Patrick Durusau submitted the following PR comment (https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/camp-comment/201309/msg00025.html):

I have already comments on the UML diagrams in general and won't
repeat those concerns here.

The balance of section 2 reads as though it is a set of definitions,
accompanied by diagrams to aid the reader in understanding
relationships between the defined items.

If that is the case and I don't know that it is, you make normative
definitions with references to formal definitions, for all of the
terms that appear in Section 2, in CAMP terminology.

Then, in Section 2, as a non-normative section, could be replete with
diagrams that illustrate the points currently being made by the text.

That would avoid the need to resolve conflicts between UML and other
provisions of normative text for CAMP.