question on ports and alternate notation of UML 2.5

[mse]

In the UML spec Unified Modeling Language 2.5.1, page 192 section: 11.3.5 Examples:

Figure 11.11 Port notation seems to be an alternative representation (without ports) of the version with ports shown below that picture. Are they semantically the same? The reason I ask is because I want to show two diagrams addressing different concerns. I want a composite structure diagram showing ports and connectors including delegation connector. On another diagram I just want to show my classes and use the notation without the ports in order to focus on the the interfaces themselves. Showing the interfaces is richer and shows the type of information and services available while the ports show me connectivity and an overall view. Is this okay according to the standard?

[qwerty]

11.11 and 11.12 both show ports (though I don't know what the thingy inside 11.12 should be).

q.

[mse]

I think I referred to the wrong figure. I was referring to the one without ports, it shows the dependency and realizes arrows pointing to an interface. Under that diagram is one with ports, and I want to know if they are equivalent.

[qwerty]

Since you don't name a number I can just guess. You can (probably; my interpretation) omit the port and just show the interfaces. This would be like hiding a detail in a diagram. I'm pretty sure that EA can't do since class/port/interface are handled as tree by EA. Though I wouldn't bet too high for this being a wrong UML implementation. It might just be that the specs leave some mist around that.

Well, thinking about that, there was some option to show realized interfaced of a class. No idea where that's hidden (if at all) and whether it would show interfaces from hidden ports.

q.