RE: [mdt-sbvr.dev] SBVR-uml designation.gif

["Dave Carlson" <dcarlson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I didn't realized that's what was intended by the dashed line in Figure 8.4.
So if Representation is an association class, then its subclasses
(Designation, Definition, FactTypeForm, etc) are also association classes.
It seems very odd to me for Definition to be an association class.  I'll
need to think about that one...

This would imply that Expression really must be a first class independent
object in the model, and a Designation is an association between a concept
and an expression.  A Defintion is also an association between an expression
and a concept.

Mark, in your prototype tool, how did you handle creation and management of
independent expression (text) objects?

Dave

> 
> I agree with Stan's observation on April 12 that an SBVR 
> "representation" is an association class,  I believe it 
> doesn't show up that way in the CMOF file because CMOF 
> doesn't support association classes.  But Figure 8.4 in the 
> SBVR specification makes it quite clear that "representation" 
> is an association class.
> 
> Since EMF doesn't support association classes, we are still 
> left with modeling "representation" as a class in EMF.  
> Semantically, it is quite clear that a representation owns 
> neither the corresponding meaning nor the corresponding expression.