In particular, if I understand correctly, for the root element object class (i.e., red element), the format is actually not “[/<ModelName>:<ClassName>:<navigable association end role name>]” as indicated in the UML guidelines v1.3.03 but it is in the format of “[/<ModelName>:<ClassName>:<name of the RootElement stereotype>]”
Model Name or Prefix
Italo Busiindicates that theUML guidelineis not requiring the undescore in thenameof theRootElementstereotype, while the examples in theUML to YANG guidelineinclude the undescore (e.g. TAPI currently has "_context"). It is recommendable to clarify and align the guidelines.
In particular, for the root element object class (i.e.,red element), the format is actually not “[/<ModelName>:<ClassName>:<navigable association end role name>]” as indicated in the UML guidelines v1.3.03 but it is in the format of “[/<ModelName>:<ClassName>:<name of the RootElement stereotype>]”, e.g.
The referencing mechanism used in the target path identifies each element in the path by going one step up the path (hierarchy) to find the referencing attribute from the class that references the class to be identified. This works for all but the root entity (where there is clearly nothing one step up the path hierarchy). This is why an artificial role end was used reference the root entity.
This is conveyed in the <<RootElement>> stereotype as shown above. It is as if a class Context references the TapiContext via a composition with a navigable attribute _context. The class "Context" does not exist in the model. Both the class name "Context" and its reference are derived from the value of the name in the <<RootElement>> Stereotype (i.e., "_context") where the class name is an upper camel form of the string with the "_" removed.
The mechanism should be described more clearly in the modeling guidelines.
Andrea MazziniBernd Zeuner: To improve the explanation of target sterotype string content formation by
Italo's second question "Should we use the module name (i.e., IetfPtp) or the module prefix (i.e., ptp) or either option?"
Only briefly discussed. No definitive conclusion yet.
It seems that in UML it should be the module name, and the mapping tool will then maps the module name to the module prefix.
In order to be able to compose the target path of the two «Specify» relationships the class diagram below has been extended with the greyed out "non existing" object class and composition relationships.
Andrea Mazzini will draft rules for the UML Modelling Guidelines for creating the target paths; this is part of the existing action item "Improve explanation of target sterotype string content formation in the UML Guidelines". Discussion will continue in two weeks.
UML Modeling Guidelines
UML modeling guidelines
Convention for the name of the non-navigable member ends of an association
Have seen cases where these member ends do not have names, cases where they have LCC names and cases where they have names following the same convention as navigable attributes (_ + LCC)
Cardinality for conditionally mandatory associations: should it be 1 or 0..1?
2022-02-04: No discussion. Deferred to 2022-02-11
Consider a plan for convergence of ITU-T Q14/15, ONF Common IM and TAPI to 2020-06 (4.16) version
November 19 discussion: The TR-512 v1.5 Core model was developed using Eclipse 2019-09. It the model can migrate to 2020-06 seamlessly, Q14/15 might move G.7711 v4.0 (12/2021 consent) also to Eclipse 2020-06. To verify the seamless migration:
Nigel Davis Try to move TR-512 v1.5 core model to 2020-06 (4.16) Eclipse
Hing-Kam LamTry to move TR-512 v1.5 core model to 2020-06 (4.16) Eclipse
from Kam - diagrams from TR-512 v1.5 core model on 2020-06 (4.16) Eclipse looks fine
proposal for next week ITU-T: IISOMI moves to 2020-06, because gen-doc works find