Issue 15903: XMI representation of stereotype application (uml2-rtf) Source: Universidad Politecnica de Madrid (Prof. Miguel de Miguel, mmiguel(at)dit.upm.es) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: I think that the source of confusion could be the paragraph in page 683 in 10-11-13.pdf �The most direct implementation of the Profile mechanism that a tool can provide is by having a metamodel based implementation, similar to the Profile metamodel. However, this is not a requirement of the current standard, which requires only the support of the specified notions, and the standard XMI based interchange capacities. The profile mechanism has been designed to be implementable by tools that do not have a metamodel-based implementation.� In this paragraph the �XMI based interchange capacities� are mentioned, but there is not a direct reference to page 684, to clarify that these the �XMI interchange capacities� are specified in 684. This paragraph gives the impression that the XMI interchange format is not closed. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: December 17, 2010: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: "Miguel A. de Miguel" To: Subject: XMI representation of stereotype application Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 13:11:42 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AcudGhhwbFoueFfbR766DUo0vaGXpg== Hello, The section .Using XMI to exchange Profiles. (UML2.2 Superstructure Page 666 in 09-02-02.pdf, and page 683 in 10-05-05.pdf UML2.3) Should be consider as a .guide line. for representation of stereotype application in XMI format, or this should be part of conformance at L2? It would be possible to represent in XMI stereotype application with different schemas than CMOF schemas for profiles applied? For example, would we conform level L2 if we represent with InstanceSpecification the stereotype application? The representation of model included in page 685 in 10-05-05.pdf would be: URL #id2 Thanks, Miguel A. de Miguel From: Steve Cook To: "Miguel A. de Miguel" CC: "uml2-rtf@omg.org" Subject: RE: XMI representation of stereotype application Thread-Topic: XMI representation of stereotype application Thread-Index: AcudGhhwbFoueFfbR766DUo0vaGXpgAzyviw Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 12:57:18 +0000 Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.166.18.98] Miguel The section .Using XMI to exchange Profiles. is intended to be normative. Your suggestion, although not at all unreasonable, is not a conformant serialization of stereotypes. In UML 2.4, the metamodel is itself represented in UML 2.4, so the profile serialization is significantly better-defined in section 18.3.7. -- Steve From: Miguel A. de Miguel [mailto:mmiguel@dit.upm.es] Sent: 16 December 2010 12:12 To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: XMI representation of stereotype application Hello, The section .Using XMI to exchange Profiles. (UML2.2 Superstructure Page 666 in 09-02-02.pdf, and page 683 in 10-05-05.pdf UML2.3) Should be consider as a .guide line. for representation of stereotype application in XMI format, or this should be part of conformance at L2? It would be possible to represent in XMI stereotype application with different schemas than CMOF schemas for profiles applied? For example, would we conform level L2 if we represent with InstanceSpecification the stereotype application? The representation of model included in page 685 in 10-05-05.pdf would be: URL #id2 Thanks, Miguel A. de Miguel From: "Miguel A. de Miguel" To: "'Steve Cook'" Cc: Subject: RE: XMI representation of stereotype application Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 15:14:58 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AcudGhhwbFoueFfbR766DUo0vaGXpgAzyviwAAKYt6A= Thanks for your comments Steve, I think that the source of confusion could be the paragraph in page 683 in 10-11-13.pdf .The most direct implementation of the Profile mechanism that a tool can provide is by having a metamodel based implementation, similar to the Profile metamodel. However, this is not a requirement of the current standard, which requires only the support of the specified notions, and the standard XMI based interchange capacities. The profile mechanism has been designed to be implementable by tools that do not have a metamodel-based implementation.. In this paragraph the .XMI based interchange capacities. are mentioned, but there is not a direct reference to page 684, to clarify that these the .XMI interchange capacities. are specified in 684. This paragraph gives the impression that the XMI interchange format is not closed. Thanks, Miguel De: Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] Enviado el: viernes, 17 de diciembre de 2010 13:57 Para: Miguel A. de Miguel CC: uml2-rtf@omg.org Asunto: RE: XMI representation of stereotype application Miguel The section .Using XMI to exchange Profiles. is intended to be normative. Your suggestion, although not at all unreasonable, is not a conformant serialization of stereotypes. In UML 2.4, the metamodel is itself represented in UML 2.4, so the profile serialization is significantly better-defined in section 18.3.7. -- Steve From: Miguel A. de Miguel [mailto:mmiguel@dit.upm.es] Sent: 16 December 2010 12:12 To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: XMI representation of stereotype application Hello, The section .Using XMI to exchange Profiles. (UML2.2 Superstructure Page 666 in 09-02-02.pdf, and page 683 in 10-05-05.pdf UML2.3) Should be consider as a .guide line. for representation of stereotype application in XMI format, or this should be part of conformance at L2? It would be possible to represent in XMI stereotype application with different schemas than CMOF schemas for profiles applied? For example, would we conform level L2 if we represent with InstanceSpecification the stereotype application? The representation of model included in page 685 in 10-05-05.pdf would be: URL #id2 Thanks, Miguel A. de Miguel From: Steve Cook To: "issues@omg.org" CC: "uml2-rtf@omg.org" , "Miguel A. de Miguel" Subject: RE: XMI representation of stereotype application Thread-Topic: XMI representation of stereotype application Thread-Index: AcudGhhwbFoueFfbR766DUo0vaGXpgAzyviwAAKYt6AAAZlJYA== Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 14:53:36 +0000 Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.166.18.98] Can we make an issue from Miguel.s observation please? From: Miguel A. de Miguel [mailto:mmiguel@dit.upm.es] Sent: 17 December 2010 14:15 To: Steve Cook Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: XMI representation of stereotype application Thanks for your comments Steve, I think that the source of confusion could be the paragraph in page 683 in 10-11-13.pdf .The most direct implementation of the Profile mechanism that a tool can provide is by having a metamodel based implementation, similar to the Profile metamodel. However, this is not a requirement of the current standard, which requires only the support of the specified notions, and the standard XMI based interchange capacities. The profile mechanism has been designed to be implementable by tools that do not have a metamodel-based implementation.. In this paragraph the .XMI based interchange capacities. are mentioned, but there is not a direct reference to page 684, to clarify that these the .XMI interchange capacities. are specified in 684. This paragraph gives the impression that the XMI interchange format is not closed. Thanks, Miguel De: Steve Cook [mailto:Steve.Cook@microsoft.com] Enviado el: viernes, 17 de diciembre de 2010 13:57 Para: Miguel A. de Miguel CC: uml2-rtf@omg.org Asunto: RE: XMI representation of stereotype application Miguel The section .Using XMI to exchange Profiles. is intended to be normative. Your suggestion, although not at all unreasonable, is not a conformant serialization of stereotypes. In UML 2.4, the metamodel is itself represented in UML 2.4, so the profile serialization is significantly better-defined in section 18.3.7. -- Steve From: Miguel A. de Miguel [mailto:mmiguel@dit.upm.es] Sent: 16 December 2010 12:12 To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: XMI representation of stereotype application Hello, The section .Using XMI to exchange Profiles. (UML2.2 Superstructure Page 666 in 09-02-02.pdf, and page 683 in 10-05-05.pdf UML2.3) Should be consider as a .guide line. for representation of stereotype application in XMI format, or this should be part of conformance at L2? It would be possible to represent in XMI stereotype application with different schemas than CMOF schemas for profiles applied? For example, would we conform level L2 if we represent with InstanceSpecification the stereotype application? The representation of model included in page 685 in 10-05-05.pdf would be: URL #id2 Thanks, Miguel A. de Miguel