that Port." There are two problems with this constraint: 1. A connector cannot be defined between a used Interface and an internal Part, because Interface is not a ConnectableElement. 2. What is "the Interface type of that Port" ? The Classifier given by port.type? This Classifier can be but does not have to be an Interface. Or one of the Interfaces given by port.required? Which one? 

Resolution: This constraint and the following two are currently incomprehensible (see 7249 and 7250). According to Internal Structures, "What makes connectable elements compatible is a semantic variation point." I see no particular reason to change this for components, and given that connectors are n-ary, it would be hard to do so. So I propose simply to delete the constraints. Profiles are free to restrict connectors to binary and to impose signature compatibility, based on type or contract compatibility, if they wish to.
Revised Text: Delete 8.3.3 constraint [2] which currently says: [2] If a delegation connector is defined between a used Interface or Port and an internal Part Classifier, then that Classifier must have an "implements" relationship to the Interface type of that Port.
Actions taken:
April 15, 2004: received issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue

Discussion:
Resolution deferred for the next RTF


Issue 7249: Connector - inconsistencies in Constraint[3] (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Connector - inconsistencies in Constraint[3] Constraint [3] says: "[3] If a delegation connector is defined between a source Interface or Port and a target Interface or Port, then the target Interface must support a signature compatible subset of Operations of the source Interface or Port." There are two problems with this constraint: 1. An Interface cannot be the source or the target of a connector, because Interface is not a ConnectableElement. 2. If a connector is defined between a source Port and a target Port (which is possible, because Port is a ConnectableElement) - what is the "target Interface"? One of the Interfaces port.type is implementing? Or one of the Interfaces in port.provided? - what are the Operations of the source Port? The Operations of the Classifier given by port.type? Or the union of all Operations of all Interfaces given by port.required and port.provided? - what does "signature compatible" mean for Interfaces? 

Resolution: See 7248 for the discussion.
Revised Text: Delete 8.3.3 constraint [3] which currently says: [3] If a delegation connector is defined between a source Interface or Port and a target Interface or Port, then the target Interface must support a signature compatible subset of Operations of the source Interface or Port.
Actions taken:
April 15, 2004: received issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue

Discussion:
Resolution deferred for the next RTF


Issue 7250: Connector - inconsistencies in Constraint[4] (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Connector - inconsistencies in Constraint[4] Constraint [4] says: "[4] In a complete model, if a source Port has delegation connectors to a set of delegated target Ports, then the union of the Interfaces of these target Ports must be signature compatible with the Interface that types the source Port." There are two problems with this constraint: 1. What is "the union of the Interfaces of these target Ports"? First, it is not clear, what a "union of interfaces" is. A "union of a set of interfaces" could be an anonymous Interface which specializes all the interfaces in the set of interfaces, but this should be made clear, because "union of interfaces" is not defined somewhere else in the spec. Second, it is not clear what the Interfaces of a target Ports are. All Interfaces provided by the Classifier port.type including the Classifier port.type itself, if port.type is an Interface? Union the Interfaces in port.provided? Do we have to include the Interfaces in port.required as well? 2. What does "signature compatible" mean? 

Resolution: See 7248 for the discussion.
Revised Text: Delete 8.3.3 constraint [4] which currently says: [4] In a complete model, if a source Port has delegation connectors to a set of delegated target Ports, then the union of the Interfaces of these target Ports must be signature compatible with the Interface that types the source Port.
Actions taken:
April 15, 2004: received issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 7251: Connector - inconsistencies in Constraint[5] (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Connector - inconsistencies in Constraint[5] Constraint [5] says: "[5] An assembly connector must only be defined from a required Interface or Ports to a provided Interface or Port." There are two problems with this constraint: 1. A connector cannot be defined from or to an Interface, because Interface is not a ConnectableElement. 2. It is not clear what a "required Port" or a "provided Port" is. 

Resolution: See 7248 for the discussion.
Revised Text: Delete 8.3.3 constraint [5] which currently says: [5] An assembly connector must only be defined from a required Interface or Ports to a provided Interface or Port.
Actions taken:
April 15, 2004: received issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 7254: completion transitions (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Suppose that we have two composite states, nested within to two concurrent regions, which both become "complete" as part of the same "run-to-completion" step, and each of the composite states is the source for a completion transition. I.e. within this "run-to-completion" step two completion events are generated. How should these two completion events be dispatched? - Sequentially, in the same sequential order in which they have been generated. - Sequentially, but any ordering is allowed, - Concurrently. I.e. both completion transitions are considered enabled. - other ??? or any of the above Notice that completion transition may have guards, and activity, hence the firing of one of them may cause the other to become no more "enabled". Hence the above three cases may really cause different system behaviors. 

Resolution: Add a clarification for this case based on the above discussion
Revised Text: In clause 14.2.3, mmediately following this sentence: That is, they are dispatched ahead of any pending Event occurrences in the event pool. insert the following clarification: If two or more completion events corresponding to multiple orthogonal Regions occur simultaneously (i.e., as a result of the same Event occurrence), the order in which such completion occurrences are processed is not defined.
Actions taken:
April 21, 2004: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:
In general, the order of dispatching of event occurrences in UML is not specified, allowing it to be customized
for different cases. However, completion events for state machines are given priority over other
types of event occurrences, meaning that they are dispatched ahead of any other occurrences. It is indeed
possible for multiple completion events to occur “simultaneously”, which creates the quandary described in
the issue.
But, given that there is no formal means of ordering the generation of such events or even defining the “order”
of the corresponding regions, there is no meaningful basis for ordering the dispatching of simultaneous
completion events. Hence, this will have to remain unspecified. (NB: This is analogous to and consistent
with the case where multiple transitions can be enabled by a given event occurrence.)


Issue 7255: Priority of the joint transition (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary:
The specification says that: "The priority of joined transitions is based on the priority of the transition with the most transitively nested source state". Suppose that a join transition is has two transitions with source states at the same depth, but in two different regions. How is is established which of the two transition defines the priority of the join transition?. Notice that, depending on which transition is choosen, different other transitions might be allowed or disallowed to be fired. Some possible anwers are: - Any of the two transitions can be chosen statically. (i.e. the priority of the join transition always remains the same). - Any of the two transitions can be chosen, and the choice truly, completely nondeterministic (hence possibly dynamic) I.e. the priority of the join transitions can change each time the join transition is fired.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
April 21, 2004: received issue

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 7274: UML2 Infra/11.5.1/Invalid reference to Attribute class (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Adaptive (Mr. Pete Rivett, pete.rivett(at)adaptive.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
In section 11.5.1 (DataType) the first association is specified as:


ownedAttribute: Attribute[*] The Attributes owned by the DataType.


This is out of date: the class Attribute has been replaced by Property,
though the association name is OK referring to 'Attribute'. This is
reflected in the diagram above that text (Fig 86).


Proposed resolution:
Replace the above text with:
ownedAttribute: Property[*] The Properties owned by the DataType.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
April 28, 2004: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
Fixed by resolution to issue 6596
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 7303: simple time model" in CommonBehavior (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology (Dr. Thomas Weigert, weigert(at)mst.edu)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
For the "simple time model" in CommonBehavior, it is unclear when the DurationObservationAction and TimeObservationAction would be executed. For one, it is not stated when these actions are executed. I assume that when the execution of the model reaches the point of the attached model elements, then these actions are executed. Several problems: (i) It is unclear what determines when these actions are executed. If the actions are embedded in a sequence of actions, where control flow indicates when they execute, what is the meaning of the association to a named element? If that named element is reached later in the execution, does the execution wait? If it is reached earlier, does that element have to wait until the action sequence is enabled? (ii) There should be some constraint on the "NamedElements" associated with TimeExpression that limits those to elements that can be enountered during execution, as these elements appear to determine when these actions are evaluated. There is a tension between these actions being embedded in a sequence of actions where their execution is determined by the control and data flow, and the associated "NamedElements" that would determine the observation of time also. Normally, actions are used within a sequence of actions (an activity). These two actions are different in that they seem to make no sense within an activity due to that they have very special invocation points. They seem to only make sense as stand-alone elements. Maybe it should not be an action, but some other model element, that should dictate how time and duration are observed.

Resolution: Discussion: Fixed as part of the resolution to issue 8894 in UML 2.1 Revised Text: N/A Disposition: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 5, 2004: received issue
October 27, 2008: closed issue

Discussion:
A proper resolution of this issue depends on changes in progress with respect to the
action and activity model. In addition, a more encompassing improvement of the “simple
time model” and related concepts is required.


Issue 7304: Notation sections for TimeObservation and DurationObservation (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology (Dr. Thomas Weigert, weigert(at)mst.edu)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The Notation sections for TimeObservation and DurationObservation seem inadequate: 1. The syntax for TimeObservation only allows "now" as a TimeExpression, but indicates in the previous sentence that more complex expressions are possible. 2. The syntax for DurationObservation includes the unexplained non-terminal symbol "duration". 3. In the example, figure 321, there are no associations to named elements shown. I assume that these refer to the begin and end of the arrow, but that is not indicated.

Resolution: This issue has already been considered by prior RTFs and deemed out of scope, per the following discussion previously recorded for this issue: A proper resolution of this issue depends on changes in progress with respect to the action and activity model. In addition, a more encompassing improvement of the "simple time model" and related concepts is required. Thus, the resolution of this issue is best considered to be strategic. Revised Text: None Disposition: Closed Out of Scope
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 5, 2004: received issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue

Discussion:
A proper resolution of this issue depends on changes in progress with respect to the
action and activity model. In addition, a more encompassing improvement of the “simple
time model” and related concepts is required.


Issue 7329: large overlap between structural features and variables (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology (Dr. Thomas Weigert, weigert(at)mst.edu)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
There is large overlap between structural features and variables. For example, examine the structural features actions and compare them to variable action. Upon study, one will discover that structural features and variables have much more in common. In fact, the following equation seems to hold: StructuralFeature = Variable + Feature That is: a variable denotes a location able to hold an instance. A structural feature is a feature of an object and denotes a location ale to hold an instance. Therefore, I suggest that StructuralFeature be made a subtype of Variable. In the infrastructure, variable would have no interpretation, other than being an abstract metaclass indicating the ability to hold a value. In the superstructure, variable is concrete as described in Activities. Not only would this allow to eliminate the duplication of actions related to accessing variables, but also, other duplications (as, e.g., with respect to their being connectable elements and the related explanations) could be avoided.

Resolution: Disposition: Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 9, 2004: received issue

Discussion:
This is indeed the case but the issue needs to be addressed in greater depth since it is at
the core of the semantics of UML, and is out of scope of an FTF. 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.


Issue 7337: inconsistency in the action model (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology (Dr. Thomas Weigert, weigert(at)mst.edu)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Critical
Summary:
There is an inconsistency in the action model between actions for StructuralFeatures in general, and actions operating on links. The family of structural feature action, such as WriteStructuralFeatureAction, are defined for any kind of structural feature. Consequentially, these actions can manipulate values that are not due to attributes or assication ends (both special cases of Property) but of any kind of StructuralFeature. However, actions defined for links can only operate on links that are due to associations in the model. This because LinkEnd is identified through the association to a Property (named "end"). However, there are other links in the model, such as those due to Connectors. To make these consistent, one either should limit the structural feature actions to apply to Properties (rather than StructuralFeatures), or one should generalize the link actions to apply to liks identified by any StructuralFeature, not just to links identified by Properties. This difference in generality does, of course, not matter for the UML as defined, but it could hamper the deployment of actions to profiles that define other kinds of links. (This is, luckily, not a problem for links due to Connectors, as we can argue that for links due to connectors that are not explicitly typed, these are identified by the ends of the derived associations.)

Resolution: Disposition: Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 15, 2004: received issue

Discussion:
Two comments on the issue text:
"there are other links in the model, such as those due to Connectors". The links
established due to connectors are just links any other (link = an instance of an
association).
"or one should generalize the link actions to apply to liks identified by any
StructuralFeature". Links cannot be identified by structural features that are not
association ends, because there are no links in that case.
In separate discussion with the filer, there was concern that structural feature were not
well enough defined to have actions defined on them. Structural feature inherits from
TypedElement, which provides a way to map to instances of a type, as explained in the
entry for Kernel::TypedElement. The structural feature actions provide the results of this
mapping, as explained in the semantics of StructuralFeature.
The filer would like this issue held for further discussion.


Issue 7338: metaattribute isReadOnly (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology (Dr. Thomas Weigert, weigert(at)mst.edu)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary:
The metaattribute isReadOnly is defined both for StructuralFeature and its subclass Property. Clearly, one or the other is incorrect. This, I believe, points to an unclarity in what StructuralFeatures are, as opposed to Property. By definition, StructuralFeatures denote values that are held in slots of an object. I believe that the intuition behind Property is that a property denotes a value that might be added, modified, or deleted during the course of the lifetime of a system. This is exemplified in the two variants of property: attribute and association end. As "isReadOnly" has to do with limiting the modification of the value, it is best placed on Property, assuming this intuition is correct. This intuition is substantiated by that Port is not a property but a structural feature, and ports cannot be modified, changed, or assigned to. (Note that if this intuition is not correct, the difference between Property and StructuralFeature needs to be clarified.) A consequence of this is also that one needs to clarify the set of actions that apply to StructuralFeatures (e.g., WriteStructuralFeatureAction). If it is Properties that are modified, etc., then these actions should really apply to properties, not structural features in general. Again, this change is consistent, as none of these actions makes sense for Ports. Further, for links the actions are already limited to properties (see LinkEndData). An issue regarding the inconsistency between actions applying to structural features and actions applying to links has been submitted and should be dealt with consistently.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 15, 2004: received issue

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 7339: Property defines an association "datatype" which is redundant (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology (Dr. Thomas Weigert, weigert(at)mst.edu)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Property defines an association "datatype". This association is redundant for the following reasons: (i) A DataType is a kind of classifier, so saying that a property can be owned by a DataType adds nothing new. (ii) as feature, one can navigate from the property to the featuringClassifier, and so the navigability to an owning data type is already given. Moreover, an association to a data type would be incorrect if the property would otherwise be owned by a different Classifier. Moreover, if this property is owned by a classifier, there is no guarantee that the datatype association references the same DataType. There are no consistency constraints. Anyway, this association is redundant, can possibly lead to inconsistent models, and should be deleted. The last sentence on p.92 "A property may be owned by and in the namespace of a datatype." is correct even if the association is deleted. However, this sentence adds no new information either and is best deleted also. 

Resolution: see pages 14 - 17 of ptc/2011-01-19
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 15, 2004: received issue
April 25, 2011: closed issue

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 7343: Section 11.7 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology (Dr. Thomas Weigert, weigert(at)mst.edu)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Critical
Summary:
In the manner of representing the relationship between BehavioralFeature and Parameter the infrastructure imposes either a limit on the nature of parameters on modeling languages reusing the infrastructure or forces them to duplicate this mechanism. The infrastructure decided to represent as concrete associations the kinds of parameters, and distinguishes two: returnResult and formalParameter. The parameter association is then derived as a union of these. However, there may be a large number of parameter kinds. For example, the superstructure defines four, and one can easily imagine additional ones. To be more reusable and expandable, parameter should be characterized by its kind (does it return a result, is it a formal parameter). Note that this is, in reality, a property of the parameter, not of the relation between BehavioralFeature and Parameter and thus is modeled better this way anyway. Define an attribute "direction" on Parameter of type "ParameterDirectionKind". In infrastructure give it two values: in, and returnResult. This type can be extended in other languages, e.g., the UML uses also out, and inout). Make BehavioralFeature.parameter concrete. Make the formalParameter and returnResult associations derived from the direction attribute of each parameter. The result is the identical model, but much more reusable. Note that the superstructure was forced to introduce both mechanisms, thus running into the risk of inconsistencies, if the two mechanisms do not match up. There is no negative impact on the infrastructure of relying on the more reusable option proposed here. The number of model elements stored in the repository is identical for infrastructure, and lower for superstructure.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 16, 2004: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
This is a fixed by the resolution to issue 7344. BehavioralFeature no longer separates
returnResult and formalParameter. It has BehavioralFeature::ownedParameter and
Parameter has direction:ParameterDirectionKind.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 7362: Clarify example in figure 133 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA (Dr. Sebastien Gerard, sebastien.gerard(at)cea.fr)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Could you describe in details the meaning of the example described in Figure 133, because it could very useful to understand the deployment specification concept. Moreover, is there anything lacking in figure 134? It contains no model element with the <<deployment specification>> stereotype.

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: Replace the first sentence of the Notation subsection of DeploymentSpecification description (ptc/04-10- 02, page 214; formal/05-07-04, page 199) with the following text: “A DeploymentSpecification is graphically displayed as a classifier rectangle (Figure 133) attached to a component artifact deployed on a container using a regular dependency arrow.” (Note that in formal/05-07-04 the replacement text would refer to “Figure 10.11” instead of “Figure 133”.)
Actions taken:
May 19, 2004: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
Figure 133 (page 214, ptc/04-10-02; same as Figure 10.11, page 199, formal/05-07-04) is
not discussed in or referenced by the text, and as pointed out by the issue, the figure
caption does not provide any clue has to how the figure assists understanding of the text.
It seems to be meant merely as an example of what the specification level (left box) and
instance level (right box) look like. A simple reference to the figure from the text should
help clarify the role of the figure.
The point of Figure 134 is to show how a DeploymentSpecification instance is associated
with the Artifact(s) it describes. The figure seems to accomplish this goal without the
necessity of a “model element with the <<deployment specification>> stereotype”. The
issue text does not say why such an addition would be helpful, and the figure seems to
accomplish its goal as is. No change seems needed. Note that the first sentence of
DeploymentSpecification’s Notation subsection is poorly formed: “A
DeploymentSpecification is graphically displayed as a classifier rectangle that is attached
to a component artifact that is deployed on a container using a regular dependency
notation is used.”


Issue 7364: section on connectors in the component chapter (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology (Dr. Thomas Weigert, weigert(at)mst.edu)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Critical
Summary:
The section on connectors in the component chapter does not add any new functionality to the connectors defined in internal structure. It does provide an additional notation for assembly connectors. There is no reason to have this section in components. Everything that is said semantically about connectors here applies equally to the more general connector. Suggestion: Do not subtype connector in component but move the content of this section to the connector section in internal structure and merge with the section there. Adjust the examples to apply to structured classifiers in general (i.e., delete the component symbol). Further, the ConnectorKind should be derived as it is determined by the manner in which the connector is attached to connectable elements. Deriving this connector ensures that constraints are always true and allows to do away with some consistency constraints. (Actually, it is not clear what the value of this attribute is, as it is already determined from the attachments.) Alternatively, if the presentation option is not in general desired (albeit I cannot see why this additional consistency would not be wanted), the text can be moved up but the presentation option can be added in this section.

Resolution: Moving all of BasicComponents.Connector into InternalStructures, although perhaps strategically a good idea, seems like a bridge too far for the RTF. Also Thomas is not entirely accurate when he says it adds no new functionality apart from the notation. In particular BasicComponents adds the idea of a connector contract, which is a set of Behaviors. Therefore I propose that we leave the text where it is, albeit we should fix the many bugs in it that are the topics of this and other issues. However the proposal that kind:ConnectorKind should be derived is entirely sensible, especially since the current constraints on connector kind are the topic of numerous issues (7248-7251).
Revised Text: Under 8.1, Basic Components, replace the following sentence: "In addition, the BasicComponents package defines specialized connectors for 'wiring' components together based on interface compatibility." by "In addition, the BasicComponents package allows a connector to carry one or more Behaviors that specify the valid interaction patterns across the connector." Under 8.3.3, replace the first sentence: "The connector concept is extended in the Components package to include interface based constraints and notation." by "The connector concept is extended in the Components package to include contracts and notation." In the model (figure 8.3) show /kind: connectorKind as derived. Under 8.3.3 Description, insert the word "derived" before the phrase "connector kind attribute". Under 8.3.3 Connector Attributes, Package BasicComponents, replace: · kind : ConnectorKind Indicates the kind of connector. By: · /kind : ConnectorKind Indicates the kind of connector. This is derived: a connector with one or more ends connected to a Port which is not on a Part and which is not a behavior port is a delegation; otherwise it is an assembly. context Connector::kind : ConnectorKind derive: if end->exists( e:ConnectorEnd | e.role.oclIsKindOf(Port) and e.partWithPort->isEmpty() and not e.role.oclAsType(Port).isBehavior) then ConnectorKind::delegation else ConnectorKind::assembly endif
Actions taken:
May 19, 2004: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 7372: surface notation for state machines (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology (Dr. Thomas Weigert, weigert(at)mst.edu)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The surface notation for state machines allows to show, on the line representing a transition, certain key actions that will be performed by the behavior associated with the transition. This is straightforward, when the behavior is an activity (as those actions can be referenced). However, for any other behavior, e.g., an opaque behavior, we need a method of (in the metamodel) show that this behavior does contain certain actions. Note that this should not give an alternative way of defining sequences of actions; rather, this should merely state that this behavior will contain the exhibited actions but it may contain many more. Those actions would merely give a means of representing the graphical constructs in the metamodel

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 24, 2004: received issue

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 7375: useless example on p.330, Figure 247 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology (Dr. Thomas Weigert, weigert(at)mst.edu)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
p.330, Figure 247. This example is useless, as it canot be understood without much detail on the FFT computation. It would be better to use examples that readers can readily understand.

Resolution: The issue is subjective. Some readers might find the example helpful. The example is useful as a depiction of a realistic computation. Revised Text: None Disposition: Closed, no Change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 20, 2004: received issue
May 24, 2004: received issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue

Discussion:
The issue is subjective. Some readers might find the example helpful. 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.


Issue 7392: Interactions model sequences of events (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology (Dr. Thomas Weigert, weigert(at)mst.edu)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Interactions model sequences of events. The metaclass EventOccurrence represents the occurrence of an event. Currently, there are the following kinds of events known: i. sending of a message ii. receiving of a message iii. start of the execution of a behavior iv. finish of the execution of a behavior v. stop First, clearly, there could be many more events that one might want to represent on a lifeline. In particular, the invocation of an action is a possible event, and should be allowed to be represented. Secondly, event occurrence is modeled poorly. It is shown as a kind of message end, which means that every event occurrence inherits the notion of being a message end point, even if the event has nothing to do with a message (such as a stop event). Clearly the inheritance hierarchy is inverted. A message end can represent an event occurrence (such as the sending or receiving of a message). But not every event occurrence is a message event. 

Resolution: Discussion: This was fixed in UML 2.1 Revised Text: N/A Disposition: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 29, 2004: received issue
October 27, 2008: closed issue

Discussion:
Resolution deferred for the next RTF


Issue 7397: add an interaction fragment (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology (Dr. Thomas Weigert, weigert(at)mst.edu)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Sequence diagrams are often used to describe abstract system behavior in the form of the interaction of the system with its environment. Experience has shown that systems have normal behavior and exceptional behavior (in response to unusual or unexpected events). UML2 has introduced a mechanism of representing exceptions. However, interactions do not give us a vehicle of showing exceptional behavior. Recommendation: add an interaction fragment indicating exceptional handling similar to the way this is done in the activity chapter. 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 30, 2004: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
Indeed. However, this is a feature request that is outside the scope of an FTF. Exception handling would be good to have also in sequence diagrams. However, judging
from work done in the UML Testing Profile, and from the Master thesis of a student from
University of Oslo, it is not as simple to include as implied in this suggestion. Introducing
another operator for a combined fragment is hardly enough, but may be part of the final
solution.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 7398: Provide exception handling for all behaviors. (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology (Dr. Thomas Weigert, weigert(at)mst.edu)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
UML2 has added the capability of dealing with exceptional behavior. Exception handling can occur at various levels of the model. Unfortunately, the exception handling mechanism has not been systematically developed. Any kind of behavior should support the mechanism of catching and handling an exception that was raised somewhere within that behavior. Unfortunately, currently only activities allow for this. Similar capabilities should be available for interactions and statemachines, and even for use cases. Recommendation: Provide exception handling for all behaviors. 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 30, 2004: received issue

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 7400: AssociationClass (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary:
The text says that a non-navigable end of an association class is an attribute of that association class. "When a property is owned by a class it represents an attribute." [7.11.4] "AssociationClass is both an Association and a Class." [7.16.1] "When a property is owned by an association it represents a non-navigable end of the association." [7.11.2] This is good, is as expected, and is consistent with both the object and the relational theories of modelling. It is said that the drawings tell a different story. If so, they should be corrected. There is no practical advantage to requiring that the non-navigable ends of an association class are not attributes of that class. On the contrary, such a requirement is unexpected and will be confusing. 

Resolution: Discussion The issue is obsolete. The text in 11.5.3 clearly states that the ownedEnds of an AssociationClass are not attributes. Disposition: Closed - No Change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 31, 2004: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 7401: XMI schema (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Revision
Severity: Critical
Summary:
"[C]omplying with a package requires complying with its abstract syntax, well-formedness rules, semantics, notation and XMI schema," [2] but there is no XMI schema. "It is expected that the normative XMI for this specification will be generated by a Finalization Task Force, which will architectually align and finalize the relevant specifications." [Appendix F] That is consistent with the OMG Document Archives, which show: ad/03-04-02: XMI for U2 Partners' UML 2.0: Superstructure, 3rd. revision (Contact: Mr. Cris Kobryn) No description of this document is available. Formats: Note: Not yet available. An XMI schema should be supplied, or the requirement to comply with an XMI schema should be removed. 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 31, 2004: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
Resolution deferred for the next RTF. This is a duplicate with 3898.
Disposition: See issue 3898 for disposition


Issue 7406: TimeObservationAction and DurationObservationAction (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Missouri University of Science and Technology (Dr. Thomas Weigert, weigert(at)mst.edu)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
TimeObservationAction and DurationObservationAction are described as actions, but are not really actions like the actions of the action chapter. They would never be used when defining a behavior, but are part of a metalanguage to define temporal constraints and to refer to measured times and durations in formulating such constraints. However, these two elements are the only aspects of this language, everything else is left to be defined later (see TimeExpression). Putting these two mechanisms into the specifications unduly constrains any profile that would want to define a notation for expressing temporal constraints. Such a language might not see a need to use the actions described in this chapter. My recommendation is to find a different way of expressing time observations and duration observations in the metamodel. The syntax examples clearly show that they are not meant to be used within an activity as actions. Note that the only way to use these observations is to create a "fake" activity attached to the interaction (e.g., as a nestedClassifier) which contains only this action. A rather convoluted and heavy-weight means of expressing the simple concept of "NOW" (as the point in time when some model element is executed). A simpler mechanism is clearly needed. 

Resolution: Discussion: Fixed as part of the resolution to issue 8894 in UML 2.1 Revised Text: N/A Disposition: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 29, 2004: received issue
October 27, 2008: closed issue

Discussion:
A proper resolution of this issue depends on changes in progress with respect to the
action and activity model. In addition, a more encompassing improvement of the “simple
time model” and related concepts is required.


Issue 7407: The specification is fond of using 'typically.' (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The specification is fond of using 'typically.' The term should be use with care in a specification. Typically, 'must' or 'may' are better choices. For example, at 7.4.1 p.42: The multiplicity bounds are typically shown in the format: lower-bound..upper-bound It will be better to write: The multiplicity bounds are shown in the format: lower-bound..upper-bound simply deleting 'typically.' (In this case, the syntax specification should show the case when the two bounds are equal.)

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 31, 2004: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
This is indeed a valid issue, since the term typically (sorry!) leads to confusion and
ambiguity that should not be encountered in a spec. Unfrotunately, there are 72 uses of
this term in the current spec and each one would have to be reviewed individually. This
does not seem feasible in the short time left for the work of this FTF. Therefore, it is
work that should be picked up by a subsequent RTF.======================The discussion associated with the resolution to issue 6456 equally applies here (except
that there are 71 uses of this term and its derivatives – still a very large number).
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 7620: Coupling between StateMachines and Activities (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Simula Research Laboratory (Mr. Bran Selic, selic(at)acm.org)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
As I was reading through the text of issue 6114 it dawned on me that there is a needless and problematic coupling between state machines and activities. Namely, in figure 187, there is an association from ObjectNode to State, presumably to deal with the old "object in state" idea. This is similar to the coupling that was attempted but rejected in the Interactions chapter. 

