Issue 19239: Incomplete simplification & alignment between UML & MOF in 2.4: MOF::Extension::Tag (mof2core-rtf) Source: NASA (Dr. Nicolas F. Rouquette, nicolas.f.rouquette(at)jpl.nasa.gov) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: The simplification and alignment between UML and MOF in the 2.4 series is incomplete. In particular, the extensions that MOF adds to UML are missing in UML. The MOF extensions that are missing in UML mean that statements like the one below in UML 2.5, section 6.2 are technically incorrect: Since version 2.4.1 a MOF 2.x metamodel, including the UML 2.x metamodel, is a valid UML 2.x model. This was a substantial simplification and alignment compared to earlier versions. It is expected that future versions of MOF and UML will continue to be aligned in this manner. For example, UML has no mechanism to specify the information about MOF::Extension::Tag. Without this information, it is currently not possible to fully rely on the above statement to use UML as a language for representing models of UML itself or parts of it such as the PrimitiveTypes library. One fairly simple option would be to define a MOF profile with stereotypes corresponding to the contents of the MOF-specific extensions of UML Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: February 14, 2014: received issue March 3, 2014: moved to mof2core-rtf from mof2xmi-rtf Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: "Rouquette, Nicolas F (313D)" To: "issues@omg.org" CC: "mof2core-rtf@omg.org" , "mof2xmi-rtf@omg.org" , "uml2-rtf@omg.org" Subject: Incomplete simplification & alignment between UML & MOF in 2.4: MOF::Extension::Tag Thread-Topic: Incomplete simplification & alignment between UML & MOF in 2.4: MOF::Extension::Tag Thread-Index: AQHPKRrgQfMVzDMfLEiN2AG0ukBtSQ== Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 00:22:43 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030 x-originating-ip: [128.149.137.114] X-Source-Sender: nicolas.f.rouquette@jpl.nasa.gov X-AUTH: Authorized X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org X-PE-GPVersion: 1.74 X-PE-Data: NA X-PE-BayesianScore: 40.000000% X-PE-CorpusSize: 0 Good, 0 Bad X-PE-BayesianWarning: Insufficient statistics for accurate Bayesian calculation. X-PE-BayesianWarning: No filtering took place based on this Bayesian score. Bayesian X-PE-BayesianWarning: statistics will be used to filter your email once the system X-PE-BayesianWarning: has collected sufficient statistics (normally a few days). X-PE-UniqueID: 1392339143-19608 X-PE-Report: Report this as spam: http://www.bopspam.co.uk/rs.php?ID=623&adt=1&c=2656 The simplification and alignment between UML and MOF in the 2.4 series is incomplete. In particular, the extensions that MOF adds to UML are missing in UML. The MOF extensions that are missing in UML mean that statements like the one below in UML 2.5, section 6.2 are technically incorrect: Since version 2.4.1 a MOF 2.x metamodel, including the UML 2.x metamodel, is a valid UML 2.x model. This was a substantial simplification and alignment compared to earlier versions. It is expected that future versions of MOF and UML will continue to be aligned in this manner. For example, UML has no mechanism to specify the information about MOF::Extension::Tag. Without this information, it is currently not possible to fully rely on the above statement to use UML as a language for representing models of UML itself or parts of it such as the PrimitiveTypes library. One fairly simple option would be to define a MOF profile with stereotypes corresponding to the contents of the MOF-specific extensions of UML. This idea is illustrated in a simple example of a MOFTag profile below: This idea is illustrated below in a fictitious example of what the UML 2.6 RTF could do to define the PrimitiveTypes library for UML 2.6 RTF as a UML 2.5 model with the above MOFTag profile applied: The difference between UML 2.5 RTF vs. UML 2.6 RTF would be: UML 2.5 RTF: these tags were added as a post-processing step to produce the official XMI for UML 2.5 UML 2.6 RTF: these tags would be part of the serialization of PrimitiveTypes for UML 2.6 and would only require converting their format from the serialization of a stereotype instance to the serialization of a MOF tag. - Nicolas. Delivered-To: spamcop-net-omg4web@spamcop.net X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.4 (2008-01-01) on filter8 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: hits=1.2 tests=EXTRA_MPART_TYPE,HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_04, HTML_MESSAGE version=3.2.4 From: Pete Rivett To: Juergen Boldt , "Rouquette, Nicolas F (313K) (nicolas.f.rouquette@jpl.nasa.gov)" CC: "Manfred Koethe (koethe@88solutions.com)" Subject: RE: issue 19239 -- MOF 2 XMI RTF issue Thread-Topic: issue 19239 -- MOF 2 XMI RTF issue Thread-Index: AQHPKbA6LsTTJCbqeUi9Pv/WJeRvVJq1OK+w Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 20:50:31 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [207.38.222.49] X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org X-SpamCop-Checked: 23.30.177.17 23.30.177.10 64.78.52.32 14.3.174.1 This is not an issue for XMI at all. It.s really an issue for MOF Core. And then, if MOF Core makes a change, UML would have to change to make use of it. Do you agree Nicolas? Pete PS Manfred what.s the status of the MOF and XMI 2.5 RTFs? From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 1:12 PM To: