The Deprecated lifecycle stereotype

[kamlam]

Issue statements:
(1) Guidelines for using the Deprecated lifecycle stereotype: When deprecating an object class, do we need to also explicitly deprecate the attributes of the deprecated object class?
(2) Reasonale of deprecating an UML artifact: ITU-T Q14/15 finds it is useful to document the reasonale of deprecating an UML artifact. Right now, we put the description in the "Applied comments" field of the artifact. Some members thought it would be cleaner if the comment describing the deprecation of an UML artifact is added to the Deprecated stereotype of the OpenModelProfile. But a stereotype (such as Deprecated) is just a simple string. It doesn’t have any further structure/subfield available for us to describe the reason of deprecation.

Background: These comments were raised in the recent ITU-T Q14/15 discussion.

[kamlam]

2019.10.04 IISOMI Discussion:
(1) Guidelines for using the Deprecated lifecycle stereotype: It was agreed:

• If the class is deprecated, all the existing lifecycle states of the contained attributes are ignored.
• This should be defined in a two-level state diagram/table in the modeling guideline document. The first level is the object class lifecycle state, and the 2nd level is the attribute lifecycle state.
  (2) Rationale of deprecating an artifact: It was agreed:
• Use the Applied Comment field of the artifact to document the rationale, if any, of the deprecation.
• Note that the comment can be made visiable in the class diagram (Steps: Drag the comment from the Model Explorer into the diagram / right click the comment box / Navigate / Restore Related Element)