While it may look attractive to have a formal link to the idea of State from state machines, there are two serious problems that make this much more trouble than it's worth: 

(1) The notion of "object state" -- as seen by users/manipulators of that object -- could be completely different from the implementation state of that object. This is the old principle of hiding implementation. Viewed from the outside, an invoice object may be in the "Paid" state, but this does not necessarily mean that the object has such a state in its implementation. In fact, there is no guarantee that the implementation will be based on state machines at all. Of course, you can say that this is a reference to some kind of external state machine view of an object -- which sounds reasonable, but here is where the second problem comes in: 

(2) State in the UML 2.0 spec comes with a sh..load of baggage: in effect, the whole state machine kit and caboodle. It's not very modular, and, unless you use profiles to shear away all the stuff that you don't want (which is about 99% of state machines machinery), you will force vendors who innocently just want to support the simple idea of "object in state" to implement all of state machines. 

Like I say, the feature doesn't look worth it. Let your State concept be a simple name. My guess is that most users who want to use this feature don't even want to know what a state machine is (the concept of states is not necessarily linked to state machines!). 

So, my suggestion is that in figure 187, you simply provide a subclass of ObjectNode called ObjectInState and give it a "stateName" attribute and you will get what 95% of your users want. Tying state machines to activities for that one little feature seems overkill. 


Resolution: Disposition: Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
August 4, 2004: received issue

Discussion:
This is deferred for the same reasons as 6114. 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.


Issue 7756: Unconsistent association extension description (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Softeam (Mr. Philippe Desfray, phd(at)softeam.fr)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
 b) More worryingly, 18.3.5 Semantics also says "As part of a profile, it is not possible to have an association between two stereotypes or between a stereotype and a metaclass unless they are subsets of existing associations in the reference metamodel." I fail to see how a profile could in fact could cause an association between 2 stereotypes to subset an existing association in a reference metamodel since the stereotypes do not at all inherit from the baseClasses so do not inherit any of its properties or associations in order to be able to subset them: this is emphasized by the MOF representation shown in the new Figure 447.
---

Indeed profiles do not support association subsetting. This should be made clear in the spec to avoid any confusion while using profiles.
.


Discussion

In Profiles:Profile:semantics, change the paragraph 

As part of a profile, it is not possible to have an association between two stereotypes or between a stereotype and a metaclass unless they are subsets of existing associations in the reference metamodel.

Into

As part of a profile, it is not possible to have an association between two stereotypes or between a stereotype and a metaclass.

Resolution:
Revised Text: This change needs to be made in both the Infrastructure (ptc/04-11-16) and Superstructure specs (ptc/04-10-02): >>>>> "In Profiles:Profile:semantics, replace the following text: As part of a profile, it is not possible to have an association between two stereotypes or between a stereotype and a metaclass. The effect of new (meta)associations within profiles can be achieved in limited ways either by: 1. adding new constraints within a profile that specialize the usage of some associations of the reference metamodel, or 2. extending the Dependency metaclass by a stereotype and defining specific constraint on this stereotype. As an illustration of the first approach, the examples in Figure 450 and Figure 451 could be extended by adding a “HomeRealization” stereotype that extends the “InterfaceRealization” UML metaclass. The “Bean” stereotype will introduce the constraint that the “interfaceRealization” association can only target “InterfaceRealization” elements extended by a “HomeRealization” stereotype and the “HomeRealization” stereotype will add the constraint that the “contract” association can only target interfaces extended by a “Home” stereotype. As an illustration of second approach, one can define a stereotype “Sclass” extending Class and a stereotype “Sstate” extending State. In order to specify the default state of an “Sclass”, a “DefaultState” stereotype extending “Dependency” can be defined, with the constraints that a DefaultState Dependency can only exist between an Sclass and an Sstate. Into Stereotypes can participate in associations. The opposite class can be another stereotype, a non-stereotype class that is owned by a profile, or a metaclass of the reference metamodel. For these associations there must be a property owned by the Stereotype to navigate to the opposite class. The opposite property must be owned by the Association itself rather than the other class/metaclass.
Actions taken:
September 3, 2004: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 7757: Unconsistent Profile extension description (02) (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Softeam (Mr. Philippe Desfray, phd(at)softeam.fr)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
 18.3.5 says that "A profile by definition extends a reference  metamodel or another profile."
 While in theory I could see how it might be modeled, I don't see how the latter could work in practice with real tools. Let's extend the current example and define a new Profile called ClockTechnology with Stereotype AtomicClock with baseClass Clock and property radioactiveElement:String..."
---

Import between profiles is supported, and stereotype generalization is the usual way to achieve what has been called "extending a profile".

The reference to profile extension should be simply discarded. A profile extends a reference metamodel.
.


Discussion

In Profiles:Profile:semantics, change the first sentence 

A profile by definition extends a reference metamodel or another profile.


Into

A profile by definition extends a reference metamodel.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
September 3, 2004: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
In Profiles:Profile:semantics, change the first sentence
A profile by definition extends a reference metamodel or another profile.
Into
A profile by definition extends a reference metamodel.
Here also, the suggested change has been already made. This issue is obsolete (already
solved).
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 7782: Move Comment into Basic and add Kind (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Adaptive (Mr. Pete Rivett, pete.rivett(at)adaptive.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Move Comment into Basic and add Kind
The ability to annotate and describe elements and diagrams is pretty
fundamental so should be included in Basic.
There should also be the recognition that there are different kinds of
comment: for example most tools have a dialog allowing people to enter a
Description for an Element; and separately may allow the element to be
annotated on diagrams in a particular context. At the moment there is no
way to distinguish these.
The UML Metamodel itself is an example of the need for different kinds
of Comment: each Class has a number of distinct sections (e.g.
Description, Semantics, Notation).
Hence there should be a 'kind' attribute on Comment to reflect this.

Resolution: Disposition: Closed, no change
Revised Text: Resolved in the FTF.
Actions taken:
September 24, 2004: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
Resolution
Changes to Infrastructure:

Remove the class Comment and the association Element::ownedComment from Figure 71 and add to Figure 65

Move Section 11.1.1 Comment to 10.1.1 and renumber the following sections in sections 11.1 and 10.1


Issue 7783: Missing XMI tags in spec and XMI rendition of metamodel (uml2-rtf)

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


In the XMI for Superstructure for example (in OMG document ad/03-04-02),
while this does use the nsuri for MOF (using the correct form
xmlns:cmof="http:///schema.omg.org/spec/mof/2.0/cmof.xmi) it does not
contain any XMI tags to define for UML what its nsuri and prefix should
be: which are needed in order to generate the UML xsd.
Neither does the XMI for the MOF Core itself contain an XMI tag to
define that the nsuri and prefix should be as just quoted.


In any case these important values should be included in the
specification documents as well as being buried in tags in the XMI
files.

Resolution:
Revised Text: OMG Issue No: 7783 Title: Missing XMI tags in spec and XMI rendition of metamodel In the XMI for Superstructure for example (in OMG document ad/03-04-02), while this xmlns:cmof="http:///schema.omg.org/spec/mof/2.0/cmof.xmi) it does not contain any XMI tags to define for UML what its nsuri and prefix should be: which are needed in order to generate the UML xsd. Neither does the XMI for the MOF Core itself contain an In any case these important values should be included in the specification documents as Add the following text to the end of Appendix A: XMI Serialization and Schema XMI allow the use of tags to tailor the schemas and documents that are produced using XMI. The following have been explicitly set for the UML2 Infrastructure Model; the others are left at their default values: • tag nsURI set to "http://schema.omg.org/spec/UML/2.0/umlL0.xml" for L0 • tag nsURI set to "http://schema.omg.org/spec/UML/2.0/umlLM.xml" for LM • tag nsPrefix set to "uml" (for both cases) Changes to MOF: Add the following text to the end of Appendix A: XSD and XMI for MOF 2.0 XMI allows the use of tags to tailor the schemas that are produced and the documents that are produced using XMI. The following have been explicitly set for EMOF; the others are left at their default values: • tag nsURI set to "http://schema.omg.org/spec/MOF/2.0/emof.xml" • tag nsPrefix set to "emof" The following have been explicitly set for CMOF; the others are left at their default values: • tag nsURI set to http://schema.omg.org/spec/MOF/2.0/cmof.xml • tag nsPrefix set to "cmof" Disposition: Resolved
Actions taken:
September 24, 2004: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 7889: Inconsistent use of 'Element' between MOF and UML (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Adaptive (Mr. Pete Rivett, pete.rivett(at)adaptive.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
UML uses Element to mean any Element in a Model, which is inherently something that has an identity separate from its value: this even includes elements such as ValueSpecification.
MOF uses Object for such a thing, and uses Element to represent any value: specifically when used to declare parameters in Reflection then Element is used to represent both 'Objects' and plain data values (such as integers or strings) used as property or parameter values. Object inherits from Element.
 
Proposed resolution:
 
MOF should swap the names of Object and Element: this makes it consistent with UML and with languages such as Java where java.lang.object can represent data values.

Resolution:
Revised Text: Resolution: In MOF Core, Element and Object will have their names swapped as proposed. There is no effect on Infrastructure: MOF is in effect merging in Object as a new superclass to Element. Figure 2 · Replace class name "Element (from Elements)" by "Object" · Replace class name "Object" by "Element" · Replace the 7 operations for the Object (now Element) class by the following: getMetaClass() : Class container() : Element equals(object : Object) : Boolean get(property : Property) : Object set(property : Property, object: Object) isSet(property : Property) : Boolean unset(property : Property) · Replace the 3 operations for the Factory class by the following: createFromString(dataType : DataType, string : String) : Object convertToString(dataType : DataType, object: Object) : String create(metaClass : Class) : Element Section 9.1 · Change section name from Object to Element · Replace the first para by the following: Every Element has a Class which describes its properties and operations. The Element is an Instance of this Class. Element extends Abstraction::Elements::Element. All model elements that specialize Reflection::Element inherit reflective capabilities. In particular, this includes all model elements from UML2 Infrastructure. · Replace the Operations section by the following text: getMetaClass() : Class Returns the Class that describes this element. container(): Element Returns the parent container of this element if any. Return Null if there is no containing element. equals(object: Object): Boolean Determines if the object equals this Element instance. For instances of Class, returns true if the object and this Element instance are references to the same Object. For instances of DataType, returns true if the object has the same value as this Element instance. Returns false for all other cases. get(property: Property) : Object Gets the value of the given property. If the Property has multiplicity upper bound of 1, get() returns the value of the Property. If Property has multiplicity upper bound >1, get() returns a ReflectiveSequence containing the values of the Property. If there are no values, the ReflectiveSequence returned is empty. ReflectiveSequence is defined in section "MOF::Common" on page 24. Exception: throws IllegalArgumentException if Property is not a member of the Class from class(). set(property: Property, object: Object) If the Property has multiplicity upper bound = 1, set() atomically updates the value of the Property to the object parameter. If Property has multiplicity upper bound >1, the Object may be either a ReflectiveCollection or a ReflectiveSequence. The behavior is identical to the following operations performed atomically: ReflectiveSequence list = element.get(property); list.clear(); list.addAll((ReflectiveSequence) object); There is no return value. Exception: throws IllegalArgumentException if Property is not a member of the Class from getMeta-Class(). Exception: throws ClassCastException if the Property's type isInstance(object) returns false and Property has multiplicity upper bound = 1 Exception: throws ClassCastException if Object is not a ReflectiveSequence and Property has multiplicity upper bound > 1 Exception: throws IllegalArgumentException if object is null, Property is of type Class, and the multiplicity upper bound > 1. isSet(property: Property): Boolean If the Property has multiplicity upper bound of 1, isSet() returns true if the value of the Property is different than the default value of that property. If Property has multiplicity upper bound >1, isSet() returns true if the number of objects in the list is > 0. Exception: throws IllegalArgumentException if Property is not a member of the Class from class(). unset(property: Property) If the Property has multiplicity upper bound of 1, unset() atomically sets the value of the Property to its default value for DataType type properties and null for Class type properties. If Property has multiplicity upper bound >1, unset() clears the ReflectiveSequence of values of the Property. The behavior is identical to the following operations performed atomically: ReflectiveSequence list = element.get(property); list.clear(); There is no return value. After unset() is called, element.isSet(property) == false. Exception: throws IllegalArgumentException if Property is not a member of the Class from getMetaClass(). Constraints No additional constraints. Semantics Class Element is the superclass of all model elements in MOF, and is the superclass of all instances of MOF model elements. Each element can access its metaClass in order to obtain a Class that provides a reflective description of that element. By having both MOF and instances of MOF be rooted in class Object, MOF supports any number of meta layers as described in Chapter 1, "MOF Architecture". The following describes the interaction between default values, null, isSet, and unSet. Single-valued properties: If a single-valued property has a default: o It is set to that default value when the element is created. isSet=false o If the value of that property is later explicitly set, even to the default value, isSet=true o If the property is unSet, then the value of the property returns to the default, and isSet=false If a single-valued property does not have a default: o At creation, its value is null. isSet=false o If the value of that property is later explicitly set, even to null, isSet=true o If the property is unSet, then the value of the property returns to null, and isSet=false Multi-valued properties: o When the element is created, it is an empty list. isSet=false o If the list is modified in any way (except unSet), isSet=true o If the list is unSet, it is cleared and becomes an empty list. isSet=false. The implementation of isSet is up to the implementer. In the worst case it can be implemented by having an additional boolean, but usually for a particular implementation it can be implemented more efficiently (e.g. by having an internal distinguished value used to represent "no value set"). For default values, implementations are not required to access stored metadata at runtime. It is adequate to generate a constant in the implementation class for the default. Rationale Element is introduced in package Reflection so that it can be combined with Core::Basic to produce EMOF which can then be merged into CMOF to provide reflective capability to MOF and all instances of MOF. Section 9.2 Replace Operations section by the following text Operations createFromString(dataType: DataType, string: String): Object Creates an Object initialized from the value of the String. Returns null if the creation cannot be performed. The format of the String is defined by the XML Schema SimpleType corresponding to that datatype. Exception: NullPointerException if datatype is null. Exception: IllegalArgumentException if datatype is not a member of the package returned by getPackage(). convertToString(datatype: DataType, object: Object): String Creates a String representation of the Object. Returns null if the creation cannot be performed. The format of the String is defined by the XML Schema SimpleType corresponding to that dataType. Exception: IllegalArgumentException if datatype is not a member of the package returned by getPackage(). create(metaClass: Class): Element Creates an element that is an instance of the metaClass. Element::metaClass == metaClass and metaClass.isInstance(element) == true. All properties of the element are considered unset. The values are the same as if element.unset(property) was invoked for every property. Returns null if the creation cannot be performed. Classes with abstract = true always return null. The created element's metaClass == metaClass. Exception: NullPointerException if class is null. Exception: IllegalArgumentException if class is not a member of the package returned by getPackage(). Add new section 9.3 as follows: 9.3 Object Reflection introduces Object as a supertype of Element in order to be able to have a Type that represent both elements and data values. Object represents 'any' value and is the equivalent of java.lang.object in Java. Section 10 · Replace the first sentence by: An element has an identifier in the context of an extent that distinguishes it unambiguously from other elements. Figure 3 · Replace "Element( (from Elements)" by "Object" · In class Extent, replace objects(): ReflectiveSequence by elements(): ReflectiveSequence · In class URIExtent, replace uri(object:Object): String by uri(element:Element): String · And replace object(uri:String): Object by element (uri:String): Element Section 10.1 · Replace first para by: An Extent is a context in which an Element in a set of Elements in a set can be identified. An element may be a member of zero or more extents. An Extent is not an Element, it is part of a MOF capability. · Replace Operations section by: useContainment(): Boolean When true, recursively include all elements contained by members of the element(). elements(): ReflectiveSequence Returns a ReflectiveSequence of the elements directly referenced by this extent. If exclusive()==true, these elements must have container()==null. Extent.elements() is a reflective operation, not a reference between Extent and Element. See Chapter 4, "Reflection" for a definition of ReflectiveSequence · Replace Rationale section by: Extents provide a context in which MOF Elements can be identified independent of any value in the Element. Section 10.3 · Replace first sentence by: Identity extends Basic::Property with the ability to designate a property as an identifier for the containing element. · Replace Rationale by: Objects must have identity. The Property isID formalizes this capability in the metadata describing the object.. Section 10.4 · Replace first sentence by: An extent that provides URI identity. A URIExtent can have a URI that establishes a context that may be used in determining identifiers for elements identified in the extent. Implementations may also use values of properties with isID==true in determining the identifier of the element. · Replace Operations section by contextURI(): String Specifies an identity for the extent that establishes a URI context for identifying elements in the extent. An extent has an identity if a URI is assigned. URI is defined in IETF RFC-2396 available at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt. uri(element: Element): String Returns the URI of the given element in the extent. Returns Null if the element is not in the extent. element(uri: String): Element Returns the Element identified by the given URI in the extent. Returns Null if there is no element in the extent with the given URI. Note the Object does not (necessarily) contain a property corresponding to the URI. The URI identifies the element in the context of the extent. The same element may have a different identifier in another extent. · Replace Rationale by URIs are the defacto standard identity mechanism for the Web and are therefore useful for identifying MOF elements and navigating links between them. Figure 5 · Replace operations in ReflectiveCollection with: add(object : Object) : Boolean addAll(elements : ReflectiveSequence) : Boolean clear() remove(object : Object) : Boolean size() : Integer · Replace operations in ReflectiveSequence with: add(index : Integer, object : Object) get(index : Integer) : Object remove(index : Integer) : Object set(index : Integer, object : Object) : Object Section 10.5.1 · Replace entire section with the following: 10.5.1 ReflectiveCollection RefelectiveCollection is a reflective class for accessing properties with more than one possible value. It is defined in package MOF::Common in order to facilitate reuse in many other MOF capabilities. For ordered properties, ReflectiveSequence (see below) must be returned. Modifications made to the ReflectiveCollection update the Element's values for that property atomically. Exception: throws ClassCastException if the Property's type isInstance(Element) returns false. add(object : Object): Boolean Adds object to the last position in the collection. Returns true if the object was added. addAll(objects: ReflectiveSequence): Boolean Adds the objects to the end of the collection. Returns true if any objects were added. clear() Removes all objects from the collection. remove(object : Object): Object Removes the specified object from the collection. Returns true if the object was removed. size(): Integer Returns the number of objects in the colleciton. Section 10.5.2 · Replace entire section with the following: 10.5.2 ReflectiveSequence ReflectiveSequence is a subclass of ReflectiveCollection that is used for accessing ordered properties with more than one possible value. Modifications made to ReflectiveSequence update the Element's values for that property atomically. Modifications made to the ReflectiveSequence update the Element's values for that property atomically. Exception: throws IllegalArgumentException if a duplicate would be added to the collection and Property.isUnique()==true. Exception: throws IndexOutOfBoundsException if an index out of the range of 0 <= index < size() is used. Exception: throws IllegalArgumentException if a duplicate would be added to the list and Property is of type Class or Property.isUnique()==true. add(index: Integer, object : Object) Adds object to the specified index in the sequence, shifting later objects. get(index: Integer): Object Returns the object at the given index in the sequence. remove(index: Integer): Object Removes the object at the specified index from the sequence. Returns the object removed. set(index: Integer, object: Object): Object Replaces the object at the specified index with the new object. The removed object is returned. Behavior of particular operations defined in ReflectiveCollection is the following when applied to a ReflectiveSequence: add(object: Object): Boolean Adds object to the end of the sequence. Returns true if the object was added. addAll(objects: ReflectiveSequence): Boolean Adds the objects to the end of the sequence. Returns true if any objects were added. remove(,object: Object): Boolean Removes the first occurence of the specified object from the sequence. Figure 5 · Replace the Object superclass with Element Figure 13 · Replace the Element (from Elements) superclass with Object · Replace the class Object with Element · Replace the following operation on Object (now Element): invoke(op : Operation, arguments : Argument) : Element with: invoke(op : Operation, arguments : Argument) : Object · Replace the 3 operations on Factory with: name : String createElement (class : Class, arguments : Argument) : Element createLink(association : Association, firstElement : Element, secondElement: Element) : Link · Replace the 4 operations on Extent with: elementsOfType(type : Class, includeSubtypes : Boolean) : Element linksOfType(type : Association) : Link linkedElements(association : Association, endObject : Element, end1ToEnd2Direction : Boolean) : Element linkExists(association : Association, firstElement : Element, secondElement : Element) : Boolean · Replace the 2nd property of Argument with: value: Object · Replace the association ends firstObject and secondObject with firstElement and secondElement. Section 13.1 · Replace entire section with the following text: 13.1 Link This is a new class that represents an instance of an Association, in the same way that Element represents an instance of a Class. Properties association: Association This is the Association of which the Link is an instance. firstElement: Element This is the Element associated with the first end of the Association. secondElement: Element This is the Element associated with the second end of the Association. Operations equals(otherLink:Link): Boolean Returns True iff the otherLink has association, firstElement, secondElement all equal to those on this Link. delete() Deletes the Link. This may leave the same elements associated by other links for this Association. Constraints The firstElement must conform to the type of the first memberEnd of the association. The secondElement must conform to the type of the second memberEnd of the association. The set of Links as a whole must not break the multiplicity constraints of the association member ends. Semantics When the link is created, it is not assigned to any Extent. Rationale Since MOF 2.0 allows the same pair of elements to be linked more than once in the same Association (if isUnique=false for the association ends), then Link needs to be more a simple tuple value, though not as heavyweight as a first class Element. Changes from MOF 1.4 None. The MOF 1.4 navigation capabilities are retained. Section 13.2, Argument · Replace entire section with the following: 13.2 Argument This is a new datatype that is used to represent named arguments to open-ended reflective operations. It is open-ended and allows both Elements and data values to be supplied. Properties name: String The name of the argument. value: Object The value of the argument. Constraints None: constrains will be dependent on the context of where the Argument is supplied. Semantics None. Rationale Since MOF 2.0 allows Operation parameters and Properties to have defaults, it is necessary to explicitly identify the values supplied. Changes from MOF 1.4 Values supplied to constructors are now identified rather than being deduced through the ordering. Section 13.3 · Introduce new section for Element that was previously called Element and not given a section number but 'lost' in 13.2 13.3 Element CMOF Reflection adds the following extra operations. Operations delete() Deletes the Element. invoke(op:Operation, arguments : Argument[0..*]) : Object[0..*] Calls the supplied Operation on the element, passing the supplied Arguments and returning the result. The Operation must be defined on the Class of the Element, and the arguments must refer to Parameters of the Operation. If an Argument is not supplied for a Parameter its default value, if any, will be used. isInstanceOfType(type : Class, includeSubtypes : Boolean) : Boolean Returns true if this element is an instance of the supplied Class, or if includeSubtypes is true, any of its subclasses. Rationale Adds the equivalent of MOF 1.4 capabilities. Changes from MOF 1.4 Parameters to operations are now identified by name. Section 13.3, Factory Renumber to 13.4 (due to reinstatement of Object - see previous change) and replace test with the following: 13.4 Factory CMOF Reflection adds two extra operations. Operations createElement(class:Class, arguments : Argument[0..*]) : Element Unlike the simple create() operation this allows arguments to be provided for use as the initial values of properties. The arguments must refer to DataType Properties of the Class. If an Argument is not supplied for a Property its default value, if any, will be used. createLink(association : Association, firstElement : Element, secondElement : Element) : Link This creates a Link from 2 supplied Elements that is an instance of the supplied Association. The first Element is associated with the first end (the properties comprising the association ends are ordered) and must conform to its type. And correspondingly for the second Element. Rationale Adds the equivalent of MOF 1.4 capabilities. Changes from MOF 1.4 Names have changed. Section 13.4, Factory Renumber to 13.5 (due to reinstatement of Object - see previous change) and replace test with the following: 13.5 Extent CMOF Reflection adds four extra operations. Operations elementsOfType(type : Class, includeSubtypes : Boolean) : Element [0..*] This returns those elements in the extent that are instances of the supplied Class. If includeSubtypes is true, then instances of any subclasses are also returned. linksOfType(type : Association) : Link[0..*] This returns those links in the extent that are instances of the supplied Association. linkedElements(association : Association, endElement : Element, end1ToEnd2Direction : Boolean) : Element [0..*] This navigates the supplied Association from the supplied Element. The direction of navigation is given by the end1ToEnd2Direction parameter: if true, then the supplied Element is treated as the first end of the Association. linkExists(association : Association, firstElement : Element, second Element : Element): Boolean This returns true if there exists at least one link for the association between the supplied elements at their respective ends. Rationale Adds the equivalent of MOF 1.4 capabilities. Changes from MOF 1.4 Names have changed. Disposition: Resolved
Actions taken:
November 1, 2004: received issue
February 18, 2005: moved from infrastructure
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 7908: Design principles (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Critical
Summary:
 have a general problem with the UML 2.0 specification. A graphical modelling language is essential for succesful software development. However the more I read about UML 2.0 the more I had the impression that UML 2.0 has not been developed with actual real-world software development in mind. Just to give one highlight of UML 2.0 is the merge relation between packages: The relation leads to bad designs and incomprehensible software systems, e.g. like like badly designed inheritance hierarchies etc. Especially consider the following case: a trifle change in the diagram (change the merge relationship into e.g. an access relationship) causes a tremendous amount of changes on the code and the configuration level. The only way to handle this is to forbid the merge relationship and to hope that nobody is blind enough to actually use it. Reading the manual, I stumbled over numerous similar issues. I'm sorry to say but I'm very disappointed with UML 2.0 as it is

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 10, 2004: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
One can argue for and against the thesis in this issue. However, it is, in essence, a critique
that does not really indicate how the problem is to be fixed other than to redo all of UML
2.0 from the beginning. Since that falls outside the scope of an RTF and also of reality,
this issue will be closed with no changes made.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 7909: Problem with diagram references in Profiles section (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Adaptive (Mr. Pete Rivett, pete.rivett(at)adaptive.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
2nd paragraph in Stereotype Semantics does not have proper cross-references to the figures and hence they have not been updated as other figures have been inserted. The para currently reads:
An instance "S" of Stereotype is a kind of (meta) class. Relating it to a metaclass "C" from the reference metamodel (typically UML) using an "Extension" (which is a specific kind of association), signifies that model elements of type C can be extended by an instance of "S" (see example Figure 454). At the model level (such as in Figure 457) instances of "S" are related to "C" model elements (instances of "C") by links (occurrences of the association/extension from "S’ to "C").

But the 2 references should be to Figure 456 and Figure 461 respectively.


Resolution:
Revised Text: The following change needs to be made in both the Infrastructure (ptc/04-11-16) and Superstructure specs (ptc/04-10-02) – with the appropriate figure numbers for each document. In the 2nd paragraph in Profile:Stereotype Semantics Change the text An instance "S" of Stereotype is a kind of (meta) class. Relating it to a metaclass "C" from the reference metamodel (typically UML) using an "Extension" (which is a specific kind of association), signifies that model elements of type C can be extended by an instance of "S" (see example Figure 454). At the model level (such as in Figure 457) instances of "S" are related to "C" model elements (instances of "C") by links (occurrences of the association/extension from "S’ to "C"). Into An instance "S" of Stereotype is a kind of (meta) class. Relating it to a metaclass "C" from the reference metamodel (typically UML) using an "Extension" (which is a specific kind of association), signifies that model elements of type C can be extended by an instance of "S" (see example Figure 456). At the model level (such as in Figure 461) instances of "S" are related to "C" model elements (instances of "C") by links (occurrences of the association/extension from "S’ to "C").
Actions taken:
November 14, 2004: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 7910: isComposite inconsistency in UML 2.0 and MOF 2.0 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:
The usage of isComposite varies in these two specs as detailed below. Hope this proves useful. Rob ------- UML 2.0 ------- The UML 2.0 Infrastructure spec (03-09-15) section 10.2.4 defines Basic::Property::isComposite as follows: -- isComposite : Boolean If isComposite is true, the object containing the attribute is a container for the object or value contained in the attribute. The default value is false. i.e. an attribute marked "isComposite" is the container for the value. -- However, Constructs::Property (which inherits Basic::Property) has the following constraint: [3] A multiplicity of a composite aggregation must not have an upper bound greater than 1. isComposite implies (upperBound()->isEmpty() or upperBound() <= 1) This is surely intended to mean that an object can have [0..1] containers, rather than (as defined by the two definitions above) that a container can store [0..1] instances in each composite property. The difficulty seems to be one of terminology - from the perspective of a property, being composite implies the property is composite, ie. contains zero or more objects, while from the perspective of an object, the composite of an object could be viewed as a container. The problem can be fixed by redefining the constraint something like: [3] If a property has isComposite==true, than if the property has an opposite, that opposite property must have an upper bound greater than 1. isComposite implies (opposite == null) or (opposite.upperBound()->isEmpty() or opposite.upperBound() <= 1). In 11.3.1 - Association, "Composition is represented by the isComposite attribute on the part end of the association being set to true." - again this is the opposite sense. This is also indicates that there is a degree of complexity implementing MOF::Reflection::Object::container() - there is actually no property for which this is a simple test. Instead, it is necessary to find a property of the object such that the opposite property is marked isComposite, there is no guarantee such a property is accessible, hence an implementation must, in some cases, store a separate (hidden) reference to the object's container. This is an implementation property however. The other alternative I can see would be to replace isComposite on the container object with isContainer on the contained object, or even to have both (with an appropriate constraint to guarantee that the two properties are consistent). --------- MOF 2.0 --------- The same problem manifests in the definition of CMOF abstract semantics. In section 15.2, ClassInstance includes the following definition: 2. At most one Slot for an isComposite property may have a value. (this needs more work if the owner reference is not navigable) Using the current definition of isComposite, this needs to be restated to the effect that at most one slot for a property that is the opposite of an isComposite property may have a value. And again, in the specification of DataType... For all properties, isReadOnly is true, isComposite is false, isDerivedUnion is false Surely this is not correct - a data type may contain other datatypes, which by definition are stored by value, implying strong ownership, and hence a composition relationship. Indeed, any classifier containing a property whose value is a data type should always have isComposite set to true. In 15.4, Object::delete() seems to use isComposite correctly given the definition. Later, however, Object::owningProperty() uses the other approach - using isComposite() to identify the container of the current object.

