Tagged values depricated?

[Martin Terreni]

Hi,
I've heard that tagged values are depricated in UML 2.1.
Is it so?

[Oliver F.]

Hi,
I've heard that tagged values are depricated in UML 2.1.
Is it so?

Never heard about that and could not find a source for this information.
What is the origin of this statement ?

Oliver

[«Midnight»]

No.

Perhaps you are referring to obsolete 'standard' tags, which might occur from version to version. That's just a guess of course...

[Martin Terreni]

In UML 1.3, tagged values could extend a model element without requiring the presence of a stereotype. In UML 1.4, this
capability, although still supported, was deprecated, to be used only for backward compatibility reasons. In UML 2.0, a
tagged value can only be represented as an attribute defined on a stereotype. Therefore, a model element must be
extended by a stereotype in order to be extended by tagged values. However, the “required” extension mechanism can, in
effect, provide the 1.3 capability, since a tool can in those circumstances automatically define a stereotype to which
“unattached” attributes (tagged values) would be attached.

I was told by one of my experts that it means if I want to add an attribute (tagged value do not exist eny more) to an element I should extend the element metaclass and add it the attribute as not required attribute and then it could be use by all elements, since all inherit from "element".

I may have presne t some "UML salad" here...

[«Midnight»]

Yes, that's right. But the 'depreciation' really occurred in UML 1.4.

The position you cite is in UML 2.1 (07-11-02) section 18.3 (mostly 18.3.. It all makes sense when you are defining profiles.

Before you panic though, take a look at the very final paragraph of section 18.3. It provides an out - admittedly vague - for tool makers.

BTW, I'm not sure whether the constraints in section 18 are meant to apply to UML as a whole or only to extension mechanisms.

[Martin Terreni]

Thanks, that clarifies it.