Eclipse Community Forums: UML2 » No value in upperValue/lowerValue

Help

Home

Home » Modeling » UML2 » No value in upperValue/lowerValue - meaning?

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator

No value in upperValue/lowerValue - meaning? [message #474721]

Wed, 25 July 2007 13:57

Eclipse User

Originally posted by: user.domain.invalid

Dear All,

I am just finishing off my XSLT for the compare tool & wrt
cardinalities/multiplicities I am stuck for some exact wording.

Basically is I run into a change etc in a multiplicity e.g.

<upperValue xmi:type="uml:LiteralUnlimitedNatural"
xmi:id="_WC4sUTqoEdyMeJ3mr5tnmg" value="1"/>

Then I can grab the value attribute & say "value =".

However if the value is the default it is not put in e.g.

<lowerValue xmi:type="uml:LiteralInteger"
xmi:id="_WC4sUDqoEdyMeJ3mr5tnmg"/>

So what would the the "UML correct" wording for when an upper or lower
value has no value?

Default? No Value?

TIA

Adam

Report message to a moderator

Re: No value in upperValue/lowerValue - meaning? [message #474723 is a reply to message #474721]

Wed, 25 July 2007 20:42

james bruck

Messages: 1724
Registered: July 2009

Senior Member

When the value of LiteralInteger is not serialized it would assume the
default value.

It appears that the default value for LiteralInteger is 0.
See section 7.3.27 of the UML spec and the implementation at
LiteralIntegerImpl VALUE_EDEFAULT.

- James.

"AdamF" <user@domain.invalid> wrote in message
news:f87kt1$nf5$1@build.eclipse.org...
> Dear All,
>
> I am just finishing off my XSLT for the compare tool & wrt
> cardinalities/multiplicities I am stuck for some exact wording.
>
> Basically is I run into a change etc in a multiplicity e.g.
>
> <upperValue xmi:type="uml:LiteralUnlimitedNatural"
> xmi:id="_WC4sUTqoEdyMeJ3mr5tnmg" value="1"/>
>
> Then I can grab the value attribute & say "value =".
>
> However if the value is the default it is not put in e.g.
>
> <lowerValue xmi:type="uml:LiteralInteger"
> xmi:id="_WC4sUDqoEdyMeJ3mr5tnmg"/>
>
> So what would the the "UML correct" wording for when an upper or lower
> value has no value?
>
> Default? No Value?
>
>
> TIA
>
>
> Adam

Report message to a moderator

Re: No value in upperValue/lowerValue - meaning? [message #474725 is a reply to message #474723]

Thu, 26 July 2007 10:07

Eclipse User

Originally posted by: user.domain.invalid

James Bruck wrote:
> When the value of LiteralInteger is not serialized it would assume the
> default value.
>
> It appears that the default value for LiteralInteger is 0.
> See section 7.3.27 of the UML spec and the implementation at
> LiteralIntegerImpl VALUE_EDEFAULT.
>
> - James.
>
Thanks.

I will use "default value".

Adam

Report message to a moderator