Resolution: Discussion This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification. Disposition: Closed - No Change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 15, 2004: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 7938: DataType attributes UML 2 Super (ptc/04-10-02) (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
On Figure 13, DataType::ownedAttribute is specified as ordered but in the
associations section on page 59, it is not specified as ordered.

Resolution: See issue 7939 for disposition
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 19, 2004: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 7939: DataType attributes UML 2 Super (ptc/04-10-02) (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
On Figure 13, DataType::ownedAttribute is specified as ordered but in the
associations section on page 59, it is not specified as ordered.

Resolution:
Revised Text: Insert the sentence: This is an ordered collection. Between the first and second sentence of the description for the association end DataType::ownedAttribute on page 59. Insert the sentence: This is an ordered collection. Between the first and second sentence of the description for the association end DataType::ownedOperation on page 59. Infrastructure (ptc/04-11-16) Insert the sentence: This is an ordered collection. Between the first and second sentence of the description for the association end DataType::ownedAttribute on page 140. Insert the sentence: This is an ordered collection. Between the first and second sentence of the description for the association end DataType::ownedOperation on page 140.
Actions taken:
November 19, 2004: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 7942: Section: 7.3.43 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG (Dr. Tim Weilkiens, tim.weilkiens(at)oose.de)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Notation for a primitive type should be <<primitiveType>> instead of <<primitive>>. That's more consistent to the general usage of keywords that they are identical to the metaclass name

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 22, 2004: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
This argument may be valid, but the impact of making this change at this point when
tools have been released and books have been published based on the old notation, it
simply does not seem to be worth the disruption that it would cause.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 7946: Section: 7.2.8 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
In my opinion, the sentence "When a language is reflective, there is no need to define another language to specify its semantics." is false. Any natural language is reflective. However, just take a dictionary of a language that you don't know, you will not understand anything. In fact, the semantics of UML is described in english, not in UML, which explains that you can understand the metamodel. 

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: In the Infrastructure spec in section 7.2.8 on page 29, replace the following text: When a language is reflective, there is no need to define another language to specify its semantics. MOF is reflective since it is based on the InfrastructureLibrary, and there is thus no need to have additional meta-layers above MOF. by the following text: MOF is reflective since it is based on the InfrastructureLibrary. This allows it to be used to define itself. For this reason, no additional meta-layers above MOF are defined.
Actions taken:
November 23, 2004: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
The submitter raises a philosophical point that may be valid and is certainly debatable.
However, the quoted statement was in the specific context of the explanation of the 4-
layer model, where it was used to justify why the architecture stops the potentially
infinite succession of metalevels at M3.
However, the text itself can be modified to avoid making a statement that can be
misunderstood as being a general statement.


Issue 7947: Classes (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG (Dr. Tim Weilkiens, tim.weilkiens(at)oose.de)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:
I see a problem in the definition of the InstanceSpecification of a new primitive like Real. The value is specified by a ValueSpecification. The UML metamodel of ValueSpecifications reflects the predefined primitive types of UML: LiteralInteger, LiteralString, and so on. This is an indirect dependency from the Kernel package to the AuxiliaryConstructs package. That dependency direction shouldn't be allowed. How to specify a value specification for a primitive type Real? I think that we need LiteralReal to do that. 

Resolution: See issue 8069 for disposition
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 24, 2004: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 7948: section 2.10.4.1 detailed semantics of collaborations (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
My question concerns section 2.10.4.1 (detailed semantics of collaborations). The last part of the 4th paragraph starts as follows:


"However, instances of different classifiers can play the role defined by the classifier role, as long as they have all the required properties."


Allow me to illustrate my interpretation of this section by means of an example.


Suppose there is a class A with 5 operations, o1, o2, o3, o4 and o5, and there is a class B with 3 operations, identical to o2, o3 and o4.
Suppose there is a classifier role R in a collaboration, which has A as its base. The role can then specify a subset of the features of A. These features are then required by instances which play the role. Suppose this subset consists of o2 and o3. Then the quote from the spec above claims that instances of B are allowed to play role R. Is this correct so far?


Then, the spec goes on:


"Several classifier roles may have the same base classifier, even in the same collaboration, but their features and contained elements may be different subsets of the features and contained elements of the classifier. These classifier roles specify different roles played by (possibly different) instances of the same classifier."


So, considering again role R from my example, suppose there is now a different classifier role Q, which also has A as its base. Suppose Q specifies o3 and o4 as the required subset of A's features.


Now the last sentence from the spec quote seems to say that only (possibly different) instances of A can play roles R and Q. This would mean that an instance of B is NOT allowed to play either R or Q, which would contradict my example above.


Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 24, 2004: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
This issue appears to be against UML 1.x, as the semantics of collaboration does not
contain the cited passages and it relies on concepts that have been removed in UML 2.0.
Collaborations have been clarified significantly in UML 2.0; the author of this issue is
invited to check whether his concern still exists.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 7949: Section: 7.3.44 - OCL incorrect (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The OCL for the derivation of association /opposite for Property in section 7.3.44, page 126 is incorrect. It's derivation in section "Constraints" on page 126 as given as follows: [1] If this property is owned by a class, associated with a binary association, and the other end of the association is also owned by a class, then opposite gives the other end. opposite = if owningAssociation->notEmpty() and association.memberEnd->size() = 2 then let otherEnd = (association.memberEnd - self)->any() in if otherEnd.owningAssociation->notEmpty() then otherEnd else Set{} endif else Set {} endif I think that the prose "this property is owned by a class" should translate into "class" and not "owningAssociation" in the above OCL. In other words, the prose does not agree with the OCL. So contraint [1] for opposite should read opposite = if class->notEmpty() and ... let ... in if otherEnd.class -> notEmpty() then ... else Set {} endif 

Resolution: See issue 6201 for disposition
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 26, 2004: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 7950: Interactions (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
In the description of the Graphic Paths for a Communication Diagram I can
find no mention of what the lines between the Lifelines correspond to -
although I did find this in the description of Message: "On Communication
Diagrams, the Messages are decorated by a small arrow along the connector
close to the Message
name and sequence number in the direction of the Message." I assume this
means that the lines correspond to a Connector model element.


The Graphic Paths section should be updated to include this information and
justification added as to why a Connector is needed in order for Messages to
be shown between two lifelines on a Communication Diagram (this seems an
overly tight constraint to me).

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: Before (14.3.20 page 540): On Communication Diagrams, the Messages are decorated by a small arrow along the connector close to the Message name and sequence number in the direction of the Message. Revised text: On Communication Diagrams, the Messages are decorated by a small arrow in the direction of the Message close to the Message name and sequence number along the line between the lifelines (See Table 17 and Figure 351).
Actions taken:
November 26, 2004: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
The line between two lifelines of a Communication Diagram is merely a placeholder for
the set of message identifiers (including sequence numbers) for messages between these
lifelines. Messages are also in sequence diagrams associated with connectors (optionally),
and there is no difference for Communication Diagrams.
On your resolution; I understand that this graphic path is not associated to a connector
but I found the use of the term "connector" in the description confusing and I think it
should be replaced. I also think that the graphic paths section for any diagram should
include all graphic paths, even if they don't represent abstract syntax elements.


Issue 7951: UML 2 Super Basic Interactions (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Basic Interactions includes SendOperationEvent whose superclass is
MessageEvent, which is in CommonBehaviors::Communications.


The problem is that the Basic Interactions package is in Level 1, but
CommonBehaviors::Communications is in Level 2.


The same is true for SendSignalEvent. In fact Event itself is also in
Communications so there's a problem with the whole set of Event subtypes
defined in BasicInteractions.

Also BasicActions::SendSignalAction references Communications::Signal

Resolution: Discussion: This issue was fixed in release 2.1.. Revised Text: N/A Disposition: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 26, 2004: received issue
October 27, 2008: closed issue

Issue 7952: Alternative entry and exit point notation is ambiguous (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG (Dr. Tim Weilkiens, tim.weilkiens(at)oose.de)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Alternative entry and exit point notation is ambiguous. It is not clear if it relates to an entry point or to an exit point.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
November 29, 2004: received issue

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 7956: InfrastructureLibrary defines, but should not use package merge (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: International Business Machines (Mr. Jim Amsden, jamsden(at)us.ibm.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
The resolution to 7623 said to replace all «import» by «merge» in Infrastructure Figure 70. These changes should be reversed because they result in InfrastructureLibrary both defining and being defined by package merge making it very difficult to implement UML2. 

Any implementation would have to do these merges by hand in order to have an implementation of Constructs that could be used to implement package merge, EMOF CMOF, or any other UML2 compliance level. 

Resolution: closed no change
Revised Text: Add the following to the end of the first paragraph in section 10, just before Figure 64: Figure 64 illustrates the relationships between the Core packages and how they contribute to the origin and evolution of package Basic. Package Basic imports model elements from package PrimitiveTypes. Basic also contains metaclasses derived from shared metaclasses defined in packages contained in Abstractions. These shared metaclasses are included in Basic by copy. Add the following to the end of the paragraph just before figure 70. Figure 70 illustrates the relationships between the Core packages and how they contribute to the origin and evolution of package Constructs. Package Constructs imports model elements from package PrimitiveTypes. Constructs also contains metaclasses from Basic and shared metaclasses defined in packages contained in Abstractions. These shared metaclasses are included in Constructs by copy. Figure 70 uses PackageMerge to illustrate the packages that contribute to the definition of Constructs and how. The InfrastructureLibrary metamodel does not actually include these packages merges as Constructs is a complete metamodel that already includes all the metaclasses in the referenced packages. This allows Constructs to be understood and used without requiring the use of PackageMerge. Disposition: Resolved
Actions taken:
December 1, 2004: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
Before 7623, InfrastructureLibrary defined, but did not use package merge. Packages in Abstractions were only imported into Basic and Constructs. And because neither Basic nor Constructs actually referred to anything in Abstractions, these imports had no consequence one way or the other. They had no effect on the merge, and no effect on XMI and/or XSD generation for either MOF2 or UML2.
However, changing them to merges, and modifying Constructs so a merge is required to make it complete changes things. In order to actually do the package merges resulting from 7623, and to generate the XMI and XSD for EMOF, CMOF, and all of the UML2 compliance levels, Abstractions must be cleaned up.  That is, all of the extraneous superclasses have to be removed, the proper superclasses from dependent packages have to be added in order for all references to be resolved before the merge, and any other errors that may be in Abstractions will need to be corrected. The full extent of the required changes cannot be known until the merges are actually attempted.
Both the Superstructure and MOF/Infra FTFs have agreed to defer Abstractions issues. Therefore, the resolution to issue 7623 should be amended so that Abstractions is not merged into Constructs, and therefore any issues resulting from these merges can be deferred. As a result, Abstractions will remain more decoupled from the rest of MOF2 and UML2 making it easier to address the deferred issues in an RTF. 
The "import"s that were in Figure 70 are not actually necessary. These are left over from the old definition of package merge which required the imports in order to make the imported metaclasses visible for subclassing by their corresponding merging classes. The new definition of package merge eliminates this subclassing and therefore the need to retain imports to merged packages. As a result, there are actually no dependencies between the Abstractions packages, Basic, and/or Constructs. 
However, it is still useful to indicate how Basic and Constructs were derived, and how they relate to Abstractions packages that contributed to their definition. This issue was resolved on a previous ballot. Changes are already in the Infra spec.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 7958: should retain Comment and its associations to Element (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: International Business Machines (Mr. Jim Amsden, jamsden(at)us.ibm.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
The resolution to Issue 7782 (Move Comment from Constructs to Basic) removed Comment from Constructs. For consistency with the rest of Constructs (which included everything else reused from Basic), the resolution should not have removed Comment from Constructs, it should have just copied Comment into Basic.

Resolution: This is resolved in the UML 2.2 specification. Revised Text: None. Disposition: Closed No Change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 1, 2004: received issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 7967: An observed time value must be written into a structural feature (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG (Dr. Tim Weilkiens, tim.weilkiens(at)oose.de)
Nature: Enhancement
Severity: Minor
Summary:
TimeObservationAction is a specialized WriteStructuralFeatureAction. An observed time value must be written into a structural feature. If modeling activities with that kind of action it would be useful to be able to write the time value to a variable instead of a structural feature. The time value is often used temporarily

Resolution: Discussion: These actions were removed as part of an earlier fix. Revised Text: N/A Disposition: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 3, 2004: received issue
October 27, 2008: closed issue

Issue 7969: Section: 9.14.1 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary:
The allOwnedElements query (defined in Core::Abstractions::Ownerships) operates by recursing downward through the ownership hierarchy. Its OCL implementation looks like this: Element::allOwnedElements(): Set(Element); allOwnedElements = ownedElement->union(ownedElement->collect(e | e.allOwnedElements())) In the absence of sophisticated optimization, this query is only guaranteed to terminate if the ownership hierarchy is non-circular. The ownership hierarchy is guaranteed to be circular by constraint [1] (An element may not directly or indirectly own itself). But the OCL description of constraint [1] is written in terms of the allOwnedElements() query: not self.allOwnedElements()->includes(self) If a modeling tool were to be written based on these rules in a straightforward way, it would never be able to detect a violation of constraint [1]. Instead it would go into infinite recursion while trying to check the constraint. Proposed solution: Add the following operation to 9.14.1: [3] The query isCircularlyOwned walks the chain of direct and indirect owners of an element, checking whether the chain contains any circularities, or any of the elements in the set prohibitedElements. Element::isCircularlyOwned(prohibitedElements: Set(Element)): Boolean; isCircularlyOwned = if owner->isEmpty() then false else if prohibitedElements->including(self)->includes(owner) then true else owner.isCircularlyOwned(prohibitedElements->including(self)) And change constraint [1] to: [1] An element may not be directly or indirectly owned by itself. not self.isCircularlyOwned(Set{}) 

Resolution: Discussion It is not necessary for the OCL in the specification to be implementable in some “straightforward way”. It is only necessary that the OCL have the proper meaning according to OCL semantics, which the identified expressions do. An implementation is free to implement them in the manner that the issue author suggests. It is not necessary to complicate the specification by adopting a specific implementation approach. Disposition: Closed - No Change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 5, 2004: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 7970: Minor error in BNF of an message argument (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG (Dr. Tim Weilkiens, tim.weilkiens(at)oose.de)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Minor error in BNF of an message argument: Instead <argument> ::= (<[parameter-name> ‘=’] write <argument> ::= ([<parameter-name> ‘=’] 

Resolution:
Revised Text: Before (in Section 14.3.20 page 540): <argument> ::= (<[parameter-name> ‘=’] <argument-value>) | (<attribute> ‘=’ <out-parameter- name> [‘:’ <argument-value>] | ‘ -’ Revised: <argument> ::= ([<parameter-name> ‘=’] <argument-value>) | (<attribute> ‘=’ <out-parameter- name> [‘:’ <argument-value>] ) | ‘ -’
Actions taken:
December 7, 2004: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 7973: UML 2 Super / Incorrect statement on port visibility (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Simula Research Laboratory (Mr. Bran Selic, selic(at)acm.org)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
The updated UML spec p162 states: 

"UML Superstructure 2.0 Draft Adopted Specification 

A port of a classifier is shown as a small square symbol. The name of the port is placed near the square symbol. If the port 
symbol is placed overlapping the boundary of the rectangle symbol denoting that classifier this port is exposed (i.e., its 
visibility is public). If the port is shown inside the rectangle symbol, then the port is hidden and its visibility is as specified (it 
is protected by default)." 

This text was supposed to be removed by the FTF -- the placement of the port is independent of its visibility.  Port placement is merely a question of graphical convenience. Their visibility is indicated by the usual means as for all other properties (+, -, and #). 

Resolution:
Revised Text: Replace the first paragraph of the Notation section on p.177, section 9.3.11 (Port) by "A port of a classifier is shown as a small square symbol. The name of the port is placed near the square symbol. The port symbol may be placed either operlapping the boundary of the rectangle symbol denoting that classifier or it may be shown inside the rectangle symbol."
Actions taken:
December 10, 2004: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 7977: ReduceAction (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Industrial Internet Consortium (Mr. Stephen J. Mellor, mellor(at)iiconsortium.org)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
It has come to my attention that the removal of the ReduceAction (fair
enough) requires the use of a variable (a very bad idea) to construct an
alternative specification.
 
To do something like Reduce(<data expression>, Add) in UML 1.5, you
would have to say:


- An activity/structure node with variable Sum.
- The expansion region takes the collection as input and has no
output. In this case, the output collection will have only one
element in it.
- In the region, edges coming from/going to the inputs/outputs take
elements from the input collections and put elements in the output
collections.
- The region uses CallOperationAction with operation timeofLastCall to
get the time and CallBehaviorAction on the (primitive)
FunctionBehavior for addition and updates the variable.
- After the region is complete, the variable has the sum in it.


The 1.5 Action Model included variables so that those who "needed" them
could have them.  However, the introduction of variables changes the
static-single-assignemnt nature of the language and would now require
data-flow analysis of a developer model to work out what is happening.
Before all we had to do was scan for Variable Actions and reject the
developer model so proposed.


In other words, those of us in the translation business did not need
variables, and we could ignore those models that used them.  Now we're
stuck.

Topic: ReduceAction


UML 1.5 had ReduceAction, which repeatedly applied a function pairwise
to elements of a collection until only only element is left.  It did not
constrain order or concurrency of application.  It was replaced with
ExpansionRegion UML 2, which requires commitment to order and
concurrency.

Resolution: Corrections to issue description:
Revised Text: UML 2 Revision Task Force Disposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: 7977 Document ptc/06-01-01 Page 64 ƒ The filer is explaining how to achieve the effect of UML 1.5 ReduceAction with UML 2 ExpansionRegion. It does not actually work, because each input collection must provide at least two values for each cycle on the contents of the region, whereas ExpansionRegion currently only provides one value per input per cycle. ƒ The last paragraph of the discussion is incorrect. The concurrent mode of ExpansionRegion only allows concurrency, it does not require concurrency. In addition, the outputs of ExpansionRegion are collections, whereas the output of ReduceAction is a single element, calculated from the elements of the input collections. Even if a regular output pin is used instead of an ExpansionNode, the output of the contents of the region (the reducing action) must be returned to the input collection for further processing by the action. ReduceAction was inadvertently omitted from the U2P submission. For backwards compatibility with UML 1.5 it is added below, based on the UML 1.5 ReduceAction. Revised Text: In Actions: At end of Abstract syntax section, after Figure 156, add new figure as follows (adds ReduceAction to CompleteActions): Action (fromBasicActions) Behavior (from BasicBehaviors) InputPin (fromBasicActions) ReduceAction isOrdered : Boolean = false 1 +reducer 1 1 +collection 1 OutputPin (fromBasicActions) 1 +result {subsets input} {subsets output} 1 Action (fromBasicActions) Behavior (from BasicBehaviors) InputPin (fromBasicActions) ReduceAction isOrdered : Boolean = false 1 +reducer 1 1 +collection 1 OutputPin (fromBasicActions) 1 +result {subsets input} {subsets output} 1 UML 2 Revision Task Force Disposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: 7977 Document ptc/06-01-01 Page 65 In Class Descriptions, add entry for ReduceAction, as follows: ReduceAction (from CompleteActions) (CompleteActions) ReduceAction is an action that reduces a collection to a single value by combining the elements of the collection. Generalizations Action (from BasicActions) Description This action takes a collection as input and produces an output by applying a behavior with two inputs pairwise to the elements of the collection. Attributes ƒ isOrdered : Boolean = false Tells whether the order of the input collection should determine the order in which the behavior is applied to its elements. Associations ƒ collection : InputPin [1] The collection to be reduced (subsets Action::input) ƒ reducer : Behavior [1] Behavior that is applied to two elements of the input collection to produce a value that is the same type as elements of the collection. ƒ result : OutputPin [1] Gives the output pin on which the result is put (subsets Action::output). Constraints [1] The type of the input must be a collection. [2] The type of the output must be compatible with the type of the output of the reducer behavior. [3] The reducer behavior must have two input parameters and one output parameter, of types compatible with the types of elements of the input collection. Semantics The behavior is invoked repeatedly on pairs of elements in the input collection. Each time it is invoked, it produces one output that is put back in an intermediate version of the collection. This repeats until the collection is reduced to a single value, which is the output of the action. If isOrdered is false, the order in which the behavior is applied to pairs of values is indeterminate. This will not affect the result of the action if the behavior is commutative and associative, see below. If separate invocations of the behavior affect each other, for example, through side-effects, the result of the actions may be unpredictable, however. If the reducing behavior is not commutative and associative, as with matrix multiplication, the order of the elements in the collection will affect the result of the behavior and the action. In this case, isOrdered should be set to true, so the behavior will be applied to adjacent pairs according to the collection order. The result of each invocation of the behavior replaces the two values taken as input in the same position in the order as the two values. If isOrdered = false, the reducer behavior should be commutative and associative so it will produce the same reduced value regardless of which two elements are paired at each invocation. For example, addition is commutative because because a + b = b + a. It is also associative because ((a + b) + c) = (a + (b + c)). Commutativity and associativity are not required, but the result will be indeterminate if isOrdered = false. Notation None. Examples ReduceAction can be used to reduce a list of numbers to the sum of the numbers. It would have one input pin for a collection of numbers, one result pin for a number, and an addition function as the reducer behavior. For example, suppose the input collection has four integers: (2, 7, 5, -3). The result of applying the reduce action to this collection with an addition function is 11. This can be computed in a number of ways, for example, ( ( (2+7) + 5) + -3), (2 + (7 + (5 + -3))), ((2 + 7) + (5 + -3)). Rationale The purpose of ReduceAction is to specify the transformation of a collection to a single value by pairwise application of a behavior, without necessarily committing to the order in which the pairs are chosen. Changes from UML 1.5 ReduceAction replaces ReduceAction in UML 1.5. It has the same functionality, except it takes one collection instead of multiple as input, and produces one result instead of multiple. The effect of multiple input collections can be achieved in UML 2 with an input that is a collection of collections, where the nested collections are created by taking one element from each of the multiple collection inputs to the UML 1.5 ReduceAction.
Actions taken:
December 14, 2004: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 7986: Section: 14.3.7 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: SINTEF (Richard Sanders, )
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
... of an object. (missing period) ... destruction of the instance -> of the object ... that this instanceowns -> instance owns


Resolution: see above
Revised Text: Before (in section 14.3.7 page 519): A DestructionEvent models the destruction of an object New text: A DestructionEvent models the destruction of an object. Editor’s note: The above was already fixed in the copy edit of the formal spec Before: A destruction event represents the destruction of the instance described by the lifeline containing the OccurrenceSpecification that references the destruction event. It may result in the subsequent destruction of other instances that this instanceowns by composition (see “Common Behaviors” on page 453). New text: A destruction event represents the destruction of the instance described by the lifeline containing the OccurrenceSpecification that references the destruction event. It may result in the subsequent destruction of other objects that this object owns by composition (see “Common Behaviors” on page 453).
Actions taken:
December 18, 2004: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
The issue is in principle trivial as the suggestions are meant to be editorial. However,
implicitly the question of using “instance” or “object” sneaks in here. Neither in the
Interactions chapter nor in other chapters is the distinction well established. I have
decided here to propose an editorial change that use “object” whenever we are talking
about an instance of a class, and that is what we are doing here.


Issue 7987: Section: 14.3.13 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: SINTEF (Richard Sanders, )
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
... needs not be the whole -> need not be

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 18, 2004: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
The suggested editorial change is incorrect English.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 7988: Section: 14.3.14 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: SINTEF (Richard Sanders, )
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
... <interactionconstraint> -> <InteractionConstraint> ... in Figure 335 -> Figure 335 or 352


Resolution:
Revised Text: Before in section 14.3.14 page 529: Please refer to an example of InteractionConstraints in Figure 335. New text [the editor needs to use cross-references]: Please refer to examples of InteractionConstraints in Figure 335 and Figure 352.
Actions taken:
December 18, 2004: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 7989: Section: 14.3.16 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: SINTEF (Richard Sanders, )
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
... and InteractionOperand represent -> represents


Resolution:
Revised Text: Before in Section 14.3.16 page 530: An InteractionOperand represent one operand of the expression given by the enclosing CombinedFragment. New text: An InteractionOperand represents one operand of the expression given by the enclosing CombinedFragment.
Actions taken:
December 18, 2004: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 7990: Section: Table 14 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: SINTEF (Richard Sanders, )
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Bottom of page: Node type "Stop" should be "Destruction event"


Resolution:
Revised Text: Before: [in column Node Type of the table 14] Stop New Text: DestructionEvent
Actions taken:
December 18, 2004: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 7993: Use case extension inconsistencies (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Adaptive (Mr. Pete Rivett, pete.rivett(at)adaptive.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
According to Figure 401, an Extend object references at least one ExtensionPoint which itself must be owned by exactly one UseCase.
Therefore it seems that the Extend.extendedCase property is redundant and should be derived.
 
Also the section for ExtensionPoint does not include the useCase property shown in Figure 401, which itself does not show the {subset}.
 
 
Proposed resolution
-----------------------------
 
1) Update Figure 401 to replace +extendedCase by +/extendedCase
 
2) Update Figure 401 to replace +useCase by +useCase {subsets owner}.
 
3) Section 16.3.3 Extend: update the Associations section to replace:
extendedCase : UseCase [1] References the use case that is being extended. (Specializes DirectedRelationship.target.)

by

/extendedCase : UseCase [1] References the use case that is being extended: this is derived as the Use case that owns the ExtensionPoint(s). (Specializes DirectedRelationship.target.) in OCL: extendedCase = self.extensionLocation->useCase

4) Section 16.3.4 ExtensionPoint update the Associations section to replace:
No additional associations
 
by
 
useCase: UseCase [1] References the use case that owns the ExtensionPoint. (subsets owner.)
 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 20, 2004: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:
Previous Discussion
Disposition: Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF
Discussion
It’s true that there is a redundancy between ExtensionPoint::useCase and Extend::extendedCase. This is currently
specified by the constraint Extend::extension_points. Making extendedCase derived would change serialization and
seems unnecessary. Other aspects of the issue are obsolete.
Disposition: Closed - No Change


Issue 7994: Presentation Options (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Presentation Options: Add after first sentence: "State symbols may optionally be used to describe a Constraint" "The regions represent the orthogonal regions of states" - delete this. The identifier need -> The name of the state need

Resolution: The text referred in this issue does no longer exist. Disposition: ClosedNoChange
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 18, 2004: received issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 7995: StateInvariants/Continuations (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
StateInvariants/Continuations: add to figure a Continuation (e.g. Idle) that spans :Y and an additional lifeline :X

Resolution:
Revised Text: Before (Table 14, page 553): Row on StateInvariant/Continuations New Text:
Actions taken:
December 18, 2004: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 7996: Add concept "StateInvariant" (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Add concept "StateInvariant" in figure, with arrows to "mystate" and "{Y.p == 15}"

Resolution:
Revised Text: Before (Figure 348 page 558): [a figure without any explanatory additions inside the illustrations] New Text: StateInvariant Disposition: Resolved
Actions taken:
December 18, 2004: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 7997: Too much navigability from Generalizations (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Capability Measurement (Mr. Karl Frank, karl.karolus(at)gmail.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
This is a significant issue with the Superstructure, Classes chapter, PowerTypes package, impacting implementability and consistency between products at different levels of conformance to UML 2.
 
