Issues for Mailing list of the CWM MIP Finalization Task Force

List of issues (green=resolved, yellow=pending Board vote, red=unresolved)

List options: All ; Open Issues only; or Closed Issues only

Issue 6617: OCL Constraints
Issue 6618: Conformance Requirements
Issue 6619: Use of URL versus URI
Issue 6620: Reference to John Vlissides
Issue 6621: CWM Developers Guide
Issue 6622: General spelling and typographical errors in text

Issue 6617: OCL Constraints (cwmmip-ftf)

The CWM MIP Specification should not force 
implementations to support the Object Constraint Language (OCL).
Resolution:
Replace OCLExpression with a new class called PatternConstraint
that supports a string-based representation of a constraint with no specific 
language requirement. PatternConstraint should include an attribute that
names the constraint language.
Revised text:
PatternConstraint is used to define constraints against the metamodel 
Projection (described below). There is no requirement to use any 
particular constraint language. However, if OCL is used, the OCL 
expression contained by PatternConstraint must be a valid OCL expression 
relative to the modeling context of the Projection.
Action taken:
Corrected in model and in proposed Available Specfication text

The CWM MIP Specification should not force implementations to support the Object Constraint Language (OCL).
Solution: Change OCLExpression to some other class that supports a string-based representation of a constraint with no specific language requirement.

The CWM MIP Specification should not force implementations to support the entire 
CWM MIP model as a specification conformance point. Rather, implementations should 
be capable of interchanging pattern definitions independently of their capability 
to interchange any metadata that might be described by those patterns. This would 
be an acceptable level of conformance for classes of tools that are focused on 
pattern design activities only.
Resolution:
Relax the conformance statement accordingly.
Revised text:
2.5 Conformance Points
An implementation of CWM MIP must minimally provide the InterchangePattern class
of Figure 2-1, and the following classes of Figure 2-2: PatternConstraint, 
Restriction, BindingParameter, Projection, Semantic Context, and GraphSubset.
This means that implementations of CWM MIP are allowed to interchange pattern 
models only, without necessarily being required to also support the exchange 
of related pattern instances.
2.5.1 Optional Conformance Points
An implementation of CWM MIP may optionally provide the UnitOfInterchange 
class of Figure 2-1, and/or the ModeledSemanticContext and ModeledGraphSubset 
classes of Figure 2-2.
Action taken:
Incorporated the above revised text into proposed Available Specfication.

The CWM MIP Specification should not force implementations to support the entire CWM MIP model as a specification conformance point. Rather, implementations should be capable of interchanging pattern definitions independently of their capability to interchange any metadata that might be described by those patterns. This would be an acceptable level of conformance for classes of tools that are focused on pattern design activities only.
Solution: Relax the conformance statement accordingly

The CWM MIP model should specify a URI rather than a URL 
as the pattern specification document identifier, given the
greater generality of a URI.
Resolution:
Change InterchangePattern:url to InterchangePattern:uri.
Revised text:
URI: A URI identifying a human-readable pattern specification
document that describes the interchange pattern.
Action taken:
Revised model and incorporated above revised text into proposed Available Specification.

The CWM MIP model should specify a URI rather than a URL as the pattern specification document identifier, given the greater generality of a URI.
Solution: Change InterchangePattern:url to InterchangePattern:uri.

Resolution:
Correct spelling
Revised text:
John Vlissides
Action taken:
Incorporated above revised text into proposed Available Specification.

John Vlissides' name is misspelled in the references.
Solution: Correct text.

The CWM Developer’s Guide is listed as “forthcoming” in
the references, but this book is now generally available.
Resolution:
Delete "(forthcoming)" from reference.
Revised text:
(Poole et al, 2003) Poole, Chang, Tolbert, Mellor,
Common Warehouse Metamodel Developer's Guide, John 
Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 2003.
Action taken:
Incorporated above revised text into proposed Available Specification.
Discussion: None

The CWM Developer's Guide is listed as "forthcoming" in the references, but this book is now generally available.
Solution: Correct text

There are numerous, very minor spelling/typographical errors throughout
the specfication text that are not critical but should be corrected if
possible.
Resolution:
Correct textual errors.
Revised text:
(see change bars in convenience document ptc/03-10-13)
Action taken:
Corrected textual errors in proposed Available Specification.
Discussion: None

: Numerous minor spelling and typographical errors.
Solution: Correct text.