James,
unfortunately it is neither a properly working single set of properties,
nor two sets of properties :-( That's why I was asking in order to
understand what I see.
What I see is that out of the set of properties that should be there
twice (as you confirmed), only one occurrence is shown. The property
names of that one occurence are nevertheless qualified with the package
path relative to the profile (which I assume is because there is some
recognition in the tool that the unqualified name alone would now be
ambiguous).
So for the example described below, for an association class AC1 to
which CIM_Association is applied, the following single property is shown
on AC1:
TestProfile::CIM_Association::Abstract
when there should be two occurences of Abstract.
Second, the qualified name is unexpected to me even for that single one,
because Abstract is not owned by stereotype CIM_Association, but by
CIM_Qualifier_Abstract. But I am just guessing here.
Third, now comes the reason why I said that the one set is not working
properly: In my larger CIM profile (which has an additional level of
inheritance compared to the test example discussed here), the stereotype
properties on AC1 have suddenly become read-only for some reason. In my
smaller test profile, the properties are still modifiable as expected.
Andy
James Bruck wrote:
Hi Andreas,
You would expect to have 2 sets of properties. All the common
inherited
properties would be duplicated. Is that not what you are seeing?
- James.
"Andreas Maier" <maiera@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:efjk2g$qsr$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi,
I am using stereotype inheritance in order to have a single definition
of
a stereotype representing a CIM qualifier (e.g.
CIM_Qualifier_Abstract). This stereotype is inherited into some other
stereotypes that are the ones that get applied to the elements of the
user model (in this case, CIM_Class extending classes and
CIM_Association
extending association classes).
In CIM, an association class is considered a kind of class (same as in
UML). We want to also map that to our stereotypes, i.e.
CIM_Association
ideally should inherit from CIM_Class. On an association class, only
CIM_Association would be applied, and on a normal class, only
CIM_Class
would be applied.
If we concentrate on the association classes now:
CIM_Qualifier_Abstract
now arrives at CIM_Association both by inheriting it directly, and
again
by inheriting it indirectly through CIM_Class.
My question is: Should I expect to have one or two sets of properties
of
CIM_Qualifier_Abstract on association classes that have
CIM_Association
applied ?
Andy