I propose to simplify the abstract syntax to specify a one way arrow navigating a one-many metassociation from GeneralizationSet to Generalizations that belong to that set.  The problem here is very much the same as the problem with dependency, but in a different part of the metamodel.
 
Figure 18, The contents of PowerTypes package shows a many-many navigable association between GeneralizationSet.generalization and Generalization.generalizationSet.  
 
Problems with this:
 
1.  only 1-way navigation is desired. As toolvendor I don't want to update the Generalization to have any info wrt what if any GeneralizationSets it belongs to.  As a user, I do not want the generalization relationship itself, which is very simple in a UML Level 1 product, to be muddied with extra info in a UML product that goes beyond Level 1 by adding support for PowerSets.

2.  only 1-many cardinality is desired. Although not navigable,  a mapping from generalization to the generalization set is still provided in the metamodel, in a conceptual sense. 
 
Point 2 is consistent with thinking of the specialization classifier in the generalization as being an instance of more than one powertype, because this classifier is just a participant in the generalization, it is the generalization that we want to have a mapping to at most one powertype.  The scope of the required change is limited to the text and diagram specifying this metasssociation of GeneralizationSet.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 22, 2004: received issue

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 8012: Section: Classes, Behavior (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
There doe snot appear to be a way to model parameters to operations that are multi-dimensional arrays. In general, such arrays can be modeled based on qualifiers. However, this assumes that there is an association between two Classifiers. This doesn't apply to parameters. Note that Parameters are MultiplicityElements, but that only allows the modeling of single dimensions.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 29, 2004: received issue

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 8014: Disjointness should be independent of generalization (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Evan K. Wallace, evan.wallace(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Disjointness should be independent of generalization. Two classes can be disjoint, but have no common supertype. This facilitates the mapping to OWL

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 30, 2004: received issue

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 8015: Transitivity in composition (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Evan K. Wallace, evan.wallace(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Transitivity in composition: The semantics of Association say composite associations are transitive. Transitivity violates the single-owner rule for composition mentioned in the same paragraph. It also requires that the association have the same class on both ends. 

Resolution:
Revised Text: In the Superstructure document in section 7.3.3 on page 38 replace the sentence: Compositions define transitive asymmetric relationships—their links form a directed, acyclic graph. by the sentence: Compositions may be linked in a directed acyclic graph with transitive deletion characteristics; that is, deleting an element in one part of the graph will also result in the deletion of all elements of the subgraph below that element. In the Infrastructure document in section 11.3.1 on page 115 replace the sentence: Compositions define transitive asymmetric relationships—their links form a directed, acyclic graph. by the sentence: Compositions may be linked in a directed acyclic graph with transitive deletion characteristics; that is, deleting an element in one part of the graph will also result in the deletion of all elements of the subgraph below that element.
Actions taken:
December 30, 2004: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8016: Action for retrieving activity instance (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: International Business Machines (Mr. Jim Amsden, jamsden(at)us.ibm.com)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Action for retrieving activity instance: There should be an action for getting the instance of the activity class currently executing, for reflective applications. 

Resolution: ReadSelfAction does this for behaviors that have no context object. The next RTF can either modify ReadSelfAction or add a new action to handle the case of a behavior with a context object. This is needed for reflective applications cited in the specification, see the semantics of Activity. Disposition: Deferred
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 30, 2004: 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.


Issue 8017: Pin/parameter matching constraints (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: International Business Machines (Mr. Jim Amsden, jamsden(at)us.ibm.com)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Pin/parameter matching constraints: The wording for CallAction, constraints 2 and 3 should be consistent with the wording of constraint 3 for CallBehaviorAction and CallOperationAction

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 30, 2004: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
Resolved by Issue 7319.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 8018: Section: CB/ACT (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: MEGA International (Mr. Antoine Lonjon, antoine.lonjon(at)mega.com)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Matching by order difficult to implement Matching by order of the parameters of methods and operations and pins and parameters is difficult to implement in relation database implementations. 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 30, 2004: received issue
October 24, 2006: closed 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.


Issue 8019: Section: Classes (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Dependency should specialize source/target On Dependency, client and supplier should specialize source and target from DirectedRelationship. Source/target are derived unions, so can't be used otherwise

Resolution:
Revised Text: see ptc/2006-04-01
Actions taken:
December 30, 2004: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8020: constrainedElement direction (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:
constrainedElement direction The association between Constraint and Element named "constrainedElement" is unidirectional from Constraint to Element. This means implementations are not required to provide efficient navigation from an element to the constraints on it. Since the constraints of a model element are part of the definition of that element, the required navigation should at least be from the element to the constraint. 

Resolution: Discussion A Constraint can constrain multiple constrainedElements and, thus, is not necessarily owned by any one of them. In this sense, the Constraint is not, in general, part of the formal “definition” of the constrainedElements. Rather, if the Constraint has a context (which may or may not be a constrainedElement), then it is more proper to think of the constraint as part of the definition of that context, and the context association end is navigable. Further, one wants to be able to add constraints to elements of the model without having tomodify an owned property of the elements being constrained, but making the association from Element to Constraint would imply (by the usual UML abstract syntax metamodel conventions) that the “constraint” association end would become owned by Element. Disposition: Closed - No Change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 30, 2004: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 8021: Section: Classes (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Specializing one association end Suppose we have a class diagram like this: <pre>
      aend                  bend
   A ----------------------------- B
   ^                               ^
   |                               |
   |                               |
   |                               |
   |                               |
   |                      subbend  |
   |               {subsets bend}  |
  SubA -------------------------- SubB


</pre>
 What metarelation is used between the lower left end and the upper left end (aend)? It is not redefined or subsetted. 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 30, 2004: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
There are four properties in this model (assuming the properties are owned by the class):
A::bend, B::aend, SubA::subbend, and an unnamed property ::SubB (or SubB::subA by
default). The subsets constraint only indicates all the elements in SubA::subbend must be
contained in A::bend. There are no constraints or any other connection between
properties B::aend and SubB::subA.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 8022: Derived union notation (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Derived union notation Why is the semantics and notation for subsetting/redefinition in Association, while derived union is in Property? 

Resolution: Discussion This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification. Disposition: Closed - No Change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 30, 2004: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 8023: Association specialization semantics (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Association specialization semantics The semantics of Association addresses specialization. Some of this paragraph is applicable to Generalization and should be moved there. The discussion specific to association could be clearer, for example, what does "correlates positively" mean? 

Resolution: Discussion This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification. Disposition: Closed - No Change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 30, 2004: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 8024: End objects of a link In the semantics of AssociationClass (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
End objects of a link In the semantics of AssociationClass, it says: It should be noted that in an instance of an association class, there is only one instance of the associated classifiers at each end , i.e. from the instance point of view, the multiplicity of the associations ends are "1". Two comments: - This is applicable to Association generally. - The portion after "i.e" is misleding. Instances have no multiplicity. 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 30, 2004: received issue

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 8025: Associations between interfaces (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Associations between interfaces The wording of the caption in Figure 56 implies that association between interfaces have implication on required and provided interfaces. My udisjoinnderstanding from mailing list discussion is that this is only an example, not a semantics. Should be clarified in the caption that this is an example of applying associations to interfaces. 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 30, 2004: received issue
October 24, 2006: closed 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.


Issue 8026: Contextualized attribute values Figures 121 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Critical
Summary:
Contextualized attribute values Figures 121 is an unworkable solution to defining contextualized attribute values. It requires restating all the parts and connectors in the composite class, otherwise the constructor would be incomplete. The class-based solution requires separate properties for each contextualized value with connectors to them from the contextualized property. The metamodel should be extended to include contextualized datatype properties, or at least a presentation option for the current cumbersome model (see Figure 12 and discussion in http://www.jot.fm/issues/issue_2004_11/column5 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 30, 2004: received issue

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 8027: Connector multiplicity notation (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Connector multiplicity notation The notation section of ConnectorEnd says multiplicities shown on connector lines represent the multiplicities of both the association *and* the connector: These adornments specify properties of the association typing the connector. The multiplicity indicates the number of instances that may be connected to each instance of the role on the other end. But these multiplicity can be different, and have separate elements in the metamodel. 

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: In 9.3.7., sub-section “Constraints” add [4] The multiplicity of the connector end may not be more general than the multiplicity of the association typing the owning connector. In 9.3.7., sub-section “Notation”, replace “These adornments specify properties of the association typing the connector.” by “In cases where there is no explicit association in the model typing the connector, these adornments specify the multiplicities of an implicit association. Otherwise, they show properties of that association, or specializations of these on the connector.”
Actions taken:
December 30, 2004: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
The adornments on connector ends either specify properties of the association that types
the owning connector (when that association is inferred) or it reflects properties of that
association, otherwise. The multiplicity may be more specific than the multiplicity of the
association typing the connector.


Issue 8028: create dependency Figures 103 and 121 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary:
create dependency Figures 103 and 121 use create dependencies, which do not apply to the example. Standard stereotypes defines create for BehavioralFeature as: "Specifies that the designated feature creates an instance of the classifier to which the feature is attached. May be promoted to the Classifier containing the feature." 

Resolution:
Revised Text: In Figure 103, invert the arrow and delete the stereotype «create». Insert the stereotype «create» before the operation name “make”. Change the paragraph preceding figure 103 as follows: A usage dependency may relate an instance value to a constructor for a class, describing the single value returned by the constructor operation. The operation is the client, the created instance the supplier. The instance value may reference parameters declared by the operation. A constructor is an operation having a single return result parameter of the type of the owning class. The instance value that is the supplier of the usage dependency represents the default value of the single return result parameter of a constructor operation. (The constructor operation is typically denoted by the stereotype «create», as shown in Figure 103). In Figure 121, invert the arrow and delete the stereotype «create». Insert the stereotype «create» before the operation name “make”.
Actions taken:
December 30, 2004: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8029: underlined association name (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary:
underlined association name Figures 120 and 121 underline the association names, which doesn't seem consistent with the notation for instances in Figure 21. 

Resolution: The notation for instance specification seems clear that if an association name is shown on an instance specification, that this name would be underlined, see p.84: “It is not necessary to show an underlined name where it is clear from its connection to instance specifications that it represents a link and not an association.” (The diagram example in that section does not show the name.) Therefore, the above two figures are consistent with the notation defined for instance specifications. One could eliminate the association name, if so desired. Revised Text: Disposition: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 30, 2004: received issue
October 27, 2008: closed issue

Issue 8030: Interactions chapter refers to ActivityInvocations (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Interactions chapter refers to ActivityInvocations The Interactions chapter still refers to ActivityInvocations, which was only in an intermediate draft of the original submission. I think it should be CallBehaviorAction or CallOperationAction, not sure. 

Resolution: The term ActivityInvocations only appears once, on page 563 of ptc/04-10-02.
Revised Text: In place of ObjectNodes of Activity Diagrams, Interaction Overview Diagrams can only have either (inline) Interactions or InteractionUses. Inline Interaction diagrams and InteractionUses are considered special forms of ActivityInvocations CallBehaviorAction.
Actions taken:
December 30, 2004: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8031: Destruction semantics in StructuredClassifier (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Destruction semantics in StructuredClassifier The destruction semantics in StructuredClassifier should include destruction of links created due to connectors between noncomposite properties

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: In section 9.3.6. "Connector", subsection "Semantics", replace the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph by: "All such links corresponding to connectors are destroyed, when the containing classifier instance is destroyed."
Actions taken:
December 30, 2004: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
After further discussions with Conrad, proposing enhancements to the text on p.171 along
the lines suggested by Conrad:
In section 9.3.6. "Connector", subsection "Semantics", replace the last sentence of the
2nd paragraph by:
"All such links corresponding to connectors are destroyed, when the containing classifier
instance is destroyed."
This reflects Conrad's phrasing "all links that exist only because of connectors between
roles of the structured classifier". However, I use "corresponding to connectors" to match
the sentence before, where we talk about the creation of links corresponding to
connectors. The connectors being destroyed are precisely those connectors that we speak
about in the previous sentence. I think this is clearer.


Issue 8032: Link maintenance in StructuredClassifier (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Link maintenance in StructuredClassifier The semantics of StructuredClassifier should indicate that links are created/destroyed according to connectors when objects are added/removed from the connected properties. Extend Create/Destroy/ClearLinkAction and Add/Remove/ClearStructuralFeature with boolean properties that "turn on" this semantics. 

Resolution: see ptc/2006-04-01 p 94
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 30, 2004: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8033: Figure 119 missing multiplicity (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Figure 119 missing multiplicity. Figure 119 (Connectors and parts in a structure diagram) is missing a multiplicity on the right side of the connetor

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: To make this clearer, insert the following parenthetical remark after “and two instances of the right wheel”: (as no multiplicity is specified for the connector end at the right wheel, the multiplicity is taken from the attached role)
Actions taken:
December 30, 2004: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
The multiplicity on the right end of the connector has been purposefully elided, as
defined in section 9.3.7


Issue 8034: Notation for classifierBehavior (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Need a notation for instances of the classifierBehavior metaassociation (Figure 311).

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 30, 2004: received issue

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 8035: Notation for method (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Need a notation for instances of the specification/method metaassociation (Figure 311).

Resolution: See issue 6150 for disposition
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 30, 2004: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8036: Preserve order in result of read actions (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The semantics of the various read actions (ReadStructuralFeatureAction, etc) should specify that the order of the retrieved collections is preserved in the values of the output pin.

Resolution:
Revised Text: Add the following sentence in the semantics section of ReadStructuralFeatureAction after the third sentence: “The order of the retrieved values in the output pin is the same as the ordering of the values of the structural feature.” Add the following sentence in the semantics section of ReadVariableAction after the second sentence: “The order of the retrieved values in the output pin is the same as the ordering of the values of the variable.”
Actions taken:
December 30, 2004: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8037: Optional inputs (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:
When does an action start when all its inputs are optional?

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 30, 2004: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
By optional inputs, the filer presumably meant that the lower multiplicity of the input
pins are all zero, perhaps due to being on a CallAction for a behavior or operation with
parameters that all have zero lower multiplicity. The Actions chapter only requires that
values are available on the input pins up to the lower multiplicity, which intentionally
leaves the case of all optional inputs open to the specialized behaviors that use actions
(see InputPin in Actions). If the action is in an activity, the action can be started with a
control flow (see ControlFlow). If it has no incoming control flow, and is not an
exception handler body of action for an ActionPin, the action can start when the
containing activity or structured node does (see InitialNode and StructuredActivityNode).
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 8038: IsReadOnly constriant (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:
done) IsReadOnly constriant Constraint on StructuralFeature::isReadOnly: if true and there is no intialization value, then the lower multiplicity must be zero.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 30, 2004: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
This is overconstrained, because the default value could be set dynamically before
initialization, rather than a default value. As long as this happens before initialization is
over, there is no violation of multiplicity. In any case, UML doesn't enforce when
constraints are evaluated or inconsistencies repaired.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 8039: DestroyObjectAction semantics (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Clarify the "owns" language in DestroyObjectAction to mean the objects related by composite associations

Resolution:
Revised Text: In Actions, DestroyObjectAction, Semantics, first paragraph, last sentence: after "objects owned by the object" insert "through composite aggregation ".
Actions taken:
December 30, 2004: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8040: ObjectNode, constraint 1 In ObjectNode (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
ObjectNode, constraint 1 In ObjectNode, Constraints (Complete Activities), the first constraint regarding upperbound should be removed. The size of the object node buffers can be any size. 

Resolution:
Revised Text: In Activities, remove constraint 1 in ObjectNode, Constraints (Complete Activities)
Actions taken:
December 30, 2004: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8041: StructuredActivityNode specialized multiplicity (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: NIST (Mr. Conrad Bock, conrad.bock(at)nist.gov)
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The semantics of StructuredActivityNode still says "This constraint is modeled as a specialized multiplicity from ActivityNode and ActivityEdge to StructuredActivityNode". The FTF changed the metamodel for this to not use specialized multiplicity.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 30, 2004: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
The FTF issue was 6677 and was about interruptible regions, not structured activities.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 8042: Terminology Issue (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Industrial Internet Consortium (Mr. Stephen J. Mellor, mellor(at)iiconsortium.org)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
When we build a state machine (nee State chart diagram) to define the behavior of a Dog, say, each dog instance has its own state.
 
In other words, each copy of the state machine diagram has it's own state.  What is the official term for each-copy-of-the-state-machine, the entity that has state. We need to be able to say "The <state machine thing> for Fido is in the state 'Barking'" and "The <state machine thing> for Rover is in the state Sleeping".

Resolution: Resolution: The submitter does not raise an issue against the specification, but asks a question for clarification. Such terminology might be useful in explaining the semantics, but is not required for the specification. Disposition: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
December 30, 2004: received issue
October 27, 2008: closed issue

Issue 8062: section 9.20.2 VisibilityKind lists two types of visibility (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Enhancement
Severity: Minor
Summary:
In section 9.20.2 VisibilityKind lists two types of visibility--Public and Private. Yet the glossary (page 19) and Figure 80 on page 119 (and many other figures) list three--Public, Private, and Protected. Version 1.5 also defined a fourth type of visibility--Package. Please clarify and or enhance the definition of VisibilityKind in 9.20.2 to explain the differences between the glossary and the Figure.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 4, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
The glossary has been removed in the final version of the spec. This issue is no longer
applicable.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 8063: Text references Figure 8 and the correct figure number is 6 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Text references Figure 8 and the correct figure number is 6

Resolution: This is indeed an incorrect figure reference.
Revised Text: In the second paragraph of section 7.2.9 on page 29 of ptc/04-11-16 change the text fragment: Figure 8 to Figure 6 Editor’s note: This was fixed in the copy edit pass; no change required
Actions taken:
January 4, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8064: unclear statement (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The last part of the following statement makes no sense to me: "Understandability. While increasing the precision and conciseness, the specification techniques should also improve the readability of the specification. For this reason a less than strict formalism is applied, since a strict formalism formal technigues" It appears that part of the sentence got left out as there is no period

Resolution: There is a word missing in this text.
Revised Text: In the introduction to section 8 on page 32 of ptc/04-11-16, in the bullet point for “Understandability” replace the text: For this reason a less than strict formalism is applied, since a strict formalism formal techniques with the following text: For this reason a less than strict formalism is applied, since a strict formalism implies formal techniques. Editor’s note: This was fixed in the copy edit pass; no change required
Actions taken:
January 4, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8065: extra word in the last sentence of the paragraph under Attributes (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
 believe that there is an extra word in the last sentence of the paragraph under Attributes. "If the mulitplicity of the attribute is supressed if it is '1' (default in UML)." I believe the sentence should read "The multipliticy of the attribute is supressed if is is '1' (default in UML)."

Resolution:
Revised Text: In the first paragraph of the Attributes subsection of section 8.2.1 of ptc/04-11-16, replace the sentence: If the multiplicity of the attribute is suppressed if it is ‘1’ (default in UML). with the sentence: If the multiplicity of the attribute is suppressed, it defaults to ‘1’.
Actions taken:
January 4, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8066: clarify what a directed association is (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
 am not an expert on UML and am reading this to learn about it. Could you please clarify what a directed association is. A search of the document does not yield any other reference to this term.

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: Add the following text to the end of the paragraph above (pg. 39 in the Superstructure spec [pg. 116 in the Infrastructure spec]): This notation is for documentation purposes only and has no general semantic interpretation. It is used to capture some application-specific detail of the relationship between the associated classifiers.
Actions taken:
January 4, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
There are no explicit references to the term “directed association” in the entire text of the
spec. Consequently, it is not clear from the issue text if this is a reference to (a) an
association with navigability adornments or (b) to the fact that an association name may
include an arrow indicating the order in which a binary association is to be traversed
when reading the diagram. Since the concept of navigability is discussed at length in the
spec, I will presume that the confusion is with the latter. With respect to that, the spec
states the following:
On a binary association drawn as a solid line, a solid triangular arrowhead next to or in
place of the name of the association and pointing along the line in the direction of one
end indicates that end to be the last in the order of the ends of the association. The arrow
indicates that the association is to be read as associating the end away from the direction
of the arrow with the end to which the arrow is pointing (see Figure 19).


Issue 8067: Section is badly worded and does not make a lot of sense (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Section is badly worded and does not make a lot of sense. I interpreted it as "Often an informal convention is used to show (a part of) a construct, e.g., the name of a class should be centered and in bold."

Resolution:
Revised Text: Replace the first sentence of section 8.2.9: Often is an informal convention how to show (a part of) a construct, like the name of a class should be centered and in bold. With the sentence: Often non-normative conventions are used in representing some part of a model. For example, one such convention is to always have the name of a class in bold and centered within the class rectangle.
Actions taken:
January 4, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8068: typing error in the statement :unrestricted ? (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
 believe there is a typing error in the statement :unrestricted: Indicated that there is no restriction no [should be to?] adding new values, changing a value, or removing values to an occurrence of a StructuralFeature

Resolution:
Revised Text: In section 9.2.1 in the text accompanying the “unrestricted?” entry on page 44 of ptc/04-11- 16, replace the phrase: Indicates that there is no restriction no adding new values, with the phrase: Indicates that there is no restriction on adding new values, Editor’s note: Not done, superseded by the resolution to issue 6216.
Actions taken:
January 4, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8069: What happened to real numbers (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The elements for numbers you define in the Literals package are LiteralInteger and LiteralUnlimitedNatural. What happened to real numbers? Natural numbers do no include decimals.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 4, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
The Literals package is necessary to use the built-in primitive types Integer, String,
UnlimitedNatural, and Boolean. The Literal classes map values in value specifications to
the appropriate primitive type.
All other number types that are not built-in can be defined by introducing a new primitive
type, e.g. primitive type Real. These user-defined types are integrated into value
specifications via the instance value class.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 8070: methods not defined under attributes (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
In all previous sections when a diagram shows a named association, the text defines these under the heading Associations. All of a sudden you've changed methods and are not defining these under attributes. A clarification as to why this is done would help those of us who are not UML experts.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 4, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
The submitter is confused by the difference between the Associations and Attributes
subsections of metaclass descriptions. Note that this issue was raised in the context of the
older version of the spec (ptc/03-09-15). The required explanation was added in the later
version of the spec (ptc/04-11-16) in section 6.3.1.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 8071: ClassifierInState not supported in UML2.0 ? (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: GOO Tech (Mr. Birol Berkem, birol.berkem(at)goobiz.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
In the UML 1.x, we have the notion of ClassifierInState. We used them for representing associations and methods of classes that are valid when instances of these classes are in the corresponding states.
 
Could you let me know how to do that using UML 2 ? If class-in-states are not supported in UML 2.0, I am afraid, we cannot represent these valuable information particularly for reifying business processes. For example Order[Delivery] , Order[Billing], etc.. with their operations and session attributes !

Resolution: This is really a question of clarification of a misunderstanding of the submitter. The equivalent of ClassifierInState for activity modeling is supported in UML 2 by the ObjectNode inState association. UML 1 also allowed ClassifierInState to be used in instance and collaboration modeling. While there is no direct equivalent for this in UML 2, the same effect can be achieved by using an OCL constraint on an instance.
Revised Text: In Subclause 12.3.38, under "Changes from Previous UML" add the following sentence at the end of the paragraph: Use of the inState association replaces ClassifierInState in UML 1.5 for activity modeling.
Actions taken:
January 4, 2005: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:
Discussion
This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
Disposition: Closed - No Change


Issue 8072: Figure 68 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Figure 68 does not show the {composite} notation for the attribute ownedType: Type

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: In section 10.4.1 on page 105 in the descriptions for the items “nestedPackage” and “ownedType” delete the phrase “{composite}” (2 occurrences) from the text.
Actions taken:
January 4, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
The {composite} notation was removed in the finalization task force and any references
to it should also be removed.


Issue 8073: Section: 11.3.1 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The last phrase in the sixth paragraph from the top which starts with "For n-ary associations..." is an incomplete prepositional phrase and the meaning is unclear

Resolution:
Revised Text: On page 115 of ptc/04-11-16 replace the phrase: If the lower multiplicity for an end of an n-ary association of 1 (or more) implies that one link… with the phrase: A lower multiplicity of 1 (or more) for an end of an n-ary association implies that one link… Editor’s note: This was fixed in the copy edit pass; no change required
Actions taken:
January 4, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 8074: Section: 11.3.3 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The description refers to the Classifiers Diagram but no figure number (Figure 84) or page number (page 127) is given. It would greatly facilitate the reading if the user did not have to search for this. In section 6.3 on How to Read this Specification, it is stated that extensive cross-references are given. This specification would be better if more cross-references were given, especially when a figure or section that is found elsewhere in the document is referenced. I sent in a request to clarify Chapter/Section 10.2. I have since found that an excellent clarification exists in Chapter 11.3. If this had be referenced in Chapter 10.2 it would have saved this reader several hours of confusion and frustration

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 5, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
Note that this issue was raised in the context of the older version of the spec (ptc/03-09-
15). The required explanation was added in the later version of the spec (ptc/04-11-16) in
section 6.3.1.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 8075: search for referenced item -- Section: 11.3.4 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
A reference is made to the Operations Diagram in the Description section but no figure number (93) or page number (146) is given. It would save time and greatly decrease the frustration factor for this reader if I didn't have to search for the referenced item.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 5, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
There are numerous examples of this in the spec, far too numerous to detect and fix at
this point. Fortunately, for those looking at the spec in electronic form, there are
hyperlinks that direct readers to the appropriate references item. Given the size of this
spec (over 800 pages), this is definitely the preferred format for accessing this document
(furthermore, it is more environmentally friendly as well ;-) )
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 8076: Section: 11.5 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The phrase that starts "These constructs that are used..." is not a complete sentence and confusing. I believe that the word "that" needs to be deleted

Resolution:
Revised Text: Change the phrase in the second sentence of section 11.6 on page 139 from: These constructs that are used for… to: These constructs are used for… Editor’s note: This was fixed in the copy edit pass; no change required
Actions taken:
January 5, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8077: Properties on Association for end objects (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Deere & Company (Mr. Roger Burkhart, burkhartrogerm(at)johndeere.com)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:
The memberEnd/ownedEnd/NavigableOwnedEnd properties of Association represent the navigations from one end object to other end objects along the association. There are no properties available for navigating from an instance of an association (link) to the end objects. This has a number of negative effects: - The model cannot represent structured associations properly, because association classes that are also structured classifiers cannot have connectors to end objects, because the end objects cannot be reached with StructuredClassifier.role (see constraint 3 on Connector). - An InstanceSpecification for link can use memberEnd properties of association as properties of the link, even though these properties are ownedAttribute of the end classes, rather than the association. This is due to the loose definition of Classifier.allFeatures. - A special action is needed to retrieve (the end objects of links (ReadLinkObjectEndAction), rather than (using the action for attribute values ReadStructuralFeatureAction. The metamodel should have an association for properties that have the end objects of link objects as values.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 5, 2005: received issue

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 8078: Actor is a specialized Classifier and not BehavioredClassifier (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG (Dr. Tim Weilkiens, tim.weilkiens(at)oose.de)
Nature: Enhancement
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Actor is a specialized Classifier and not BehavioredClassifier. Therefore an actor is not allowed to realize an interface. I propose to inherit Actor from BehavioredClassifier. It is useful to model actors with interfaces. The actor/subject communication requires the definition of signals/messages that can be sent from the subject to an actor.

Resolution: see ptc/2006-04-01 p 108/109
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 6, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8079: Section: 11.6.1 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The each sentence in the third paragraph under semantics appears to have an incorrect "and" in them. I believe the and should be replaced by the word "or" in each sentence. The second paragraph seems to have a couple of misplaced hyphens.

