RIMv2.6 Review, Sections 6-7

[<PMACIAS@lmi.org>]

I found one I missed earlier on Figure 2.  The rest of the comments cover Sections 6 & 7.
Have a good weekend everyone!
-Paul

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[583] Figure 2 note attached to "RegistryObject" has spelling/truncation error in the forth line for "independent".

[1117, 1129] - Following convention, put quotes around letter (a) to result in: ...Association "a"...

[1130] - Following convention, capitalize association to result in: ...Association "a"...

[1159] - Association attribute summary includes attributes for "isConfirmedBySourceOwner" and "isConfirmedByTargetOwner" that should be deleted.

[1167] - Starts off, "The following table lists canonical association types".  However, there is no table.  Believe the sentence should be removed, and the next sentence changed from, "These canonical association types..." to, "The canonical association types...".

[1177] - Insert before the method summary table a subsection "6.6.5 Method Summary
In addition to its attributes, the Association class also defines the following methods."

[1200] - Sorry if this comment seems overly sensitive. But while I get a kick out of the CPP names in figure 8, I want to make sure we don't draw unnecessary negative reactions from a supportive industry.  Sally, I'm sure automotive types have a good sense of humor and can find humor in industry caricatures, but is there any chance that someone could take umbrage with the figure?  Particularly, "gasGuzzlerInc" and "yuppyEuroAutoInc"?

[1211] - This might just be a display issue, but in Figure 9, the "ClassificationNode" relationship for "parent" should be "0..1".

[1229, 1272, 1351 & 1367] - Change from use of "Super Classes" in Sections 5 and 6, to "Base classes".  I recommend we stay consistent with "Super Classes".

[1260] - Change the sentence from, "This following canonical..." to, "The following canonical...".