Issue 15825: Add a new clause 9.4 for MOF::Reflection::Type per figure 9.1 (mof2core-rtf)
Source: NASA (Dr. Nicolas F. Rouquette, nicolas.f.rouquette(at)jpl.nasa.gov)
Nature: 
Severity: 
Summary: Add a new clause 9.4 for MOF::Reflection::Type per figure 9.1


Resolution: 
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
November 22, 2010: received issue
Discussion: 
As described in 15.4, Object::getType() : Type would correspond to
Element::getMetaClass() : Class from the resolution of issue 5948 in ballot 1. Until
the semantics of MOF is properly defined, it is unclear whether it makes sense to
define Object::getType() and what cardinality the result should have, i.e., Type[1] or
Type[1..*] or something else. Since defining the semantics of MOF also requires
resolving issue 15828 that is deferred, this issue shall also be deferred.
The MOF 2.6 RTF should consider merging SMOF into MOF Core, which would
provide answers to these questions above. At that time, the resolution needs to make
a statement like “C.isInstance(null) should return false at all time. Null is not a valid
classifier and violates the constrains of UML::Type on which MOF::Reflection::Type
is based.” to satisfy Issue 15646 completely.
Disposition: Deferred
End of Annotations:=====
s is issue # 15825	From: "Rouquette, Nicolas F (316A)" <nicolas.f.rouquette@jpl.nasa.gov>


Add a new clause 9.4 for MOF::Reflection::Type per figure 9.1