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: Superstructure (ptc/04-10-02): On page 65, replace the paragraph: If more than one element with the same name would be imported to a namespace as a consequence of element imports or package imports, the names of the imported elements must be qualified in order to be used and the elements are not added to the importing namespace. If the name of an imported element is the same as the name of an element owned by the importing namespace, the name of the imported element must be qualified in order to be used and is not added to the importing namespace. with the paragraph: If more than one element with the same name would be imported to a namespace as a consequence of element imports or package imports, the elements are not added to the importing namespace and the names of those elements must be qualified in order to be used in that namespace. If the name of an imported element is the same as the name of an element owned by the importing namespace, that element is not added to the importing namespace and the name of that element must be qualified in order to be used. Infrastructure (ptc/04-11-16): On page 147, replace the paragraph: If more than one element with the same name would be imported to a namespace as a consequence of element imports or package imports, the names of the imported elements must be qualified in order to be used and the elements are not added to the importing namespace. If the name of an imported element is the same as the name of an element owned by the importing namespace, the name of the imported element must be qualified in order to be used and is not added to the importing namespace. with the paragraph: If more than one element with the same name would be imported to a namespace as a consequence of element imports or package imports, the elements are not added to the importing namespace and the names of those elements must be qualified in order to be used in that namespace. If the name of an imported element is the same as the name of an element owned by the importing namespace, that element is not added to the importing namespace and the name of that element must be qualified in order to be used.
Actions taken:
January 6, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
The hyphens problem was resolved by the resolution to issue 6164.
The submitter is making the wrong assumption about how element import works. The
statements are saying, in effect, that, in case of name clashes, the clashing name is NOT
imported (the submitter seems to be assuming that it is). However, the text should be
clarified to avoid confusion.


Issue 8080: Section: 11.8.3 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Figure 98 shows an merged package P::A in the source package S. I do not see how P::A got merged when Figure 97 shows no merge between target P and source S or between source R and source S. The text says that packages P and Q are being merged by package R while package S merges on package Q (with the open ended arrow indicating Q as the target but the keyword <<merge>> at the end nearest S. The statement above Figure 98 says the transformed packages R and Q are shown but the figure has the packages labeled R and S. There appears to be no merge connection between P and S but a subpackage from P appears in S. The text and figures are very confusing and need clarification

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 7, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
This whole area was redone in the finalization phase so that the issue above is no longer
applicable.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 8081: Section: 13.1.2 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Additional option [1] says that the query lowerBound () returns the lower bound of the multiplicity as an Integer. Why is the type Interger used instead of the type UnlimitedNatural? An integer can be a negative number but not so with naturals. My understanding is that multipliticity is not allowed to be less than 0.

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: Superstructure (ptc/04-10-02): On page 720 in the “lowerBound()” additional operation ([1]) of ExtensionEnd (section 18.3.3) replace the first line of the OCL: ExtensionEnd::lowerBound() : [Integer]; with the line: ExtensionEnd::lowerBound() : Integer; Infrastructure (ptc/04-11-16): On page 172 in the “lowerBound()” additional operation ([1]) of ExtensionEnd (section 13.1.3) replace the first line of the OCL: ExtensionEnd::lowerBound() : [Integer]; with the line: ExtensionEnd::lowerBound() : Integer;
Actions taken:
January 10, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
The submitter is losing sight of the fact that lowerBound is always constrained to be a
non-negative number by constraint [2] of MultiplicityElement (see page 77 in ptc/04-11-16).
However, there is an error here in the definition of this operation that has an extra set of
square brackets.
See also the resolution to issue 6502.


Issue 8082: Section: 13.1.5 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Figure 115 shows the <<enumeration>> Color, but shouldn't that be labeled as ColorKind as shown in Figure 88 and specified in Conventions and Typography in 8.5?

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 10, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
The example shows an example of a user model that does not have to conform to the
conventions used in the spec itself. Furthermore, there is no Style Guideline associated
with Enumeration that might suggest that the convention used in the spec should be
applied to user models as well. Hence, this is a perfectly valid example and nothing needs
to be changed.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 8083: Section: 7.3.3 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Second sentence in second paragraph under description is somewhat confusing. "The constraint does not necessilarily apply to the namespace itself, but may also apply to the elements in the namespace." The use of the word "also" bothers me. Do you mean "instead" rather than also. Wouldn't it make more sense, in the context of the first part of the sentence, that the constraint could instead apply to the elements in the namespace rather than the namespace. If you mean that a constraint could apply to both or the namespace or the element in the namespace then the statement needs to be reworded

Resolution: The text does need to be reworded to eliminate such confusion.
Revised Text: Superstructure (ptc/04-10-02): On page 102 (section 7.3.34) replace the sentence: The constraint does not necessarily apply to the namespace itself, but may also apply to elements in the namespace. with the sentence: A constraint associated with a namespace may either apply to the namespace itself, or it may apply to elements in the namespace. Infrastructure (ptc/04-11-16): On page 54 (section 9.5.2) replace the sentence: The constraint does not necessarily apply to the namespace itself, but may also apply to elements in the namespace. with the sentence: A constraint associated with a namespace may either apply to the namespace itself, or it may apply to elements in the namespace.
Actions taken:
January 12, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8084: Section: 7.3.6 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
There appears to be a conflict between the Superstructure VisibilityKind and the Infrastructure VisibilityKind (ptc/03-09-15, section 9.20.2, pg 93). Superstructure lists the four found in vers 1.5 of UML but Infrastructure lists only public and private. What is the correct enumeration for VisibilityKind? Has the Superstructure refined the Infrastructure? If so, a clarification that Superstructure VisibilityKind is refining that from Infrastructure would be helpful.

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: OMG Issue No: 8084 U.S. Geological Survey (Ms. Jane Messenger, jmessenger@usgs.gov) There appears to be a conflict between the Superstructure VisibilityKind and the Infrastructure VisibilityKind (ptc/03-09-15, section 9.20.2, pg 93). Superstructure lists the four found in vers 1.5 of UML but Infrastructure lists only public and private. What is the correct enumeration for VisibilityKind? Has the Superstructure refined the Infrastructure? If so, a clarification that Superstructure VisibilityKind is refining that This is a duplicate of issue 6515, which was resolved in the FTF (Ballot 19). However, it seems that the fix for this issue was applied to the superstructure but was accidentally omitted in the infrastructure. Therefore, the fixes should be applied to the Infrastructure. The following changes need to be applied to the Infrastucture spec: 1. Add “protected” and “package” as the third and fourth literal values, respectively, in Figure 63 on page 99. 2. Add “protected” and “package” as the third and fourth literal values, respectively, in the Description subsection of VisiblityKind, section 9.20.2, page 100. 3. Add a third and fourth bullet point to the Semantics subsection of VisibilityKind, section 9.20.2, page 100. • A protected element is visible to elements that have a generalization relationship to the namespace that owns it. • A package element is owned by a namespace that is not a package, and is visible to elements that are in the same package as its owning namespace. Only named elements that are not owned by packages can be marked as having package visibility. Any element marked as having package visibility is visible to all elements within the nearest enclosing package (given that other owning elements have proper visibility). Outside the nearest enclosing package, an element marked as having package visibility is not visible. 4. Add “protected” and “package” as the third and fourth literals, respectively, of the VisiblityKind enumeration in Figure 88, section 11.6.2, page 142. 5. Add a Notation subsection to VisibilityKind at the bottom of page 100 as follows: Notation The following visual presentation options are available for representing VisibilityKind enumeration literal values: “+” public “-“ private “#” protected “~” package
Actions taken:
January 12, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
This is a duplicate of issue 6515, which was resolved in the FTF (Ballot 19). However, it
seems that the fix for this issue was applied to the superstructure but was accidentally
omitted in the infrastructure. Therefore, the fixes should be applied to the Infrastructure.


Issue 8085: Section: 7.4.1 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Multiplicity is non-negative so shouldn't the lower bound be typed as an unlimited natural (a non-negative number) instead of an integer which can be negative? The upper bound is typed as an unlimited natural. This question also applies to Infrastructure (ptc/03-09-15, sections 9.11 and 9.12).

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 12, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
The submitter is losing sight of the fact that lowerBound is always constrained to be a
non-negative number by constraint [2] of MultiplicityElement (see page 97 in ptc/04-10-02).
See also the resolution to issue 6502.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 8086: Section: 6.5.1: Error in example (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Error in example. Text for /isComposite : Boolean A state with isComposite = True is said to be a composite state. A composite state is a state that contains at leas one region> BUT the OCL says IsComposite = (region >1) which translates to is greater than one. Use the is equal to or greater than symbol or change the number to 0.

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: Superstructure (ptc/04-10-02) Page 603 of section 15.3.11, change the OCL constraint for constraint [5] from: isSimple = content.isEmpty() to: isSimple = region.isEmpty() Page 603 of section 15.3.11, change the OCL constraint for constraint [6] from: isComposite = content.notEmpty() to: isComposite = region.notEmpty()
Actions taken:
January 14, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
This constraint was changed in the FTF. However, there seems to be an error in the OCL
for the corresponding “fixed” constraints which refer to a feature called “content”. This
should be replaced by the feature named “region”.


Issue 8087: All sections (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
With the new format of putting all of the diagrams at the beginning of the chapters, I am finding it very difficult to determine which diagram goes with what sub-section. Add references in the text to the diagram most applicable to the descriptions/definitions

Resolution: Discussion This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification. Disposition: Closed - No Change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 14, 2005: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 8088: Section: 7.3.3 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Clarification of subsetting is still confusing to me. The Note has an incomplete sentence for the last "sentence." I believe you need to remove the starting word "If."

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: see ptc/2006-04-01 pages 119/120
Actions taken:
January 14, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
The text deals with a subtle context and the current formulation may be somewhat
confusing to readers who are not used to formalized natural language.


Issue 8089: Section: 7.3.8 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The association package:Package[0..1] is listed as being an association of Classifier. However, the only figure to diagram this association is Figure 14 and the association is from Type not Classifier.

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: Superstructure (ptc/04-10-02) On page 50 in the Associations section of Classifier, remove the entry: package: Package [0..1] Specifies the owning package of this classifier, if any. Subsets NamedElement::namespace.
Actions taken:
January 14, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
This association end seems to be a remnant of some previous version of the metamodel. It
should be removed. The error only occurs in the Superstructure and not in the
Infrastructure.


Issue 8090: Section: 7.3.10 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
If constraind elements are those elements required to evaluate the constraint spedividation, why is the multiplicity for the specification: ValueSpecification[0..1]? Shouldn't the multiplicity be 1? If not, please clarify.

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: Superstructure (ptc/04-10-02) Change the “specification” entry on page 57 from: specification: ValueSpecification[0..1] to: specification: ValueSpecification[1] Infrastructure (ptc/04-10-14) Change the “specification” entry on page 52 from: specification: ValueSpecification[0..1] to: specification: ValueSpecification[1]
Actions taken:
January 18, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
Indeed. The metamodel actually shows the multiplicity correctly.


Issue 8091: Section: 7.3.12 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Issues 6164 and 6159 still have not been addressed. Figure 36 reads that the client CarFactory is dependent upon the supplier Car which is not what the text states.

Resolution: The fix was not completed. Instead of VehicleType the text should refer to CarFactory.
Revised Text: Superstructure (ptc/04-10-02) Replace the entire paragraph at the bottom of page 61: In the example below, the Car class has a dependency on the Vehicle Type class. In this case, the dependency is an instantiate dependency, where the Car class is an instance of the Vehicle Type class. with the following paragraph: In the example below, the Car class has a dependency on the CarFactory class. In this case, the dependency is an instantiate dependency, where the Car class is an instance of the CarFactory class.
Actions taken:
January 19, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 8092: Section: 7.3.15 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
I am confused by the statements that say "the name of the imported element must be qualified in order to to used and is not added to the importing namespace." Add a statement to clarify that if the name is qualified, how the element is referenced by another element.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 19, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
I see no problem with this text. It seems perfectly clear. Basically, it is saying that, in
case of a name clash with a local element, the element with the clashing name is not
imported. If the latter element needs to be referenced, the fully qualified name has to be
used.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 8093: Section: 7.3.20 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Text says that Manager constitutes one GeneralizationSet but Figure 42 uses the word Employee. Please correct

Resolution: The submitter is correct. This is a bug.
Revised Text: On page 74 of ptc/04-10-02 replace the second last sentence of the page from Here, Female Person or a Male Person of Person constitute one GeneralizationSet and Manager another to Here, Female Person or a Male Person of Person constitute one GeneralizationSet and Employee another
Actions taken:
January 19, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 8094: Stereotypes applying in UML 2.0 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: No Magic, Inc. (Mr. Nerijus Jankevicius, nerijus(at)nomagic.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
I have some questions regarding stereotypes using in UML 2.0.
 
1. How to declare user defined stereotype in the model? Should class with stereotype <<metaclass>> and metaclass name be created in the model? How to declare stereotype <<metaclass>>?
 
2. Is some relationship between stereotyped model element and stereotype instance exist? Where stereotype instance should be created (contained) and how model element can collect all applied stereotypes?
 

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 17, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
These aspects have been largely discussed and amended in the spec. I believe that this
issue is outdated.
1. A <<metaclass>> model element should indeed be part of the model (if not
already present, it should be defined) and an extension between the stereotype
instance and that model element created as per the metamodel in figure 446.
2. The relationship between a stereotype instance and the stereotyped model element
is explained in the semantics section of Extension on page 717 and in figure 448.
Since, by definition, stereotyped model elements are not affected by the presence
of stereotypes, a tool will have to either do a search of the model or cache
information that identifies which stereotypes are applied to that model element.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 8095: Section: 7.3.22 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Figures 50 and 51 cause me confusion because Fig. 50 uses as the classifier name a type (String). Yet Fig. 51 shows "Other properties of the feature, such as type" on the second line of the slot streetNumber:Integer = 381. Should the classifier name in Fig. 50 be a type or something more like myAddress. Please clarify, especially that there is a difference, as indicated by the naming convertion, between the instance specification and the feature shown in the slot.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 19, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
The submitter seems to be reading more into the text than is there. I see nothing
confusing about it. In figure 50, the name of the classifier of the InstanceSpecification
“streetName” is indeed “String” – as one would expect. Figure 51 shows an instance of
some composite data type (Address) with two attributes whose values are shown. In case
of the lower attribute (“streetNumber”) the type of attribute is shown as “Integer” – as
one would expect.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 8096: Section: 7.3.32 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Since the lower bound of multiplicity can not be negative by definition, shouldn't the type of /lower MultiplicityElement be UnlimitedNatural? Also, /upper is missing from the list of attributes

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 20, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
My apologies, I now see the /upper but still question use of Interger as the type for /lower instead of UnlimitedNatural. My apologies, I now see the /upper but still question use of Interger as the type for /lower
instead of UnlimitedNatural.
This issue has already been addressed by the resolution to issue 6502.
Disposition: Closed, no change



Issue 8097: Section: 7.3.32 Page: 96-99 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary:
The document defines multiplicity as an "inclusive interval of non-negative integers" which is the same thing as Unlimited Naturals, but in several other places the "non-negative" qualifier for integer is left off leaving only integer as the definition of the lower bound and integers may be negative. Examples are Additional Operations [4]and in the second paragraph of semantics. Additional Operations [2] OCL is incorrect if the type for includesCardinality(c:Integer) is Integer because the third line says that includesCardinality = (lowerBound() <= C) and (UpperBound () >= C). Everywhere else it is stated that the upperBound is UnlimitedNatural NOT an integer. Remove the word "is" following specification in the second sentence of the first paragraph under Notation.

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: In the second sentence of the first paragraph under Notation (page 98 of the Superstructure [page 78 in the Infrastructure]), replace the phrase: the notation will include a multiplicity specification is shown as a text string containing the bounds of the interval with the phrase: the notation will include a multiplicity specification, which is shown as a text string containing the bounds of the interval
Actions taken:
January 20, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
Constraint [2] of MultiplicityElement ensures that lower bounds of MultiplicityElements
are non-negative integers, so the problems that are listed in the issue cannot occur. (It
could be argued that it would have been “cleaner” to define the type of “lower” as
UnlimitedNatural, but that is merely an optimization that is not worth the disruption that
such a change would induce in existing tools.).
AdditionalOperation [2] is fine even if the argument C is a negative Integer. In fact,
defining the argument as a type Integer is certainly more general and will not result in
exceptions if a negative argument is provided.


Issue 8098: Section: 7.3.33 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
I am not an OCL expert (barely a novice) but it seems to me that Constraint [2] is incorrect in stating "->select(ns|ns.name->isEmpty())". Shouldn't that be ->select(ns|ns.name->notEmpty()) because the constraint is saying that there is a name and all of the containing namespaces have a names (in other words, all of the containing namespaces are notEmpty).

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 20, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
No, the OCL is correct. The fragment:
self.allNamespaces()->select(ns | ns.name->isEmpty())->isEmpty())
is saying that if the set of namespaces whose name is empty is itself empty, then every
namespace has a name.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 8099: Section: 7.3.34 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The sentence "The contraint does not apply to the namespace itself, but may also apply to elements in the namespace." would be better if "also" was replaced with "instead."

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 20, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
That would actually be incorrect. The sentence is saying that the constraint may cover
either the namespace itself, or the names it contains, or, possibly, to both.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 8100: Section: 7.3.35 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The modifications made for multiple languages (Issue 3391) could often be taken by the reader to mean that multiple languages may exist simultaneously in a single opaque expression. An example is the attribute "language:String[0..*] specifies the languages in which the expression is stated" could be interpreted to mean that the expression could be stated in mixed languages. Additionally plurality of verbs and modifying expressions often do not agree with the plurality of the sentence subject. An example of this is "The languages of an opaque expression, is specified, is often..." Subject is the sentence is "languages" so verb should be "are." Furthermore, this statement implies that a single ("an") opaque expression may have more than one language ("languages").

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: It is quite possible that multiple languages may co-exist in the same expression (although they are expected to be serialized rather than interleaved in such cases). These typically serve as alternative forms of expression for the same content. Revised Text: On page 104 of the Superstructure [page 58 of the Infrastructure] replace the first sentence in the Semantics subsection of OpaqueExpression: The interpretation of the expression body depends on the languages. with the following: The expression body may consist of a sequence of text strings – each in a different language – representing alternative representations of the same content. When multiple language strings are provided, the language of each separate string is determined by its corresponding entry in the “language” attribute (by sequence order). The interpretation of the text strings is language specific. Also, on page 105 of the Superstructure [there is no corresponding Infrastructure change], replace the first sentence of the third paragraph of the Notation subsection: The languages of an opaque expression, if specified, is often not shown on a diagram. with the following: The languages of an opaque expression, if specified, are often not shown on a diagram. In the Constraints subsection of OpaqueExpression on page 104 of the Superstructure [page 58 of the Infrastructure], replace the sentence No additional constraints. with the following constraints: [1] If the language attribute is not empty, then the size of the body and language arrays must be the same. language->notEmpty() implies (body->size() = language->size()) [2] If there is only one body then the size of the language is exactly 1 (corresponding to the default language). language->isEmpty() implies (body->size() = 1) Editor’s note: second constraint removed by resolution to 9191
Actions taken:
January 20, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
It is quite possible that multiple languages may co-exist in the same expression (although
they are expected to be serialized rather than interleaved in such cases). These typically
serve as alternative forms of expression for the same content.


Issue 8101: Clarify the differences between redefining element and redefined element. (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Clarify the differences between redefining element and redefined element.

Resolution: Discussion This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification. Disposition: Closed - No Change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 20, 2005: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 8102: Multiple typos in ptc/04-10-02 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Multiple typos (If you don't want them submitted this way, I'll complete an issue for each.) section 6.34 page 11 Delete word “to” in “The read/write actions can also be used to by one…” section 7.3.3 page 38 Delete word “If’ in the Note “If the lower multiplicity for an end of…” Section 7.3.5 page 46 Correct typo “pr” to “or” in ownedParameter:Parameter[*] Section 7.3.11 page 60 Change “has” to “have” in 2nd para 2nd sentence “Instances of a data type that “has”…” Instances is the subject of the sentence Section 7.3.11 page 61 Add word “to” to Notation sentence 6 “In this case, cone or more arrows with their tails on the clients are connected “to” the tails…” Section 7.3.20 page 71 Change “is” to are in generalizationSet “Designates a set in which instances of Generalization “are” considered members.” The verb refers to the subject of the which clause (instances). Section 7.3.21 page 83 Change “is” to “if” in last sentence of section “Or, “if” a new subclass…” Section 7.3.32 page 97 Change “These constraint” to “These constraints” Section 7.3.32 page 98 Delete word “is” in 2nd sentence of Notation “In general, the notation will include a multiplicity specification shown as…” Section 7.3.37 page 111 Change “is” to “are” in 4th paragraph of Semantics “The public contents of a package are…” Subject of the sentence is contents not package. Section 7.3.49 page 135 and page 136 (Description) Change verb “specify” to “specifies” in “A structureal feature is a typed feature of a classifier that specifies the structure…” Section 7.3.49 page 137 Change verb from “signifies” to signifying” in 1st sentence of Decsription Section 7.3.53 page 139 Delete word “of” in 1st sentence of Semantics 

Resolution: Discussion This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification. Disposition: Closed - No Change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 21, 2005: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 8103: Section: 8.3.1 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Add ending guillemets to specification in isIndirectlyInstantiated. Verify that OCL for /provided:Interface[*] is correct. 3rd and 4th lines don't look right to me

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: Insert ending guillemets after specification. Editor’s note: fixed in formal copy edit Replace the term "RealizeInterfaces(self)" in line 3 of the OCL derivation expression for Component::provided on page 151 by the term "RealizedInterfaces(self)"
Actions taken:
January 21, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
-- BranSelic - 19 May 2005
Line 3 of the OCL constraint should say "RealizedInterfaces(self)" instead of
"RealizeInterfaces(self)".


Issue 8104: Section: 8.3.1 - typo (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Typo - Change "Components" to Component in ownedMember:PackageableElement[*] 1st sentence

Resolution:
Revised Text: Change "Components" to Component in ownedMember:PackageableElement[*] 1st sentence. Editor’s note: fixed in formal copy edit
Actions taken:
January 21, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 8105: Section: 8.3.1 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Add component icon to fig. 90 <<component>> :ShoppingCart to be consistent with others in diagram

Resolution:
Revised Text: Add component icon to fig. 90, :ShoppingCart to be consistent with others in diagram
Actions taken:
January 24, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8106: Section: 8.3.2 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Constraints have no OCL syntax or mention that constraints are not definable in OCL. Type in constraint [5] - delete "s" from first "Ports".

Resolution: Resolution: This actually refers to 8.3.3. The constraints have been fixed or deleted by other resolutions (7247-7251). Revised Text: None. Disposition: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 24, 2005: received issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue
April 26, 2010: closed 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.


Issue 8107: Section: 9.20.2 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Either delete Issue 7240 note from page, make the correction, or explain why the correction was not made.

Resolution:
Revised Text: see ptc/2006-04-01 p 131
Actions taken:
January 24, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 8108: Section: 9.3.1 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Page references are incorrect for "Property" and "StructuredClassifier".

Resolution:
Revised Text: Update page references to latest status.
Actions taken:
January 24, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8109: Section: 9.3.2 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Better choice of word in Changes from UML 1.x would be to change the "of" in last sentence to "that."

Resolution:
Revised Text: Change the last sentence in Changes… to “Together with the newly introduced internal structure concept replaces Collaboration.representedClassifier.
Actions taken:
January 24, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 8110: Section: 9.3.3 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Incorrect page number for reference for "Property" under Description

Resolution:
Revised Text: Update page number for reference for "Property" under Description
Actions taken:
January 24, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8111: Section: 9.3.4 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
OCL notation is missing from Constraints. Please add or add note that OCL notation is not able to express constraints

Resolution: Discussion This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification. Disposition: Closed - No Change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 24, 2005: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 8112: Section: 9.3.5 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Add Generalization TypedElement (from Kernal) to fig. 96.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 24, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
The issue assumes incorrectly that a ConnectorEnd is a typed element. This is not the
case.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 8113: Section: 9.3.6 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Need OCL notation for Constraints. Correct page reference number for StructuredClassifier

Resolution: Discussion This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification. Disposition: Closed - No Change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 24, 2005: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 8114: Section: 9.3.7 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Correct multiplicity of role:ConnectableElement[1] so that fig. 96 agrees with that defined in Associations. Add OCL notation for Constraints. Ports under Notation also reads to me like it could be expressed in OCL notation somewhere--like a constraint which would need to be added.

Resolution: Discussion This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification. Disposition: Closed - No Change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 24, 2005: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 8115: Section: 9.3.9 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Add generalization for InvocationAction to fig 101 to agree with text on 187

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 24, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
As a general rule, we do not show generalizations that are merge increments explicitly in
the abstract syntax.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 8116: Section: 9.3.9 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Add OCL notation to Constraints. Notation says to see "CallOperationAction" for an example, but no examples are given in that section

Resolution:
Revised Text: In notation, delete the parenthetical remark starting with “(for example…”.
Actions taken:
January 24, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8117: Section: 9.3.10 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
I can't find appropriate figure for the generalization "Parameter (from Kernel, AssociationClasses)". Add appropriate OCL notation to Constraints

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: In constraints section of 9.3.20: Add OCL to constraint: [1] A parameter may only be associated with a connector end within the context of a collaboration. self.end.notEmpty() implies self.collaboration.notEmpty()
Actions taken:
January 24, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
It is unclear what the issue is pointing to. Parameter is appropriately specialized from
Parameter in Kernel.
The resolution will focus on the OCL only.
-- ThomasWeigert - 18 May 2005
As far as I can see the Parameter (Collaboration) can't navigate to it's context. The
associations from Connectable Element ? to the context (Structured Classifier ? or
Collaboration) isn't navigable. Therefore it's not possible for the Parameter class to
evaluate the constraint.
-- TimWeilkiens - 20 May 2005
Tim, navigability is not meaningful in OCL 2.0, which means that your OCL expression
can navigate against the arrow.
-- BranSelic - 20 May 2005
Bran, in that case the OCL constraint is easy. However it sounds strange to me. How can
the parameter (the context of the constraint) evaluate the expression? Could you give me
the appropriate chapter reference in OCL specification?


Issue 8118: Section: 8.3.2 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Reword/rewrite the last two paragraphs of Semantics. Many grammatical mistakes between sentence subject and verb plurality (because of intervening phrases), hard to understand sentences, and an incomplete sentence (last one).

Resolution: I cannot find any such problem in section 8.3.2. However I do find the following, which has duplicated text: "A component's behavior may typically be realized (or implemented) by a number of Classifiers. In effect, it forms an abstraction for a collection of model elements. In that case, a component owns a set of Component Realization Dependencies to these Classifiers. In effect, it forms an abstraction for a collection of model elements. In that case, a component owns a set of Realization Dependencies to these Classifiers"
Revised Text: In the Semantics section of 8.3.2, delete one occurrence of "In effect, it forms an abstraction for a collection of model elements. In that case, a component owns a set of Realization Dependencies to these Classifiers."
Actions taken:
January 24, 2005: received issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 8119: Section: 8.3.2 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
"In a system context where there are multople components that provide or require a particular interface, a notation abstraction can be used that combines by joining the multiple connectors." Combines what? Client keyword missing from fig. 93.

Resolution: I cannot find any such text in section 8.3.2, or indeed anywhere in the current specification. Revised Text: None. Disposition: Closed, no change.
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 24, 2005: received issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 8120: Section: 8.3.4 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Correct statement under Constraints to read "No additional constraints."

Resolution:
Revised Text: Change line following the “Constraints” heading to “No additional constraints.”
Actions taken:
January 24, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8126: Section: 9.3.11 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
According to fig. 97, Associations need multiplicities added to all and derived symbol to required:Interface and provided:Interface. Add OCL notation to Constraints

Resolution: Discussion This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification. Disposition: Closed - No Change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 25, 2005: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 8127: Section: 9.3.12 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
In Examples, the reference page number to SturcturedClassifier is incorrect

Resolution:
Revised Text: In Examples, correct the reference page number to SturcturedClassifier
Actions taken:
January 25, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8128: Section: 9.3.13 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Associations need derived symbol added to role:ConnectableElement and /part:Property (as shown in fig. 95), a statement that role is derived, and multiplicities added to all associations (as shown in fig. 95).

Resolution: see ptc/2006-04-01 page 140
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 25, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 8129: Section: 12.3.13 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Under Notation change "name of the part" to rolename to differentiate it from the name of the part (as in composition).

Resolution:
Revised Text: In section 9.3.13, under Notation, change the last paragraph to: “The name of the instance specification may be followed by the name of the role which the instance plays. The rolename may only be present if the instance plays a role.”
Actions taken:
January 25, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8130: Section: 12.3.13 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Fig 121 uses the word "make" for the constructor. Unfortunately, this word could be misconstrued to be a noun and refer to the make of the car (Volvo, Audie, Ford) instead of the verb it is intend to be. Suggest changing "make" to "assemble."

Resolution:
Revised Text: In figure 121 in section 9.3.13, change make(brand: String) to createCar(brand: String)
Actions taken:
January 25, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8131: Section: 9.2 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
There is no explanation in the chapter or the section on StrucutredActivities as to why two StructuredActivities packages are drawn, both <<merge>> in fig. 94. Please clarify somewhere

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 25, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
The issue misses that this section extends Structured Activities ? (see Figure 102).
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 8132: Section: 10.3.1 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Figure 124 does not show what the Generalizations "Classifier (from Kernel, Dependencies, PowerTypes)" indicates, or the association ownedProperty:Property, or the multiplicity listed for attribute filename:String[0..1]

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: On page 207, section 10.3.1, in the Associations subsection, replace the text “ownedProperty : Property [*]” with “ownedAttribute : Property [*]”. In Figure 124, section 10.2, page 205, replace the attribute text “fileName:String” of the Attribute class to “fileName:String[0..1]”. In Section 10.3.1, page 207, Attributes subsection, change “filename” to “fileName”
Actions taken:
January 25, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
[21 Apr 2005]
Figure 124 does correctly show the subject Generalization, but the labeling is not exactly
as given in the text on page 207. This is likely due to Rose’s limitation of showing only
one package name for a class, as is done in Figure 124 for Classifier shown as “(from
Dependencies)”. I don’t see an easy way to fix the figure to match the text, so I suggest
no change be made. The text on page 207 is very explicit about which Classifier is meant
– the one on page 50.
The complaint about ownedProperty:Property refers to the absensce of ownedProperty as
an association end name in Figure 124. In fact, the end named “ownedAttribute” should
be changed to “ownedProperty” to match the text.
Section 6.5.2 requires attribute multiplicity to be shown if it is not the default [0..*].
Consequently, the missing [0..1] multiplicity on the “filename:String” attribute of
Artifact should be added to Figure 124. Also, for editorial consistency, the “filename” in
the Attributes subsection on page 207 should be correctly render as “fileName”.
[22 Apr 2005]
Conrad Bock suggests: “Since the name "ownedAttribute" is used in classes as well as
datatypes already, it seems like we should leave it that way in deployments. No need to
incur a backwards incompatibility with 2.0.” Seems like a good suggestion. The Revised
Text section changed to preserve the ownedAttribute name rather than the ownedProperty
name.


Issue 8133: Section: 10.3.1 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Typo in 1st line of Notation. In Semantics, clarify which Appendix to see

Resolution: Both matters raised by this issue represent valid editorial clarifications to the text.
Revised Text: In section 10.3.1, page 208, second paragraph of the Semantics subsection, change the text: “(See the Appendix)” To: “(See Appendix C)”. In section 10.3.1, page 208, first paragraph of the Notation subsection, change the text: “a icon” To: “an icon”.
Actions taken:
January 25, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8134: Section: 10.3.3 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Kernel generalization is not shown in fig. 126

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: In figure 126 add NamedElement (from Kernel) as an additional superclass of DeployedArtifact.
Actions taken:
January 25, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
Although the Summary doesn’t say so, the issue’s archive indicates that the target pages
are 206 (where Figure 126 is located) and 210 (DeployedArtifact class description). The
text on page 210 says that DeployedArtifact inherits from “NamedElement (from Kernel,
Dependencies)” whereas Figure 126 shows it inheriting from “NamedElement (from
Dependencies)”. The additional increment should be included in the diagram.


Issue 8135: Section: 10.3.4 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The Associations for the Nodes Package text do not agree with Fig. 126.

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: On page 211 of ptc/04-10-02 (same as page 197, section 10.3.4, formal/05-07-04), change the text “location : Node [1] The Node which is the target of a Deployment.” To “location : DeployedTarget [1] The DeployedTarget which is the target of a Deployment.”
Actions taken:
January 25, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
Although the Summary doesn’t say so, the issue’s archive indicates that the target pages
are 206 (where Figure 126 is located) and 211 (Deployment class description), giving us
a clue that it is the Association section of the Deployment class that does not agree with
Figure 126. To agree with Figure 126, the type of the location should be DeployedTarget,
not Node. This change implies no semantic restrictions over the previous situation
because Node inherits from DeployedTarget.


Issue 8136: Section: 10.3.5 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Generalization, Association, and Constraints in text don't agree with fig. 127

Resolution: see ptc/2006-04-01 page148/149
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 25, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 8137: Section: 10.3.6 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Fig 126 does not show all generalizations listed; text for the Association deployment:Deployment[*] does not mention that the association specializes ownedElement as shown in the figure

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: On page 207 of ptc/04-10-02 in the Associations subsection’s description of “manifestation : Manifestation”, replace the sentence: This association is a specialization of the clientDependency association. with: {subsets NamedElement::clientDependency, subsets Element::ownedElement}. On page 216 of ptc/04-10-02 in the Associations subsection’s description of “deployment : Deployment”, replace the the sentence: This association is a specialization of the clientDependency association. with: {subsets NamedElement::clientDependency, subsets Element::ownedElement}.
Actions taken:
January 25, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
A corresponding change needs to be made for the manifestation association in Figure 124
as well.


Issue 8138: Section: 10.3.8 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
I don't believe that fig 125 shows the composite association between nodes and ExecutionEnvironment as expressed in Semantics. Typo - add ending guillemets to <<J2EE container.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 25, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
My reading of the subject section suggests that Node’s nestedNode association is the
“composite association” referred to in the Semantics section. The nestedNode association
is shown in Figure 125. The missing guillemet does appear in formal/05-07-04.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 8139: Section: 10.3.9 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Constraints are not shown on fig 126 as other constraints have been shown on other figures. Under Notation, should "instance" be "instance specification?"

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: In Figure 125 on page 205 of ptc/04-10-02, remove the constraint under the CommunicationPath class. In Figure 126 on page 206 of ptc/04-10-02, remove the two constraints under the DeploymentSpecification class. Editor’s note: Should be in figure 127 (not figure 126 as stated above) In the Constraints subsection of CommunicationPath add the following OCL following the text for constraint [1]: self.endType->forAll (t | t.oclIsKindOf(DeploymentTarget)) In the Constraints subsection of DeploymentSpecification add the following OCL following the text for constraint [1]: self.deployment->forAll (d | d.location..oclIsKindOf(ExecutionEnvironment)) In the Constraints subsection of DeploymentSpecification add the following OCL following the text for constraint [2]: self.deployment->forAll (d | d.location.deployedElements->forAll (de | de.oclIsKindOf(Component)))
Actions taken:
January 25, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
The convention used in the UML specifications is to NOT include constraints in the
diagrams. The constraints in figures 125 and 127 should be removed and replaced by
OCL constraints.


Issue 8140: Section: 10.3.10 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Fig 124 shows that the Association utilizedElement:PackageableElement also subsets target

Resolution:
Revised Text: On page 220 of ptc/04-10-02 in the Associations subsection’s description of “utilizedElement : PackageableElement”, replace the words “supplier association” with “supplier and target associations” (page 201 of formal/05-07-04).the sentence: This association specializes the supplier association. with: {subsets Dependency::supplier, subsets Dependency::supplier}.
Actions taken:
January 25, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8141: Section: 10.3.11 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The specialization of the association nestedNode:Node is not shown in fig. 125

Resolution: There is no nestedClassifier association end that applies to this case.
Revised Text: In figure 125 change the constraint on Node::nestedNode from {redefines nestedClassifier} to {subsets ownedMember} In the Associations subsection of 10.3.11, replace the sentence: The association is a specialization of the ownedMember association from Namespace to NamedElement. with: {subsets Namespace::ownedMember}
Actions taken:
January 26, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8142: Section: 10.3.11 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Need to write the info for the Changes from previous UML section or remove it

Resolution: Discussion This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification. Disposition: Closed - No Change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 26, 2005: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 8143: Section: 10.4 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Table 8 Node Reference says Node has keyword options <<device>> and <<execution environment>> but these are not mentioned in the Node section nor are they diagrammed anywhere.

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: Remove the sentence “Has keyword options «device» and «execution environment».” from the Node row of Table 8, page 224, section 10.4. Remove the sentence “A Device is notated by a Node annotated with the stereotype «device»” from the Notation subsection, page 217, section 10.3.7. Editor’s note: This was changed to the correct phrasing instead of removing the entire sentence. Delete the third paragraph of the Semantics subsection on page 222, section 10.3.11, that begins with the text “Non-normative examples of nodes …”
Actions taken:
January 26, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
There appears to be substantial confusion in the text regarding whether “device” and
“execution environment” are stereotypes of Node or subtypes of Node. The proposed
changes favor the subtypes of Node interpretation of these items because it results in far
less drastic changes to the text.
The issue references the text “Has keyword options «device» and «execution
environment».” in the Node row of Table 8 on page 224, section 10.4. Rather than being
stereotypes as the offending text indicates, Device and ExecutionEnvironment are
defined as subtypes of Node in sections 10.3.7 and 10.3.8, respectively.
Note also that the text “A Device is notated by a Node annotated with the stereotype
«device»” in the Notation section on page 217 is inconsistent with the representation of
devices as a subtype of Node and should be removed as well.
In section 10.3.11, page 222, the third paragraph of the Semantics section suggests that
Nodes can be labeled with «application server», «client workstation», «mobile device»,
and «embedded device». To be consistent with the subtypes of Node interpretation, the
former two of these prototypes would be better applied to the Device class and the latter
two, the ExecutionEnvironment class. Rather than moving these examples stereotypes, it
seems better to just remove them.


Issue 8144: Section: 11.1 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Typos and rewording requests Basic Concepts para 2 - Change "Behavior" to "Behaviors" Basic Concepts para 3 - Change "Operations" to "Operation calls" Intermediate Concepts para 1 sentence 1 - change "various action primitive actions" to "various primitive actions" Intermediate Concepts para 1 sentence 3 - rewrite to something like: S"pecifically, a single primitive action is defined so that it either carries out a computation or accesses object memory, but never both." Intermediate Concepts para 6 sentence 4 - Add verb in "multiplicity bound ignored" to "multiplicity bound is ignored" Intermediate Concepts para 6 last sentence - replace the pronoun "these" with the appropriate noun - I don't know if "these" refers to the points where the lower multiplicity bound is ignored or the points where the modeler has determined that the lower multiplicity bound is enforced. Intermediate Actions, Read Write Actions (page 230) para 3 sentence 1 - needs rewording: "ranging from" implies a "to" something which is not listed; "implementation-dependent" is a modifiying phrase but I don't know what it is modifying (the following comma may not be needed). My interpretation of the sentence meaning is: "Value specificationc cover various expressions ranging from implementation-dependent constants to complex expressions with possible side-effects." 

Resolution:
Revised Text: Typos 1 => ok Typo 2 (i.e. Change "Operations" to "Operation calls")=> nok => it is really operations and not operation calls that are specified in the model. But BTW, in Basic Concepts para 3 sentence 1, one could change “behaviour invocation” to “behaviour invocations” to align with previous “operations calls” and “signal sends”. Typo 3 => ok Typo 4 => why not (but as I am not English native speaker, I am not very the right man to judge that nut it seems to me, a french guy, it is better ;-) Typo 5 => ok Typo 6 => nok => I think that in this case there is no ambiguities, “these” refers to the closes expression, in this the points where the modeler has determined that the lower multiplicity bound is enforced. Typo 7 => ok Revised Text: Section 11.1, p.229, sub section “Basic concepts”: para2, sentence1: change “Behavior" to "Behaviors” Editor’s note: fixed in formal copy edit para3, sentence1: change “behaviour invocation” to “behaviour invocations” Section 11.1, p.229, sub section “Intermediate Concepts”, para1: sentence 1 - change “various action primitive actions” to “various primitive actions”. sentences 2&3 - change “Specifically, primitive actions are defined so that they either carry out a computation or access object memory, and never both.” to “Specifically, a single primitive action is defined so that it either carries out a computation or accesses object memory, but never both.” Editor’s note: I reworded the proposed change slightly for readability Section11.1, p.230, sub section “Intermediate Concepts”, para6, sentence4: change “multiplicity bound ignored” to “multiplicity bound is ignored” Editor’s note: fixed in formal copy edit Section11.1, p230, sub section “Intermediate Actions, Read Write Actions”, para3, sentence 1 – change “Value specifications cover various expressions ranging from implementation-dependent, constants, and complex expressions, even with side-effects.” with “Value specification cover various expressions ranging from implementation-dependent constants to complex expressions with possible side-effects.”
Actions taken:
January 27, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8145: Section: 11.3.1 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Add that retureInformation:OutputPin[1..1] is a specialization or subsets output as shown in fig. 152. Add OCL expression for constraint 1 or that the constraint cannot be expressed in OCL. Constraint [3] contains a typo in the 1st line "isUnmrashall" should be "isUnmarshall"

Resolution: Missing OCL is a duplicate of 6452.
Revised Text: In Section 11.3.1, under Associations, insert “{subsets Action::output}” at the beginning of the description of “returnInformation”: {subsets Action::output} Pin where a value is placed containing sufficient information to perform a subsequent reply and return control to the caller. The contents of this value are opaque. It can be passed and copied but it cannot be manipulated by the model. Editor’s note: put constraint at the end to conform to general practice In the first line of Constraint [3], replace “isUnmrashall” with “isUnmarshall”. Editor’s note: was fixed in formal copy edit
Actions taken:
January 27, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8146: Section: 11.3.2 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Add the specialization (subsets) statement to result:OutputPin[0..*] as shown in fig. 152. Add OCL statements to Constraints. Constraint [2] needs clarification. Last part of sentence is confusing. Typo - Semantics, para 2, sentence 1 - Change "unmarshall" it "isUnmarshall"

Resolution: Missing OCL is a duplicate of 6452.
Revised Text: In Section 11.3.2, under Associations, insert “{subsets Action::output}” at the beginning of the description of “result”: {subsets Action::output} Pins holding the received event objects or their attributes. Event objects may be copied in transmission, so identity might not be preserved. Editor’s note: inserted at end of description to conform to standard format In Constraint [2], replace There are no output pins if the trigger events are only ChangeEvents, or if they are only CallEvents when this class is AcceptEventAction and not one of its children. with There are no output pins if the trigger events are only ChangeEvents, or if they are only CallEvents when this action is an instance of AcceptEventAction and not an instance one of a descendant of AcceptEventAction (such as AcceptCallAction). In the Semantics subsection, paragraph 2, sentence 1, replace “unmarshall” with “isUnmarshall”.
Actions taken:
January 27, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8147: Section: 11.3.3 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Fig. 142 does not list Dependencies as a generalization. Associations /input:InputPin[*] and /output:OutputPin[*] need the specialization or subset statement as shown in fig. 143 Association /context:Classifier[1] does not agree with multiplicity in fig. 142 Delete headers Examples and Rationale as these sections are blank

Resolution: see above
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 27, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
In Actions, Action:
Generalizations, remove “Dependencies”.
Editor’s note: not done since this is an automatic cross reference to a header (cannot
remove part of the header)
Associations:
/input and /output entries, at beginning of text, add
(Specialized from Element:ownedElement)
Editor’s note: adjusted to conform to document conventions
/context entry, change multiplicity to 0..1.


Issue 8148: Section: 11.3.4 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Association fromAction:Action[1] missing the specialization or subsets statement shown in fig. 159. Add OCL statements to constraints. Fig. 161 shows the association +action between i2:ActionInputPin and s1:ReadSetAction and between i4:ActionInputPin and s2:ReadSetAction but this is not an association defined for ActionInputPin in the text or shown on fig. 159. Either correct +action association to +fromAction or add +action as an association of ActionInputPin. I may be totally incorrect but shouldn't there be some link or association from the classifier bar:Signal?

Resolution: See revised text. The rest is duplicate with 6452.
Revised Text: In Actions, ActionInputPin: Associations, entry for fromAction, before description, add "(Specializes from Element::ownedElement)". Editor’s note: changed “Specializes” to correct “Subsets” Examples, Figure 161: On links between i2:ActionInputPin and s1:ReadSelfAction, and between i4:ActionInputPin and s2:ReadSelfAction, replace "action" with "fromAction". Add one-directional link from :SendSignalAction to bar:Signal labeled “signal” on bar:Signal end. After above edits, the figure should look like this:
Actions taken:
January 27, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8149: Section: 11.3.5 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
It seems to me that the OCL statement does not specify that the UnlimitedNatural needs to be >0. Remove the header Examples as there are none

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 27, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
The fact that the value of the insertAtPin must be greater than 0 is a run-time semantic
constraint that cannot be captured in the abstract syntax constraint OCL. The rest is a
duplicate of 8155.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 8150: Section: 11.3.6 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
It seems to me that the OCL statement does not specify that the UnlimitedNatural needs to be >0. Add "The insertion point is ignored when replacing all values." as last sentence in para 2 of Semantics. Remove the header Examples as there are none.

Resolution:
Revised Text: In Actions, AddVariableValueAction, at the end of the 2 nd paragraph under Semantics, add the sentence: The insertion point is ignored when replacing all values.
Actions taken:
January 27, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
The fact that the value of the insertAtPin must be greater than 0 is a run-time semantic
constraint that cannot be captured in the abstract syntax constraint OCL. The header issue
is a duplicate of 8155.


Issue 8151: Section: 11.3.7 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Add OCL statements as appropriate for Constraints. Typo - Need a couple of line feeds before the header Notation

Resolution: Missing OCL is a duplicate of 6452.
Revised Text: In Actions, BroadcastSignalAction, after the heading “Semantic Variation Point”, replace the line: The determination of the set of broadcast target objects is a semantic variation point.Notation with: The determination of the set of broadcast target objects is a semantic variation point.
Actions taken:
January 27, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 8152: Section: 11.3.8 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Fig. 144 shows a default for isSynchronous:Boolean = true but this is not indicated in the Attributes section. Associations result:OutputPin[0..*] multiplicity does not match fig. 144; change the description to: "An ordered list of output pins..." and add a statement about the specialization or subsets. Add OCL notation to Constraints.

Resolution: Multiplicity is in proper format. Lists are always ordered. OCL is duplicate with 6346.
Revised Text: In Actions, CallAction: Attributes, isSynchronous entry, add “ = true” after “Boolean”. Associations, result entry, at beginning of text add “(Specialized from Action:input)”.
Actions taken:
January 27, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8153: Section: 11.3.9 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Add OCL notation to Constraints. Delete Examples heading as there are none

Resolution: See issues 8155 and 6346 for disposition
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 27, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8154: Section: 11.3.10 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Add OCL notation to Constraints. Typo - place a period at the end of the definition of the operation:Operation[1] association Add a subsets or specialization statement to the association target:InputPin[1] as is shown in fig. 144

Resolution: OCL is duplicate with 6346
Revised Text: In Actions, CallOperationAction, Associations operation entry, add period at end of description. Editor’s note: fixed in formal copy edit target entry, at end of description, add “(subsets Action::input)”.
Actions taken:
January 27, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8155: Section: 11.3.11 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Delete Examples header as there are none

Resolution: Discussion: Fixed as part of a previous copy-edit pass of the spec. Revised Text: N/A Disposition: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 27, 2005: received issue
October 27, 2008: closed issue

Issue 8156: Section: 11.3.12 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Delete Examples header as there are none

Resolution: See issue 8155 for disposition
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 27, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8157: Section: 11.3.13 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Delete Examples header as there are none.

Resolution: See issue 8155 for disposition
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 27, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8158: Section: 11.3.14 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
In description, change "positive integer" to "unlimitedNumber greater than 0" Delete Examples hearder as there are none

Resolution: Example header is duplicate of 8155.
Revised Text: Actions, CreateLinkAction, Section 11.3.14, change 6 th sentence in first paragraph of description section to: “The insertion point is an integer greater than 0 giving the position to insert the link, or unlimited, to insert at the end.”
Actions taken:
January 27, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8159: Section: 11.3.15 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Delete the header Examples as there are non

Resolution: See issue 8155 for disposition
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 27, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8160: Section: 11.3.16 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Constraint 1 says that the classifier cannot be abstract but fig. 146 shows the Classifier name in italics. Delete header Examples as there are none

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 27, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
The classifier referred to in the constraint is from the user model. The one in Figure 146
is from the UML metamodel.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 8161: Section: 11.3.17 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Change "positive integer" in the Description section to "unlimitedNatural >0" Delete the header Example as there are none

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 27, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
The description sections are intentionally informal. The Semantics section and
constraints in LinkEndDestructionData specify unlimitedNatural. Headers issue is
duplicate with 8155.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 8162: Section: 11.3.18 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
I am confused by the request of issue 7179 to replace 'input' by 'target' in both constraints and then seeing 'input' replaced by 'target' only in the OCL notation. Please clarify. I am also confused by constraint [2] since part 11.3.19 InputPin says nothing about the type of inputPin. Delete the header Examples as there are none.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 27, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
In DestroyObjectAction, the input pin referred to in the first two constraints is retrieved
in OCL using the target association.
Constraint [2] is correct. An input pin is a specialized pin which is a specialized typed
element.
Example header is duplicate of 8155.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 8163: Section: 11.3.19 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Bold the heading Associations. Delete the heading Examples as there are none. Constraint [2] of 11.3.18 says that input pin has no type but there is no such constraint mentioned for 11.3.19 (which is the section describing inputPin.

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: In Actions, InputPin, Make the “Associations” header boldface.
Actions taken:
January 27, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
InputPin is a TypedElement and, so, inherits a “type” property. This property is optional.
Constraint [2] of 11.3.18 simply says that the input pin of a DestroyObjectAction has no
type, it does not make a general statement about input pins. The Example header issue is
a duplicate of 8155.


Issue 8164: Section: 11.3.20 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Superclass generalization is not written on fig. 144. Association argument:InputPin[0..*] multiplicity does not agree with fig. 144. Association argument:InputPin[0..*]in fig. 144 says it is ordered and subsets input. Add statements to the definition of the association. Under Constraints say none.

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: For “Association argument:InputPin[0..*] multiplicity does not agree with fig. 144.” => For me there is no pb. Revised Text: Section 11.3.20, p.234, Fig 144: add “NamedElement” and a generalization between “Action” and “NamedElement”. Editor’s note: This is not necessary as the generalization is shown in figure 11.2 Section 11.3.20, p.274 – Change “argument : InputPin [0..*] Specification of an argument value that appears during execution.” to “argument : InputPin [0..*] Specification of the ordered set of argument values that appears during execution.” Section 11.3.20, p.275 – add “None.” Under the constraint section. Editor’s note: the above change was not entered because it does not conform to the standard format
Actions taken:
January 27, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
For “Association argument:InputPin[0..*] multiplicity does not agree with fig. 144.” =>
For me there is no pb.


Issue 8165: Section: 11.3.21 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Associated figures 148 & 150 do not diagram an direct association between LinkAction and InputPin. Please clarify, add to figures, or delete the association from the section. Constraint [2] OCL notation has an extra ending ) Semantics need to be rewritten clarifying how LinkAction and inputPin are associated. None of the figures containing the classifier LinkAction show an association with a multiplicity of 1..1. Delete heading Examples as there are none.

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: see ptc/2006-04-01 pages 169/170
Actions taken:
January 27, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
The relation between LinkAction, LinkEndData, and InputPin is given in constraint [3] in
the first Constraints section, and constraint [1] in the second Constraints section. Added
some text for this in the Semantics section. The constraint link end data input pin
multiplicity is given in constraint [3] of LinkEndData.


Issue 8166: Section: 11.3.22 -- significant revision? (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:
If LinkEndCreationData is not an action, should it be in this part? Wouldn't the action be to read data from this element or write data to this element? LinkEndCreationData is found in two packages but the discussion/text only addresses its use from the IntermediateActions with no mention of its use in CompleteActions. If this section is to stay in this part then rewrite introduction, description, associations, constraints and semantics to address its use/application in CompleteActions. OCL notation for Constraint[2] does not say that the UnlimitedNatural must be >0 as is stated in the definition of the association insertAt:InputPin. Too many closing ")" for the number of opening "(" in Constraint [2] OCL notation Delete the Examples header as there are none.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 28, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
LinkEndCreationData is used relate input pins of CreateLinkAction and
CreateLinkObjectAction with other required information, which is the "data" referred to
in the name (see Figures 150 and 156). It is only used with CreateLinkAction and
CreateLinkObjectAction, so only makes sense in the Actions chapter. The semantics of
LinkEndCreationData already says it is used to specify qualifiers in complete actions.
The fact that insertAt must be greater than zero is a runtime constraint. The constraint
sections in the specificaiton only express modeltime constraints.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 8167: Section: 11.3.23 -- significant revision? (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:
I read and understand little difference between LinkEndData and LinkEndCreationData or LinkEndDestructionData. If none of these elements are actions what are they doing in Actions? Wouldn't the action be to read to or write from these elements? Add the package CompleteActions name to the Description and mention that LinkEndData identifies one end of a link to be destroyed. Add "(IntermediateActions)" to the first Constraint header. I'm not certain that constraint (IntermediateActions) [3] multiplicity agrees with the association value:InputPin[0..1] mulitplicity The instruction under semantics to see LinkAction and its children needs to be rewritten. Through following all of the instructions to see different sections, I finally found semantics information in ReadLinkAction, CreateLinkAction, and DestroyLinkAction. Delete header Examples as there are none.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 28, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
LinkEndData, LinkEndCreationData, and LinkEndDestructionData are used relate input
pins of descendants of LinkAction with other required information, which is the "data"
referred to in the names. The semantics sections specify the general case of
LinkEndData, and what is special about the subtypes LinkEndCreationData, and
LinkEndDestructionData. They are only used the descendants of LinkAction, so only
makes sense in the Actions chapter. LinkEndData is not just for link destruction, which
is covered in LinkEndDestructionData, and DestroyLinkAction. The third constraint of
LinkAction ensures the pins of the actions are the same as those referred to by their link
end data, it doesn’t give a multiplicity. The reference to LinkAction is to because the
actions explain the use of LinkEndData and its decendants. The examples header is
duplicate with 8155.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 8168: Figure 89 on page 158 is incorrect (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Simula Research Laboratory (Mr. Bran Selic, selic(at)acm.org)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
ptc/04-10-02: Figure 89 on page 158 is incorrect: the delegation connector on the left seems to be pointing the wrong way. 

More generally, it is not clear why an arrow is required on delegation connectors, since they are automatically implied when a port is connected to a part or a port on a part. The arrow can be misleading since some may interpret incorrectly it as a restriction on the direction of data flow. Note that the table 5 on page 166 does not show the arrow notation nor does table 7. 

Finally, the title of table 5 should say: "graphic paths" instead of "graphic nodes"

Resolution: The first part refers to figure 8.12. The "more generally" part applies to figure 8.16 and the associated text. Delegation connectors do not need any special notation other than that defined for connectors in general in table 9.2. The third aspect of this issue is a duplicate of 12236, already resolved.
Revised Text: Insert the following paragraph before the paragraph above 8.12 that starts with the words "Interfaces that are exposed …": "If the parts have simple ports (ports with a single required or provided interface), then ball-and-socket notation can be used to represent connectors between those ports, and normal connector notation for assembly or delegation may be shown connected to the ball or socket symbol rather than to the port symbol itself. If a part has no ports, or complex ports, the notation for connector wiring is as specified in Clause Composite Structures. " Replace Figure 8.12, and its caption, by this: Figure 8.12 - An internal or white-box view of the internal structure of a component that contains other components with simple ports as parts of its internal assembly. Replace the paragraph immediately above 8.16 with this: "A delegation connector is notated as a Connector from the delegating Port to the handling Port or Part. If the delegation is handled by a simple Port, then the connector may optionally be shown connected to the single lollipop or socket as illustrated by figure 8.12." Replace the top part of 8.16 with this: This also resolves issues 9807 and 12241 and some of 8900. Disposition: Resolved OMG Issue No: 8249 Title: Section: 12.3.33 Source: U. S. Geological Survey (Jane Messenger, jmessenger@usgs.gov) Summary: Add OCL notation to constraint. Correct multiplicity of association interrutingEdge:ActivityEdge[0..*] so that fig. 194 and text agree. Typos - Change 2nd sent. of 2nd para in sub-section Semantics to "...and the token arrives at the target even is an interruption occurs... . " - Under sub-section Presentation Option, spell zigzag as one word, not two. Resolution: The OCL issue is covered by Issue 6346. The wording in UML 2.2 is already correct ("..even if an interruption occurs…"). However, zigzag should, indeed, be one word. Revised Text: In Section 12.3.33, under Presentation Option, change "zig zag" to "zigzag". Disposition: Resolved
Actions taken:
January 28, 2005: received issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 8169: Section: 11.3.24 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:
If this is not an action why is it discussed in Actions? Move to appropriate Chapter. Wouldn't the action be more like writing to LinkEndDestroyData? If it stays in this chapter please clarify the introduction and description especially explaining how this is different from LinkEndData. Also need to clarify/explain statement "Qualifer values are used in CompleteActions." I don't see a fit with that statement in this section. Attribute in fig 150 is isRemoveDuplicates:Boolean = false so change either the figure or the attribute name in the text. Add OCL notation to Constraints. Constraint [1] typo in "DestroyLinkActiuon" Constraint [2] needs to emphasize that the type UnlimitedNatural is >0. Delete the header Examples as there are none. Typo in Rationale - "LinkeEndDestructionData" 

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: In Actions: Figure 150, LinkEndDestructionData, change isRemoveDuplicates to isDestroyDuplicates. LinkEndCreationData, Description, second paragraph, at end of sentence, insert "to specify links to create". LinkEndDestructionData: Description, second paragraph, at end of sentence, insert "to identify links to destroy". Constraint [1], replace DestroyLinkActiuon with DestroyLinkAction. Editor’s note: fixed in formal copy edit Rationale, replace LinkeEndDestructionData with LinkEndDestructionData.
Actions taken:
January 2, 2000: received issue
January 28, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
See discussion in issues 8166 and 8167 for parts of issue not addressed below. OCL is
duplicate with 6346.


Issue 8170: Section: 11.3.25 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Add the superclass pointer "(from Kernal)" to fig. 143. No operations are indicated in fig 143. Constraint [2] appears to have an operation name missing or misspelled

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: In Actions subsectioon Figure 143, add “(from Kernel)” to MultiplicityElement. Editor’s note: not done – The “from” designations have been removed from the figures entirely since they were not always definitive (they only indicated the topmost name in a hierarchical name) Remove the invalid MultiplicityElement increment defined in the metamodel in package UML::Actions::BasicActions MultiplicityElement, Operations, Operation [2]: after “Boolean”, add a semicolon.
Actions taken:
January 28, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
By convention, operations are not shown in metamodel diagrams.
The reason why there is no “from Kernel” label in MultiplicityElement is because the
metamodel erroneously includes an increment of MultiplicityElement. This increment
should be removed.


Issue 8171: Section: 11.3.26 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The generalization in figure 142 doesn't agree with that mentioned in the section. Attributes are both ordered. Delete header Examples as there are none

Resolution: Example header is duplicate of 8155.
Revised Text: Generalization section of 11.3.26.: Replace “Pin (from BasicActions)” on page <ref> with “Action (from BasicActions)” on page <ref> Attributes section of 11.3.26.: Replace • body : String [1..*] Specifies the action in one or more languages. • language : String [*] Languages the body strings use, in the same order as the body strings with • body : String [1..*] {ordered} Specifies the action in one or more languages. • language : String [0..*] {ordered} Languages the body strings use, in the same order as the body strings
Actions taken:
January 28, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8172: Section: 11.3.27 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Description should mention the multiplicity expressed in fig. 143. Delete the header Examples as there are none

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 28, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
The issue does not say which multiplicity.
Rest is duplicate of 8155.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 8173: Section: 11.3.28 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Typos - In description delete provide and change accept to accepts. Add OCL notation to Constraints. Delete header Examples as there are none.

Resolution: OCL issue is a duplicate of 6452. Header issue is a duplicate of 8155.
Revised Text: In Actions, Pin, under Description, change A pin is a typed element and multiplicity element that provides provide values to actions and accept result values from them. to A pin is a typed element and multiplicity element that provides values to actions and accepts result values from them.
Actions taken:
January 28, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8174: Section: 11.3.29 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Please clarify the relationship and differences between QualifierValue, LinkEndCreationData, LinkEndData, and LinkEndDestructionData especially since QualifierValue, LinkEndData, and LinkEndCreationData are all in the CompleteActions package. Constraint [2] change "are" to "is" Delete Examples header as there are none.

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: In Actions, QualifierValue, Constraint [2], replace "are" with "is". Editor’s note: fixed in formal copy edit
Actions taken:
January 28, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
See discussion in 8166, 8167, and 8169. QualifierValue in particular specifically says
link end data and related elements are for identifying links, and what they identify.


Issue 8175: Section: 11.3.30 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Association exception:InputPin[1..1] is subsetted according to fig 158. Delete Examples heading as there are none

Resolution: Headers issue is duplicate with 8155.
Revised Text: In Actions, RaiseExceptionAction, Associations, exception entry, at end of description, add “(subsets Action:input)”.
Actions taken:
January 28, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8176: Section: 11.3.31 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Fig 153 shows that the association result:OutputPin[1..1] is subsetted. Add OCL notation for constraint [1]. I believe the wording of constraint [1] might be better as: "The type of the result output pin is the type of the classifier."

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: In Actions, ReadExtentAction, Associations, result entry, at end of description add “(subsets Action:output)”.
Actions taken:
January 28, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
OCL is duplicate with 6346. The wording is correct as is. The type is exactly the
classifier, rather than the type of the classifier (which would be a powertype, or a
metametaclass).


Issue 8177: Section: 11.3.33 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Delete Examples header as there are none

Resolution: See issue N/A for disposition
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 28, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8178: Section: 11.3.34 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Association result:OutputPin[1..1] is Specialized from Action:output according to fig. 155. Rewrite Constraint [4] as "The type of the object input pin is the type of the association class that owns the association end." Complete the Semantics section. Delete the header Examples as there are none

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: In Actions, ReadLinkObjectEndAction, under Associations, in the bullet for “object”, replace (Specialized from Action:input) with {subsets Action::input} and, in the description for “result”, insert “{subsets Action::output}” at the beginning: {subsets Action::output} Pin where the result value is placed. Under Semantics, add The value of the specified end of the input link object is place on the output pin of the action. Note that this is not the same as reading links of the link object’s association with the specified end as the open end. Identifying a link object explicitly identifies a single specific link, independently of the values of link ends other than the one specified to be read. Even if the multiplicity of the specified end is different from 1..1 in the association, it only has a single value from the point of view of a specific link object. This is why the output pin of a ReadLinkObjectAction always has a multiplicity of 1..1.
Actions taken:
January 28, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
Constraint [4] is correct as written. The association class is a type, the type of the link
object being read. (Note that the constraint refers to the association class of the link
object, not the Association metaclass.)
The Example header issue is a duplicate of 8155.


Issue 8180: Section: 11.3.35 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Add the specialized statement needed for the association result"OutputPin[1..1] as shown in fig. 155. Add semantics or delete the header. Delete the Examples header as there are none.

Resolution: See issue 8155 for disposition
Revised Text: In Actions, ReadLinkObjectEndQualifierAction, Attributes, entry for result, description, at beginning add "(Specialized from Action:output)".
Actions taken:
January 31, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8181: Section: 11.3.36 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Add OCL notation to constraint [2]. Delete Examples header as there are none

Resolution: See issue 6452, 8155 for disposition
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 31, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8182: Section: 11.3.27 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Delete the Examples header as there are none

Resolution: See issue 8155 for disposition
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 31, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8183: Section: 11.3.38 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Delete the Examples header as there are none

Resolution: See issue 8155 for disposition
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 31, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8185: Section: 11.3.40 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Typo - removeAt:InputPin [0..1] Unlimitednatural needs correcting. Add specialization to association removeAt:InputPin [0..1] as shown in fig. 147. Constraint [1] needs OCL notation. Add that the Unlimited Natural number must be >0 to the constraint definition. Delete Examples header as there are none. Last statement in the Changes from previous UML is not supported by fig. 147. There is no other mention of RemoveAttributeValusAction in this version of the Superstructure

Resolution: Example header is duplicate of 8155. OCL is duplicate of 6346.
Revised Text: Associations section of 11.3.40.: Replace • removeAt : InputPin [0..1] Specifies the position of an existing value to remove in ordered nonunique structural features. The type of the pin is Unlimitednatural, but the value cannot be zero or unlimited. with • removeAt : InputPin [0..1] {subsets Action::input} Specifies the position of an existing value to remove in ordered nonunique structural features. The type of the pin is UnlimitedNatural, but the value cannot be zero or unlimited. (Note: “N” in UnlimitedNatural is uppercase; added {subsets Action::input}) Remove last sentence in Changes from previous UML, Section 11.3.40.
Actions taken:
January 31, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8186: Section: 11.3.41 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The association removeAt:InputPin[0..1] is subsets input from Actions according to fig. 157. Correct typo in Constraint [1] "removaeAt". Add OCL notation for the constraint. Constraint also needs to mention that the Unlimited Natural must be >0. Typo - Last line of para 1 of semantics - change "support" to "supports" Delete header Examples as there are none

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: In Section 11.3.41, under Associations, insert “{subsets Action::input}” at the beginning of the description of “removeAt”: {subsets Action::input} Specifies the position of an existing value to remove in ordered nonunique variables. The type of the pin is UnlimitedNatural, but the value cannot be zero or unlimited. Editor’s note: constraint added at the end to conform to general format rules for constraints In line 1 of Constraint [1], replace “removaeAt” with “removeAt”. Editor’s note: fixed in formal copy edit In the last sentence of the first paragraph under Semantics, change “support” to “supports”. Editor’s note: fixed in formal copy edit
Actions taken:
January 31, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
OCL issue is a duplicate of 6452. Header issue is a duplicate of 8155.
The fact that the value on the removeAt pin must be greater than zero is a run-time
semantic requirement that cannot be captured in an abstract syntax constraint.


Issue 8187: Section: 11.3.43 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Association target:inputPin[1] subsets input from BasicActions according to figure 145

Resolution:
Revised Text: In section 11.3.43, Associations,: Replace: • target: InputPin [1] The target object to which the object is sent. With: • target: InputPin [1] The target object to which the object is sent {subsets Action::/input}
Actions taken:
January 31, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8188: Section: 11.3.44 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Association target:inputPin[1] subsets input from Input according to fig 144. Add OCL notation to the constraints. Semantics [1] change "his" to "the".

Resolution: OCL is duplicate with 6346.
Revised Text: In Actions, SendSignalAction Associations, target entry, at end of description add “(subsets Action:input)”. Semantics, entry [1], first sentence, replace “his” with “this”.
Actions taken:
January 31, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 8189: Section: 11.3.45 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Add OCL Notation to Constraints

Resolution: See issue 6452 for disposition
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 31, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8190: Section: 11.3.46 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Add OCL notation to constraint [2]. My guess would be self.object.type=self.classifier.type (That's pure guess since I know very little OCL.) Delete header Examples as there are none

Resolution: See issue 6452, 8155 for disposition
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 31, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8191: Section: 11.3.47 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Delete header Example as there are none

Resolution: See issue 8155 for disposition
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 31, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8192: Section: 11.3.48 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Fig. 241 shows the generalization of UnmarshallAction to be Actions (from Basic). Correct either figure or text. Association object:inputPin[1..1] subsets nput from Input and association result:OutputPin[1..1] subsets output from Output according to fig 241. Add OCL notation to constraints

Resolution: OCL is duplicate with 6346.
Revised Text: In Actions, UnmarshallAction Generalization, replace “AcceptEventAction (from CompleteActions)” with “Action (from BasicActions”. Associations object entry, at end of description add “(subsets Action:input)”. result entry, at end of description add “(subsets Action:output)”. Constraints, [4], replace “structural features” with “structural feature”.
Actions taken:
January 31, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8193: Section: 11.3.49 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Add OCL notation to constraints. Delete Examples header as there are none

Resolution: See issue 6452, 8155 for disposition
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 31, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8194: Section: 11.3.50 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Association value:ValueSpecification[1] does not express a specialization in the figure. Please correct either text or figure. Add OCL notation to constraints

Resolution: OCL request is duplicate of 6346.
Revised Text: In section 11.3.50, Associations: Replace: • value : ValueSpecification [1] Value specification to be evaluated. {Specializes Action::output} With: • value : ValueSpecification [1] Value specification to be evaluated.
Actions taken:
January 31, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8195: Section: 11.3.51 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Delete Examples header as there are none

Resolution: See issue 8155 for disposition
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 9, 2000: received issue
January 31, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8196: Section: 11.3.52 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Delete Examples header as there are none

Resolution: See issue 8155 for disposition
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 31, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8197: Section: 11.3.42 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary:
The text does not agree with fig. 152. Correct either the figure or the text. Fig shows that ReplyAction generalizes Actions (from BasicActions), that the association replyToCall is to CallEvent not Trigger, that the association replyValue is to InputPin not OutputPin and that this association subsets input from Actions, that the association returnInformation:InputPin subsets input from Actions. Constraint [1] uses the word "trigger" but figure would indicate that "call event" would be more correct. This constraint needs OCL notation. Semantics really don't agree with figure. [2] needs the word "to" added after meaning and the word trigger is still used when the figure would indicate call even is mor appropriate.

Resolution: OCL is duplicate with 6346. Figure 152 should use Trigger instead of CallEvent.
Revised Text: In Actions Figure 152, replace CallEvent with Trigger. ReplyAction Generalizations subsection, replace “AcceptEventAction (from CompleteActions)” with “Action (from BasicActions)”. Associations subsection replyValue entry, replace “OutputPin” with “InputPin”. At end of description, add “(subsets Action::input)”. ReturnInformation entry, at end of description, add “(subsets Action::input)”.
Actions taken:
January 31, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8198: Section: 11.3.53 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Put a line feed before Notation header. Delete Examples header as there are none

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: In Actions, WriteStructuralFeatureAction, insert linefeed before Notation header
Actions taken:
January 31, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
In Actions, WriteStructuralFeatureAction, insert linefeed before Notation header.
Rest is duplicate of 8155.


Issue 8199: Section: 11.3.54 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Delete header Examples as there are none

Resolution: See issue 8155 for disposition
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
January 31, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8202: Section: 12.1 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Italicize activity as well as execution in sent 2 of para 1 under Actions and activities. Basic Activities describes basic and structured levels as orthogonal where either can be used without the other or both can be used to support modeling... . Yet StructuredActivities says that this level requires the basic level. Fig. 175 does not support this statement. Please clarify and fix.

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: In Activities, overview section, under heading StructuredActivities: Second sentence, replace "basic" with "fundamental". Third sentence, replace "intermediateand" with "basic, intermediate, and". Editor’s note: Second change fixed in formal copy edit
Actions taken:
January 31, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
The italics in the first sentence are only for emphasis. They are not applicable to the
second.


Issue 8203: Property string {bag} is redundant (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG (Dr. Tim Weilkiens, tim.weilkiens(at)oose.de)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Property string {bag} is redundant. Use property string {nonunique}defined for MultiplicityElement instead

Resolution:
Revised Text: Page 42, 2nd paragraph, second level bullet list: Replace text {bag} with {nonunique}.
Actions taken:
February 1, 2005: received issue
October 27, 2008: closed issue

Discussion:
The property strings {nonunique} and {bag} have the same meaning and representation in the repository


Issue 8204: {redefined <end-name>} should be named {redefines <end-name>} (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: oose Innovative Informatik eG (Dr. Tim Weilkiens, tim.weilkiens(at)oose.de)
Nature: Revision
Severity: Minor
Summary:
{redefined <end-name>} should be named {redefines <end-name>}

Resolution: Typo in the Superstructure spec; it does not occur in the Infrastructure.
Revised Text: Superstructure (ptc/04-10-02) On page 39, in the explanation of the various types of property strings, change the explanation for the redefines property from: • {redefined <end-name>} to show that the end redefines the one named <end-name>. to: • {redefines <end-name>} to show that the end redefines the one named <end-name>.
Actions taken:
February 1, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8206: Section: 12.2 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Remove duplicate redefines activity statement for association activity between StructuredActivityNode and Activity.

Resolution: See issue 7099 for disposition
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 1, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 8207: Section: 12.3.2 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
According to fig. 187 the associations localPrecondition:Constraint[0..*] and localPostcondition:Constraint[0..*] are subsets of ownedElement. In addition, the multiplicity shown in the fig does not agree with the multiplicity of the text for either association. Para 1, pg 338, sentence 3 appears to have an extra word - tokens - before control tokens. If this isn't extra, then rewrite sentence to make it more clear. The Rationale is a very good description of what an Action is and I suggest placing that paragraph in the Description section. The paragraph for the rationale is not really a rationale or justification--it is a description.

Resolution:
Revised Text: In section 12.3.2: Move all the content from the Rationale subsection to the beginning of the Description subsection and remove the Rationale subsection. Replace: • localPrecondition : Constraint [0..*] Constraint that must be satisfied when execution is started. • localPostcondition : Constraint [0..*] Constraint that must be satisfied when executed is completed. With: • localPrecondition : Constraint [0..*] Constraint that must be satisfied when execution is started. Subsets Element:ownedElement. • localPostcondition : Constraint [0..*] Constraint that must be satisfied when executed is completed. Subsets Element:ownedElement. In the semantics section, the first paragraph on page 338 (just after the steps for executing an action with contarol and data flows): Replace the third sentence: In this case, tokens control tokens are discarded, and data tokens collect at the input pins of the invocation action, if their upper bound is greater than one, or upstream otherwise. With: In this case, control tokens are discarded, and data tokens collect at the input pins of the invocation action, if their upper bound is greater than one, or upstream otherwise.
Actions taken:
February 1, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8208: Section: 12.3.4 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:
None of the multiplicities listed with the associations agree with the multiplicities diagrammed. Please correct either figures (probable) or the text. Associations in the text do not mention any subsets that are illustrated in the associated figures. There is no figure given for Activity in the IntermediateActivity Package but several references to that package (pg 343, 345. Please add a figure for that package for Activity or add Activity to one of the IntermediateActivity figures. Figure 211 is not discussed and appears to give no added value to the section unless figure 210 should contain an action to create a Trouble Ticket.

Resolution: The multiplicities only differ in format.
Revised Text: see ptc/2006-04-01 page192/193
Actions taken:
February 1, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 8209: Section: 12.3.4 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Add OCL notation to constraints

Resolution: See issue 6452 for disposition
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 1, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8210: Section: 12.3.5 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Add subsets (or specializes) or redefines statements to associations as indicated by the associated figures. Correct either the association multiplicity or the associated diagram multiplicity so that they agree. Italicize ActivityEdge in fig. 196. Add OCL notation to constraints. In Semantics (CompleteActivities) change "Edges" beginning paragraphs 3 and 4 to "ActivityEdges". In notation change stick-arrowhead to open arrowhead

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: see ptc/2006-04-01 pages 194/195
Actions taken:
February 1, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
Multiplicities are correct as written. Missing OCL is a duplicate of 6452. The word
“Edges” at the beginning of the indicated paragraphs is used colloquially, consistent with
usage throughout the semantics section, not as the name of the ActivityEdge metaclass.


Issue 8213: Section: 12.3.6 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Delete the headers Presentation Option and Style Guidelines as there are none. "In Figure 222, two ways to reach an activity final exist;..." the figure number needs to be changed to 223

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: In Activities, ActivityFinalNode, in paragraph above Figure 223, first sentence, replace “Figure 222” with “Figure 223”.
Actions taken:
February 2, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
In Activities, ActivityFinalNode, in paragraph above Figure 223, first sentence, replace
“Figure 222” with “Figure 223”. Rest is duplicate with 8155.


Issue 8214: Section: 12.3.7 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Add IntermediateActivities to the section header list of packages. Typo - remove "that" from the first sentence. Add appropriate subsets information to the associations as shown in the diagrams. Make the text and diagram multiplicities agree for the associations. Add OCL notation to the constraints

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: In Activities, ActivityGroup First sentence, remove “(IntermediateActivities)” and “that”. Associations (FundamentalActivities), activity entry, at end of description, add “(subsets NamedElement::owner)”.
Actions taken:
February 2, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
ActivityGroup has no new characteristics in IntermediateActivities. The multiplicities
only differ in format. OCL is duplicate with 6346.


Issue 8215: Section: 12.3.8 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Delete the package name "(CompleteStructuredActivities)" after Attributes because ActivityNode is not part of that package according to the figures. Add subsets notations to the associations as shown in the figures. Change the multiplicities of the associations so that the figures and the text agree. Add OCL notation to the constraints

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: In Activities, ActivityNode In header, replace “StructuredActivities” to “CompleteStructuredActivities”. Associations (FundamentalActivities), activity entry, at end of description add "(subsets NamedElement::owner)". Associations (BasicActivities), redefinedElement entry, at end of description add "(redefines RedefinableElement::redefinedElement)" Associations (IntermediateActivities), inPartition entry, at end of description add "(subsets ActivityNode::inGroup)" Associations (StructuredActivities), move entry for inStructuredNode to Associations (CompleteActivities), and at the end of the description add “(subsets ActivityNode::inGroup)”. Associations (CompleteActivities), inInterruptibleRegion entry, at end of description add "(subsets ActivityNode::inGroup)".
Actions taken:
February 2, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
ActivityNode is part of CompleteStructuredActivities, see Figure 196. The multiplicities
only differ in format. OCL is duplicate with 6346.


Issue 8216: Section: 12.1 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
If BasicActivities and StructuralActivities are orthogonal, why does the structural level require the basic level? This concept is not supported by fig. 175. Please forgive me if I've already sent this one in, but I hadn't marked my comment as submitted.

Resolution: See issue 8202 for disposition
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 3, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 8217: Section: 12.3.9 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Add the multiplicity [1..] to the association. Reword the description of the association parameter:Parameter. It could be interpreted as "the same object node will accept as well as provide parameter values." If that's not the case, i.e., one node accepts and another not provides (which I think is what is meant) then change the "and" to "or." Add OCL notation to the constraints. Constraint [3] needs rewording to something like "Activity parameter nodes must have neither incoming nor outgoing edges" or "Activity parameter nodes must have only incoming or outgoing edges but not both." Wording depends on meaning of constraint. Please clarify semantics to address the following questions. Are input values placed as tokens on input activity parameter nodes at the beginning of flows? Since this node is at the beginning of the flow is that why it has no incoming edges? If it has no incomind edges, how are the values placed on the node? Para 1 of semantics says to see semantics at ObjectNode, Action, and ActivityParamenterNode. This is the semantics section for ActivityParameterNode. Delete that phrase or correct it to the proper reference semantics section. The package CompleteActivities does not show any diagrams with ActivityParameterNode. Delete those package references on pg. 366 or explain why that package is referenced.

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: Section 12.3.9: Change the first sentence in the description from: Activity parameters are object nodes at the beginning and end of flows, to accept inputs to an activity and provide outputs from it. To: Activity parameter nodes are object nodes at the beginning and end of flows that provide a means to accept inputs to an activity and provide outputs from the activity, through the activity parameters.
Actions taken:
February 3, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
This is a duplicate of 8219. However, the resolution of 8219 did not correct the
description, as requested.


Issue 8218: Section: 12 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Use of the term edge(s)is confusing without the appropriate qualifier - "Control" or "Object." Suggest changing edge or edges to ControlEdge(s) and/or ObjectEdge(s) as appropriate

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 3, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
The term “edge” is used to mean both kinds. The issue refers to the entire Activities
chapter. If there are specific cases where it should be replaced with one or the other kind
of edge, then issues can be filed on those.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 8219: Section: 12.3.9 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Significant
Summary:
Add the multiplicity [1..] to the association. Reword the description of the association parameter:Parameter. It could be interpreted as "the same object node will accept as well as provide parameter values." If that's not the case, i.e., one node accepts and another not provides (which I think is what is meant) then change the "and" to "or." Add OCL notation to the constraints. Constraint [3] needs rewording to something like "Activity parameter nodes must have neither incoming nor outgoing edges" or "Activity parameter nodes must have only incoming or outgoing edges but not both." Wording depends on meaning of constraint. Please clarify semantics to address the following questions. Are input values placed as tokens on input activity parameter nodes at the beginning of flows? Since this node is at the beginning of the flow is that why it has no incoming edges? If it has no incomind edges, how are the values placed on the node? Para 1 of semantics says to see semantics at ObjectNode, Action, and ActivityParamenterNode. This is the semantics section for ActivityParameterNode. Delete that phrase or correct it to the proper reference semantics section. The package CompleteActivities does not show any diagrams with ActivityParameterNode. Delete those package references on pg. 366 or explain why that package is referenced.

Resolution: see pages 200/201 of prc/2006-04-01
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 3, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8220: Section: 12 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Use of the term edge(s)is confusing without the appropriate qualifier - "Control" or "Object." Suggest changing edge or edges to ControlEdge(s) and/or ObjectEdge(s) as appropriate

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 3, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
The issue refers to the whole chapter 12. In general it is ok to use the term edge if
referring to activity edges in general. I agree that the term “control edge” or “control
flow” should be used if only referring to that kind of edge. Same for object flow. Provide
specific issues for such cases.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 8222: Section: 12.3.10 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Associated fig. 184 does not show generalizations from FundamentalActivities for ActivityGroup or from Dependencies for NamedElement. The association activity:Activity[0..1] is not diagrammed in fig. 184. The description for the association represents:Element[0..1] needs rewording. Does it mean "An element constraining the behaviors invoked by the nodes in the partition" (constraining used as a verb) or "The element constraining behaviors that are invoked by the nodes in the partition (constraining used as the noun "constraining behaviors")? Fig. 184 shows additional associations: ContainedEdge:ActivityEdge[1..1] and containedNode:ActivityNode[1..1]. These need to be added to text. Add OCL notation to constraints.

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: In Activities, ActivityPartition, Associations, add entries: containedNode : ActivityNode [0..*] Nodes immediately contained in the partition. Redefined from ActivityGroup::containedNode. containedEdge : ActivityEdge [0..*] Edges immediately contained in the partition. Redefines ActivityGroup::containedEdge.
Actions taken:
February 3, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
In Figure 184:
The generalization to ActivityGroup (BasicActivities) is correct because the
figure is in IntermediateActivities, which depends on BasicActivities.
The generalization to NamedElement (Kernel) is correct because
IntermediateActivities depends on Kernel, through BasicActivities and
FundamentalActivities.
The association activity:Activity[0..1] is not diagrammed because it is inherited
without specialization.
In ActivityPartition:
The description for the association represents:Element[0..1] uses “constraining”
as a verb. Neither sentence suggested by the filer seems better, and using
"constraining behaviors" in the particular sentence cited would be ungrammatical.
Rest is duplicate of 6346.


Issue 8223: Section: 12.3.12 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Associated fig. 192 spells association name as ownedParameterSet (no "s"), does not show the same multiplicity, and shows that this association subsets ownedMember. Make fig and text agree. 

Resolution: Multiplicity in fig. 192 is “*” and in associations section “[0..*]”. Both are the same.
Revised Text: Associations section of 12.3.12.: Replace • ownedParameterSets : ParameterSet[0..*] The ParameterSets owned by this Behavior. with • ownedParameterSet : ParameterSet[0..*] {subsets Namespace::ownedMember} The ParameterSets owned by this Behavior. (Note: no “s” in ownedParameterSet; added subsets) Editor’s note: added constraint at the end of the text to conform to standard format
Actions taken:
February 3, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8224: Section: 12.1 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Typo - Capitalize the "M" in ownedMember of the subsets not for the BehavioralFeature association ownedParameterSet:ParameterSet

Resolution:
Revised Text: In Activities, Figure 192, on association end named “ownedParameterSet” from BehavioralFeature, change subsets constraint to “subsets ownedMember”.
Actions taken:
February 3, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8225: Section: 12.3.13 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Fig. 192 spells the association as ownedParameterSet (no "s"), does not express the same multiplitity as the text, and indicates that the association subsets ownedmember (need to capitalize the "M" in the figure). Make text and figure agree.

Resolution:
Revised Text: In section 12.3.13, subsection Associations, replace: • ownedParameterSets : ParameterSet[0..*] The ParameterSets owned by this BehavioralFeature. With: • ownedParameterSet : ParameterSet[0..*] The ParameterSets owned by this BehavioralFeature. Subsets Namespace::ownedMember. Editor’s note: Above is duplicate of 8223 In figure 192, change {subsets ownedmember} to {subsets ownedMember}.
Actions taken:
February 3, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8226: MultiplicityElement BNF too restrictive (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Adaptive (Mr. Pete Rivett, pete.rivett(at)adaptive.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
The BNF for Notation in 9.12 of Infra and 7.3.32 of Super does not allow specification of uniqueness-designator without preceding order-designator.
This seems too restrictive and is in fact inconsistent with the example in Fig 59 of Super which just shows {unique}.

Resolution:
Revised Text: OMG Issue No: 8226 The BNF for Notation in 9.12 of Infra and 7.3.32 of Super does not allow specification of This seems too restrictive and is in fact inconsistent with the example in Fig 59 of Super In the Superstructure document: On page 99 replace the BNF describing in the Presentation Options subsection of MultiplicityElement: <multiplicity> ::= <multiplicity-range> [ ‘{‘ <order-designator> [‘,’ <uniqueness-designator>] ‘}’ ] <multiplicity-range> ::= [ <lower> ‘..’ ] <upper> <lower> ::= <integer> | <value-specification> <upper> ::= ‘*’ | <value-specification> <order-designator> ::= ‘ordered’ | ‘unordered’ <uniqueness-designator> ::= ‘unique’ | ‘nonunique’ with the following: <multiplicity> ::= <multiplicity-range> [ [ ‘{‘ <order-designator> [‘,’ <uniqueness-designator> ] ‘}’ ] | [ ‘{‘ <uniqueness-designator> [‘,’ <order-designator> ] ‘}’ ] ] <multiplicity-range> ::= [ <lower> ‘..’ ] <upper> <lower> ::= <integer> | <value-specification> <upper> ::= ‘*’ | <value-specification> <order-designator> ::= ‘ordered’ | ‘unordered’ <uniqueness-designator> ::= ‘unique’ | ‘nonunique’ In the Infrastructure document: On page 78, replace the BNF describing in the Presentation Options subsection of MultiplicityElement: <multiplicity> ::= <multiplicity-range> <multiplicity-range> ::= [ <lower> ‘..’ ] <upper> <lower> ::= <integer> <upper> ::= ‘*’ | <unlimited_natural> <order-designator> ::= 'ordered' | 'unordered' <uniqueness-designator> ::= 'unique' | 'nonunique' with the following: <multiplicity> ::= <multiplicity-range> [ [ ‘{‘ <order-designator> [‘,’ <uniqueness-designator> ] ‘}’ ] | [ ‘{‘ <uniqueness-designator> [‘,’ <order-designator> ] ‘}’ ] ] <multiplicity-range> ::= [ <lower> ‘..’ ] <upper> <lower> ::= <integer> | <value-specification> <upper> ::= ‘*’ | <value-specification> <order-designator> ::= ‘ordered’ | ‘unordered’ <uniqueness-designator> ::= ‘unique’ | ‘nonunique’ On page 81, replace the BNF describing in the Presentation Options subsection of MultiplicityElement (as specialized): multiplicity ::= <multiplicity_range> [ ‘{‘ <order_designator> ‘}’ ] multiplicity_range ::= [ lower ‘..’ ] upper lower ::= integer | value_specification upper ::= unlimited_natural | ‘*’ | value_specification <order_designator> ::= ordered | unordered <uniqueness_designator> ::= unique | nonunique with the following: <multiplicity> ::= <multiplicity-range> [ [ ‘{‘ <order-designator> [‘,’ <uniqueness-designator> ] ‘}’ ] | [ ‘{‘ <uniqueness-designator> [‘,’ <order-designator> ] ‘}’ ] ] <multiplicity-range> ::= [ <lower> ‘..’ ] <upper> <lower> ::= <integer> | <value-specification> <upper> ::= ‘*’ | <value-specification> <order-designator> ::= ‘ordered’ | ‘unordered’ <uniqueness-designator> ::= ‘unique’ | ‘nonunique’
Actions taken:
February 3, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8227: Incomplete BNF for Property (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Adaptive (Mr. Pete Rivett, pete.rivett(at)adaptive.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
In BNF Notation for Property (11.3.4 of Infra, 7.3.44 of Super), <prop-modifier> is defined but never refered to

Resolution:
Revised Text: Superstructure (ptc/04-10-02) At the bottom of page 129, replace the line: [‘{‘ <prop-property > [‘,’ <prop-property >]* ’}’] with the line: [‘{‘ <prop-modifier > [‘,’ <prop-modifier >]* ’}’] Infrastructure (ptc/04-10-14) At the top of page 131, replace the line: [‘{‘ <prop-property > [‘,’ <prop-property >]* ’}’] with the line: [‘{‘ <prop-modifier > [‘,’ <prop-modifier >]* ’}’]
Actions taken:
February 3, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8228: BNF Notation for Operation is too restrictive (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Adaptive (Mr. Pete Rivett, pete.rivett(at)adaptive.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
In 11.8.2 (Infra) and 7.3.36 (Super) the notation BNF requires a {<oper-property} any time there is a ':' after the operation name

Resolution:
Revised Text: On page 108 of the Superstructure [page 158 of the Infrastructure] spec in the Notation subsection of Operation, replace the BNF: [<visibility>] <name> ‘(‘ [<parameter-list>] ‘)’ [‘:’ [<return-type>] ‘{‘ <oper-property> [‘,’ <oper-property>]* ‘}’] with the following BNF (add an extra pair of brackets): [<visibility>] <name> ‘(‘ [<parameter-list>] ‘)’ [‘:’ [<return-type>] [‘{‘ <oper-property> [‘,’ <oper-property>]* ‘}’] ]
Actions taken:
February 3, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8229: Used of "Redefines ...from Abstractions" in descriptions is misleading (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: Adaptive (Mr. Pete Rivett, pete.rivett(at)adaptive.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
For example 11.7.2 of Infra: the name property states 
Redefines the corresponding attributes from Basic::NamedElement and Abstractions::Visibilities::NamedElement.

However there is no redefinition occurring; nor would it make sense.

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: In section 11.7.2 of Infrastructure, change • name: String [0..1] Redefines the corresponding attributes from Basic::NamedElement and Abstractions::Visibilities::NamedElement. to: • name: String [0..1] The name of the NamedElement.
Actions taken:
February 3, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
This descriptions resulted from the old definition of package merge where the merging
package specialized and redefined matching classes and properties from the merged class.
Since this is no longer the case, the description of NamedElement::name should change.


Issue 8231: Section: 12.3.14 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
For the Attributes, Associations, and Constraints sub-sections change "None" to "No new." This would be a good policy to follow for all "(as Specialized)" concepts where no new information is presented in the 'as Specialized" concept.

Resolution: Discussion: This was fixed as part of an editorial pass in a previous release. Revised Text: N/A Disposition: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 4, 2005: received issue
October 27, 2008: closed issue

Issue 8232: Section: 12.3.15 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Change "None" to "No new" for sub-sections Attributes, Associations, and Constraints

Resolution: See issue 8670 for disposition
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 4, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8233: Section: 12.3.16 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Package CompleteActivities is not supported by fig. 182 as a generalization for this concept. Change Figure 293 reference in sub-section Notation to either figure 294 or, more likely, figure 301.


Resolution:
Revised Text: Section 12.3.16, p.378: Change “ObjectNode (from BasicActivities, CompleteActivities)” on page 422” to “ObjectNode (from BasicActivities)” on page 422 Editor’s note: the above is simply a cross reference to a heading – it is not possible to make a separate heading for just the one increment, because of the way that the document is structured. Above change not entered. Section 12.3.16, p.379 in Notation subsection: change “This is useful when it needs to be distinguished from the standalone notation for pins shown on the left of Figure 29 and the top left of Figure 300.” To “This is useful when it needs to be distinguished from the standalone notation for pins, shown at top of Figures 294 and 301.”
Actions taken:
February 4, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8234: Section: 12.3.17 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Multiplicity for StructuredActivities associations test:ActivityNode[0..*] and body:ActivityNode[0..*] and for CompleteStructuredActivities association bodyOutput:outputPin[0..*] do not agree with figures 195 and 196 respectively. Remove the second set of parantheses from the sub-section heading Associations ((CompleteStructuredActivities)).

Resolution:
Revised Text: In section 12.3.17, subsection Associations (StructuredActivities) replace: • test : ActivityNode [0..*] A nested activity fragment with a designated output pin that specifies the result of the test. • body : ActivityNode [0..*] A nested activity fragment that is executed if the test evaluates to true and the clause is chosen over any concurrent clauses that also evaluate to true. With: • test : ActivityNode [0..*] A nested activity fragment with a designated output pin that specifies the result of the test. • body : ActivityNode [0..*] A nested activity fragment that is executed if the test evaluates to true and the clause is chosen over any concurrent clauses that also evaluate to true. Editor’s note: The types have to be adjusted with resolution 8740 In the following subsection, replace: Associations ((CompleteStructuredActivities)) • bodyOutput : OutputPin [0..*] A list of output pins within the body fragment whose values are copied to the result pins of the containing conditional node or conditional node after execution of the clause body. With: Associations (CompleteStructuredActivities) • bodyOutput : OutputPin [0..*] A list of output pins within the body fragment whose values are copied to the result pins of the containing conditional node or conditional node after execution of the clause body.
Actions taken:
February 4, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8235: Section: 12.3.18 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The generalization from CompleteStructuredActivities is not supported by the figures. Typo - add a space before last sentence in para 2 of sub-section Description. (Before Note that... .) Change wording of definition of attribute isDeterminate:Boolean to "If true, the modeler asserts that at most only one of concurrent tests will succeed and therefore the choice of the clause is deterministic." The multiplicity of the CompleteStructuredActivities association result:OutputPin[0..*] is not what is shown on fig 196. Also change the definition to reflect that the association is ordered and subsets output. Delete sub-section headers Notation, Presentation Option, and Examples are there are none. Suggest changing wording in sent 5 para 4 of sub-section semantics to "If the isDeterminate attribute has a true value, the modeler asserts that at most only one of concurrent test sections will yeild a test value (the predecessor relationship may be used to enforce this assertion)."

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: In Activities, ConditionalNode Description, second paragraph, last sentence, at beginning, add space before “Note that”. Editor’s note: fixed in formal copy edit Attributes (StructuredActivities), entry for isDeterminate, in description, remove “concurrently and therefore the choice of clause is deterministic”. Associations (CompleteActivities), entry for result, at the end of the description add “{subsets Action::output}”.
Actions taken:
February 4, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
Generalization is supported by merge (StructuredActivityNode appears in
CompleteStructuredActivities). Following resolution of 8493, the revised text removes
the word “concurrently” from the description of the entry for isDeterminate. Multiplicity
formats are consistent. Ordering of output is inherited, so is not stated here. Headers
issue is duplicate with 8155. The sentence in Semantics was corrected in 8493.


Issue 8236: Section: 12.3.19 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Fig. 179 does not support generalizations of CompleteActivities, CompleteStructuredActivities, or IntermediateActivities packages. Add OCL notation

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 4, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
Those packages are the ones merging ActivityEdge. OCL is duplicate with 6346.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 8237: Section: 12.3.6 & 12.3.19 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
I'm confused. Fig. 178 shows ActivityFinalNode as a child of ControlNode in the BasicActivities sub-package, but in fig. 183 it is a "grandchild" of ControlNode and a child of FinalNod in the IntermediateActivities sub-package. Can a concept be both a child and a grandchild of the same higher-level concept, in this case ControlNode?

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 4, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
Yes, a class can have the same grandparent through more than one generalization path.
In this case, it is done because an intermediate class is not in one of the packages, while
its parent and child are.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 8238: Section: 12.3.22 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Add OCL Notation to constraints. Typo - remove 2nd "a" from sent3 of para 2 of sub-section Notation. Delete sub-section headers Presentation Option and Style Guidelines as there are none.

Resolution: Missing OCL issue is a duplicate of 6452. Empty section issues are duplicates of 8155.
Revised Text: In Section 12.3.22, under Notation, in the 2 nd paragraph, 3 rd sentence, beginning “This case maps to a model containing a a merge node…”, remove the second “a” before “merge node”.
Actions taken:
February 4, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8239: Section: 12.3.24 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Change type font to italics on fig. 195. Change association handler:ExceptionHandler [0..1] so that fig. 197 and text agree. Add the subsets ownedElement note as shown in fig 197.

Resolution:
Revised Text: In Activities, Figure 195, make ExecutableNode abstract, including occurrences introduced by the resolution of issue 8740 (ConditionalNode and LoopNode test and bodies should be ExecutableNodes). In section 12.3.24, subsection Associations (ExtraStructuredActivities), replace: • handler : ExceptionHandler [0..*] A set of exception handlers that are examined if an uncaught exception propagates to the outer level of the executable node. With: • handler : ExceptionHandler [0..*] A set of exception handlers that are examined if an uncaught exception propagates to the outer level of the executable node {subsets Element::ownedElement}.
Actions taken:
February 7, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8240: Section: 12.3.23 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Add subsets note to association protectedNode:ExecutableNode[1..1] as shown on fig. 197. Add OCL notation to constraints. Under sub-section Presentation Option change "interrupting edge is a zig-zag adornment..." to "exception handler is a zig-zag adornment..." Delete sub-section heading Rationale as there is none. Typo - Under sub-section Changes from previous UML in para 2 put a space between first and second sentences.


Resolution: OCL is duplicate with 6346. Headers issue is duplicate with 8155.
Revised Text: In Activities, ExceptionHandler Associations, entry for protectedNode, at end of description add “{subsets Element::owner}”. Presentation Option, first sentence, replace “interrupting edge” with “exception handler”. Rationale, second paragraph, after first sentence, add space.
Actions taken:
February 7, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8241: Section: 12.3.27 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Add OCL notation to the constraint. In sub-section Semantics, last sent. of para 1 change "concurrency" to "mode." Typo - In sub-section Presentation Option, put a space after Figure 259. On Page 399, change figure reference number to 261. In fig. 261, chane <<concurrent>> to <<parallel>>.

Resolution: Missing OCL issue is a duplicate of 6452. Empty section issues are duplicates of 8155.
Revised Text: In Section 12.3.22, under Notation, in the 2 nd paragraph, 3 rd sentence, beginning “This case maps to a model containing a a merge node…”, remove the second “a” before “merge node”. Editor’s note: The resolution above seems to be a copy-paste of the resolution to issue 8238. I made the changes indicated in the summary, since those were simple editorial changes.
Actions taken:
February 7, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8242: Section: 12.3.28 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Add OCL notation to the constraint

Resolution: See issue 6425 for disposition
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 7, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8243: Section: 12.3.30 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Add OCL notation to the constraints

Resolution: See issue 6425 for disposition
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 7, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:


Issue 8245: Section: 12.3.38 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Revision
Severity: Significant
Summary:
I may be all wet (after all it is a Monday morning and raining here) but I think fig. 265 needs to be redrawn. The notation between the BuildComponent and InstallComponent activites is different than the notation between the InstallComponent and DeliverApplication activities yet the flow is basically the same. To agree with the left side of the flow between BuildComponent and InstallComponent activities, there should be a fork after the InstallComponent activity with an edge going to DeliverApplication activity and an edge going to a decisionNode. The decisionNode should have two edges exiting it. One labeled [more components to be installed] and going back to the InstallComponent activity; a second labeled [no more components to be installed] going to a Flow final node. The edge and the [no more components to be installed] label need to be removed from the edge going from the decisionNode to the DeliverApplication activity. Out of curiosity, why was a fork notation used and not the decisionNode with three control flow edges leading from it?

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 7, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
After the Build Component action has completed, the activity can in proceed to install the
component, and check to see if any further components need to be built. If there are no
more components to build, then the forked parallel flow terminates, but the activity
continues with the installation of any previously built components. If there are additional
components to build, they are built with the Build Component action and then sent to be
installed. The reason for a fork here is to allow additional components to be built while
previously built components are installed.
A fork cannot be included after the Install Component action as this would result in the
application being delivered after its first component was installed.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 8246: namespace (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The namespace is xmlns:Model="omg.org.mof.Model" Surely it should be xmlns:Model="org.omg.mof.Model" " The official/latest version of this file: omg.org/models/MOF1.4/XMI1.1/Model1.4/Model.xml" does not exist on the OMG web site.

Resolution: Discussion This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification. Disposition: Closed - No Change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 5, 2005: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 8247: Section: 12.3.31 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Add OCL notation to constraints. Reword last sentence in last paragraph of sub-section Semantics. The entire sentence is confusing and unclear

Resolution: The missing OCL issue is a duplicate of 6425.
Revised Text: In Section 12.3.31, under Semantics, replace the last sentence: In addition, when an activity starts, control tokens are placed at actions and structured nodes that have no incoming edges, except if they are handler bodies (see “ExceptionHandler (from ExtraStructuredActivities)” on page 390) are fromActions of action input pins, or are contained in structured nodes. with: In addition, when an activity starts, a control token is placed at each action or structured node that has no incoming edges, except if it is a handler body (see “ExceptionHandler (from ExtraStructuredActivities)” on page 390), it is the fromAction of an action input pin (see “ActionInputPin (from StructuredActions)” on page 252), or it is contained in a structured node.
Actions taken:
February 7, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8248: Section: 12.3.32 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Add OCL notation

Resolution: See issue 6425 for disposition
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 7, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8249: Section: 12.3.33 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Add OCL notation to constraint. Correct multiplicity of association interrutingEdge:ActivityEdge[0..*] so that fig. 194 and text agree. Typos - Change 2nd sent. of 2nd para in sub-section Semantics to "...and the token arrives at the target even is an interruption occurs... . " - Under sub-section Presentation Option, spell zigzag as one word, not two.

Resolution: Discussion This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification. Disposition: Closed - No Change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 7, 2005: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:
Disposition:	Deferred to UML 2.4 RTF


Issue 8250: Section: 12.3.33 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Enhancement
Severity: Significant
Summary:
The order cancellation request example lends itself to enhancement. Fig. 274 could be enhanced if there was drawn a fork from invoice providing multiple edges of "no payment needed" or "make payment" with the "no payment needed" edge directly entering the join. Another fork could also be added after the AcceptPayment activity with one outgoing edge labeled "refund payment" with an edge to an activity "IssueRefund" then an edge going to the join. The explanation would reiterate that a token transfer, once initiated (SendInvoice activity), that is outside of the region is not interruptable. That since the SendInvoice activity is outside the region, no matter when the CancelOrder interrupt activity is issued, the SendInvoice activity is issued. However, corrective activities are needed to be performed before the CloseOrder actvity can be accomplished. This would be to either issue the invoice stating no payment is due or to issue a refund once payment is received. Additionally, wouldn't the CancelOrder activity more likely go to the merge before the CloseOrder activity instead of directly to the Activity Final? Otherwise, logically thinking, some order is out there not closed (just canceled). But then maybe (probably??) I'm missing the point of the example in which case a better explanation of the example needs to be provided.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 7, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
The order cancellation request example could be improved by better analysis, as well as
an indication of the activity involved in Cancel Order. It should be kept in mind that
Cancel Order is a fairly complex activity, involving process-based “compensation.”
Compensation would consist of processes such as requesting return of already-shipped
items, refunding payments, closing the order, and terminating the activity. So, most of the
improvements suggested in this issue would be handled instead within the Cancel Order
activity. Adding the suggested enhancements (or an activity diagram containing the
Cancel Order activity would indeed enhance the Process Order activity. However, in
doing so, it could detract from the clarity of the example¹s primary propose: clearly
illustrate an example of using an InteruptableActivityRegion.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 8252: Section: 12.3.34 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Add the package name IntermediateActivities to the first Associations sub-section. Add the subsets ownedElement statement (as shown in fig 193) to the association joinSpec:ValueSpecification[1..1]. Typo - remove the second a between containing and join in the 4th sent of the Notation sub-section 1st para. Change AcceptOrder behavior to SendInvoice behavior (as shown in fig 277) in the 1st sentence in the Examples sub-section. Add OCL notation to the constraints

Resolution:
Revised Text: Associations section of 12.3.34: Replace header Associations with Associations (IntermediateActivities) Editor’s note: the above change was not entered because it does not conform to the standard format Associations (CompleteActivities) section of 12.3.34: Replace • joinSpec : ValueSpecification [1..1] A specification giving the conditions under which the join will emit a token. Default is “and”. with • joinSpec : ValueSpecification [1..1] {subsets Element::ownedElement} A specification giving the conditions under which the join will emit a token. Default is “and”. Editor’s note: added constraint at the end of the text to conform to standard format Notation section of 12.3.34, 1 st paragraph, 4 th sentence: Replace This case maps to a model containing a a join node with all the incoming edges shown in the diagram and one outgoing edge to a fork node that has all the outgoing edges shown in the diagram. with This case maps to a model containing a join node with all the incoming edges shown in the diagram and one outgoing edge to a fork node that has all the outgoing edges shown in the diagram. (Note: removed “a” between containing and join) Editor’s note: fixed in formal copy edit Examples section of 12.3.34, 1 st paragraph, 1 st sentence: Replace The example at the left of the figure indicates that a Join is used to synchronize the processing of the Ship Order and Accept Order behaviors. with The example at the left of the figure indicates that a Join is used to synchronize the processing of the Ship Order and Send Invoice behaviors. (Note: replaced “Accept Order” by “Send Invoice”) Constraints section of 12.3.34: Add OCL to constraints: [1] A join node has one outgoing edge. self.outgoing->size()=1 [2] If a join node has an incoming object flow, it must have an outgoing object flow, otherwise, it must have an outgoing control flow. (self.incoming.select( e | e.isTypeOf(ObjectFlow)->notEmpty() implies self.outgoing.isTypeOf(ObjectFlow)) and (self.incoming.select( e | e.isTypeOf(ObjectFlow)->empty() implies self.outgoing.isTypeOf(ControlFlow))
Actions taken:
February 7, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8253: Section: 12.3.35 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Correct multiplicities of associations so that the figures (195 and 196) agree with text. Add subsets statments to descriptions as shown in fig. 96. Typo - 5th para, 1st sent of Semantic sub-section change "body sections has" to "body section has." Delete sub-sections Notation and Examples as there are none.

Resolution: Multiplicities are in consistent format. Headers issue is duplicate with 8155.
Revised Text: In Activities, LoopNode Assocations (CompleteActivities) Remove extra “(“ in header. Editor’s note: note done, different convention used in the formal spec result entry, at end of description, add “{subsets Action::output}”. Editor’s note: note done, handled by 8255 loopVariable entry, at end of description, add “{subsets Element::ownedElement}”. Editor’s note: note done, handled by 8255 Semantics, fifth paragraph, first sentence, replace “body sections” with “body section”. Editor’s note: fixed in formal copy edit
Actions taken:
February 7, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8254: Section: 12.3 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Add sections for front end node and back end node as mentioned in LoopNode

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 7, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
The issue references p 415, which is the semantics of LoopNode, already describing front
end and back end nodes. This semantics is actually redundant with the semantics of
StructuredActivityNode, but that is a separate issue.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 8255: Section: 12.3.35 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
I forgot to mention that "ordered" needs to be added to the following associations: results:OutputPin[0..*], loopVariable:OutputPin[0..*], and loopVariableInput:InputPin[0..*] as shown in fig. 196.

Resolution: Also added subsets statements to results, loopVariable, and loopVariableInput.
Revised Text: Associations (CompleteStructuredActivities) section of 12.3.35: Replace • result : OutputPin [0..*] A list of output pins that constitute the data flow output of the entire loop. • loopVariable : OutputPin [0..*] A list of output pins owned by the loop that hold the values of the loop variables during an execution of the loop. When the test fails, the values are copied to the result pins of the loop. with • result : OutputPin [0..*] {ordered,subsets Action::output} A list of output pins that constitute the data flow output of the entire loop. • loopVariable : OutputPin [0..*] {ordered,subsets Element::ownedElement} A list of output pins owned by the loop that hold the values of the loop variables during an execution of the loop. When the test fails, the values are copied to the result pins of the loop. Editor’s note: added constraint at the end of the text to conform to standard format Replace • loopVariableInput : InputPin[0..*] A list of values that are copied into the loop variable pins before the first iteration of the loop. with • loopVariableInput : InputPin[0..*] {ordered,subsets Action::input} A list of values that are copied into the loop variable pins before the first iteration of the loop. Editor’s note: added constraint at the end of the text to conform to standard format
Actions taken:
February 7, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8256: Profiles:Extension End (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:
Profiles:Extension End - the spec needs to be clear on the behaviour of the
{required} property of an extension if the extending stereotype in question
has subclasses. Are those sub-stereotypes also required?

Resolution:
Revised Text: IsRequired is a property of "Extension", not "ExtensionEnd". But yes, we can be more specific. Revised Text: In 18.3.2 Extension – Semantics in ptc/04-10-02 and 13.1.2 in ptc/04-11-16: After 1 st paragraph (A required … isRequired is true.) Add If the extending stereotype has subclasses, then at one instance of the stereotype or one of its subclasses is required.
Actions taken:
February 8, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8257: Section: 12.3.37 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Add OCL notation to constraints. In the Semantics (CompleteActivities) sub-section, third para change receiving to multireceiving and is to are. In Examples sub-section, the example describing fig. 286, last line indicates that the selection specifies that a query operatiion that takes an Order evaluates the customer object via the Order.customer:Party association. This is not what is diagrammed in the right side of fig. 286.

Resolution: OCL is duplicate with 6346.
Revised Text: In Activities, ObjectFlow Semantics, last paragraph, first sentence, replace “receiving is” with “multireceiving are”. Examples, paragraph above Figure 286, last sentence, replace “selection, then,” with “transformation”.
Actions taken:
February 8, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Issue 8258: Section: 12.3.38 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The multiplicity of association (CompleteActivities) inState:State[0..*] does not agree with fig. 189. Add OCL notation to constraint (BasicActivities) [1]. Add OCL notation to contraints (CompleteActivities. Add "(BasicActivities)" to the 1st Semantics sub-section

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 8, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
The multiplicities “*” and “[0..*]” mean the same thing. Since ObjectNode is introduced
in BasicActivities, the header for that is not put in Semantics. The rest is duplicate with
6346.
Disposition: Closed, no change


Issue 8260: Section: 12.3.40 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
Add package names "(CompleteStructuredActivities, StructuredActivities)" Add OCL notation

Resolution: Within the Activities package, OutputPin appears under StructuredActivities and CompleteStructuredActivities. However, Figures 12.21 and 12.22 (of the UML 2.2 Specification, ptc/08-05-05), explicitly referencesUML::Actions::BasicActions::OutputPin. This is not correct, because StructuredActivities (indirectly) merges BasicActions, it does not import it - and, since it merges it, cannot reference elements from it.
Revised Text: In Section 12.3.40: - In the title, after "OutputPin" add "(from CompleteStructuredActivities, StructuredActivities). - After the first paragraph add: Generalization "OutputPin (from Basic Actions)" on page 268 (merge increment) In Figures 12.21 and 12.22, change the uses of UML::Actions::BasicActions::OutputPin to UML::Activities::CompleteStructuredActivities::OutputPin (but shown with an unqualified name).
Actions taken:
February 8, 2005: received issue
February 20, 2015: closed issue

Discussion:
Discussion
This issue has already been resolved by, or no longer applies to, the UML 2.5 Beta 1 specification.
Disposition: Closed - No Change


Issue 8261: Section: 12.3.41 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The attribute effect:ParameterEffectKind[0..1] does not display this multiplicity in fig. 192. Reword the definition of attribute isStream:Boolean[1..1]=false to "Tells whether an input parameter may accept valuses or an output parameter post values while the behavior is executing." parameterSet:ParameterSet[0..*] listed as an attribute is an association. Please move it to the Association sub-section. The multiplicity for parameterSet:ParameterSet[0..*] does not agree with fig. 192. Add OCL notation to the constraints. Under sub-section Notation the last sent. says to "See notation for Operations." but gives no reference location. Is this supposed to be at page 105?

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: Change the multiplicity of parameterSet in fig. 192 from “*” to “0..*”. Editor’s note: the above change was not entered because it does not conform to the standard format and makes no semantic difference since * is equivalent to 0..*
Actions taken:
February 8, 2005: received issue
August 23, 2006: closed issue

Discussion:
It’s not necessary to reword the definition of attribute isStream. The proposed rewording
is just another verbalism and doesn’t introduce any important information.


Issue 8262: Section: 12.3.43 (uml2-rtf)

Click
here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity: Minor
Summary:
The association condition:Constraint[0..*] does not have the same multiplicity as fig. 192. Also the fig. indicates that the association subsets ownedElement. Add OCL notation to constraints

Resolution:
Revised Text: Section 12.3.43, subsection Associations (CompleteActivities), replace: • condition : Constraint [0..*] Constraint that should be satisfied for the owner of the parameters in an input parameter set to start execution using the values provided for those parameters, or the owner of the parameters in an output parameter set to end execution providing the values for those parameters, if all preconditions and conditions on input parameter sets were satisfied. With: • condition : Constraint [0..*] Constraint that should be satisfied for the owner of the parameters in an input parameter set