issues@omg.org; mof2xmi-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 19239 -- MOF 2 XMI RTF issue From: "Rouquette, Nicolas F (313D)" To: "issues@omg.org" CC: "mof2core-rtf@omg.org" , "mof2xmi-rtf@omg.org" , "uml2-rtf@omg.org" Subject: Incomplete simplification & alignment between UML & MOF in 2.4: MOF::Extension::Tag Thread-Topic: Incomplete simplification & alignment between UML & MOF in 2.4: MOF::Extension::Tag Thread-Index: AQHPKRrgQfMVzDMfLEiN2AG0ukBtSQ== Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 00:22:43 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030 x-originating-ip: [128.149.137.114] X-Source-Sender: nicolas.f.rouquette@jpl.nasa.gov X-AUTH: Authorized X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org X-PE-GPVersion: 1.74 X-PE-Data: NA X-PE-BayesianScore: 40.000000% X-PE-CorpusSize: 0 Good, 0 Bad X-PE-BayesianWarning: Insufficient statistics for accurate Bayesian calculation. X-PE-BayesianWarning: No filtering took place based on this Bayesian score. Bayesian X-PE-BayesianWarning: statistics will be used to filter your email once the system X-PE-BayesianWarning: has collected sufficient statistics (normally a few days). X-PE-UniqueID: 1392339143-19608 X-PE-Report: Report this as spam: http://www.bopspam.co.uk/rs.php?ID=623&adt=1&c=2656 The simplification and alignment between UML and MOF in the 2.4 series is incomplete. In particular, the extensions that MOF adds to UML are missing in UML. The MOF extensions that are missing in UML mean that statements like the one below in UML 2.5, section 6.2 are technically incorrect: Since version 2.4.1 a MOF 2.x metamodel, including the UML 2.x metamodel, is a valid UML 2.x model. This was a substantial simplification and alignment compared to earlier versions. It is expected that future versions of MOF and UML will continue to be aligned in this manner. For example, UML has no mechanism to specify the information about MOF::Extension::Tag. Without this information, it is currently not possible to fully rely on the above statement to use UML as a language for representing models of UML itself or parts of it such as the PrimitiveTypes library. One fairly simple option would be to define a MOF profile with stereotypes corresponding to the contents of the MOF-specific extensions of UML. This idea is illustrated in a simple example of a MOFTag profile below: [] This idea is illustrated below in a fictitious example of what the UML 2.6 RTF could do to define the PrimitiveTypes library for UML 2.6 RTF as a UML 2.5 model with the above MOFTag profile applied: [] The difference between UML 2.5 RTF vs. UML 2.6 RTF would be: UML 2.5 RTF: these tags were added as a post-processing step to produce the official XMI for UML 2.5 UML 2.6 RTF: these tags would be part of the serialization of PrimitiveTypes for UML 2.6 and would only require converting their format from the serialization of a stereotype instance to the serialization of a MOF tag. - Nicolas. Delivered-To: spamcop-net-omg4web@spamcop.net X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.4 (2008-01-01) on filter8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: hits=0.0 tests=HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_06,HTML_MESSAGE version=3.2.4 From: "Rouquette, Nicolas F (313D)" To: Pete Rivett CC: "Manfred Koethe (koethe@88solutions.com)" , "BERNARD, Yves" , Burkhart Roger M , Juergen Boldt Subject: Re: issue 19239 -- MOF 2 XMI RTF issue Thread-Topic: issue 19239 -- MOF 2 XMI RTF issue Thread-Index: AQHPKbBEwU4wS6MLHUSUy+/e0zV36Zq1v4eA//+m/IA= Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 23:31:59 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030 x-originating-ip: [128.149.137.113] X-Source-Sender: nicolas.f.rouquette@jpl.nasa.gov X-AUTH: Authorized X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org X-SpamCop-Checked: 23.30.177.17 23.30.177.10 128.149.139.109 128.149.137.148 169.254.1.202 169.254.3.224 14.3.158.1 Pete, Yes, this is a MOF Core issue; sorry Juergen for confusing you. Of course, it would make sense for UML 2.6 RTF to adopt a MOF Core solution to the missing MOF extensions like MOF::Extension::Tag. At the December 2013 OMG TC meeting, the UML 2.6 RTF (Manfred and I) and the SysML 1.5 RTF (Yves and Roger) agreed to pursue getting a tooling infrastructure in place before doing any resolution/ballot. Yves has been organizing the WG discussing the tooling infrastructure as one of the topics we discuss in the Thursday SysML 1.5 RTF teleconference call. We've been compiling and editing a list of requirements about this subject and have contacted vendors & other parties who may be interested in addressing these requirements for both RTFs. The topic of MOF::Extension::Tag has been a problem in the past because we've add to inject these in post-processing. It would be better to have them somehow in the models. That's what this issue is about and hopefully something that the MOF Core RTF can discuss, review the proposed approach and come up with a solution that we can include in the infrastructure requirements. - Nicolas. From: Pete Adaptive Date: Friday, February 14, 2014 12:50 PM To: Juergen Boldt , Nicolas Rouquette Cc: Manfred Koethe Subject: RE: issue 19239 -- MOF 2 XMI RTF issue This is not an issue for XMI at all. It.s really an issue for MOF Core. And then, if MOF Core makes a change, UML would have to change to make use of it. Do you agree Nicolas? Pete PS Manfred what.s the status of the MOF and XMI 2.5 RTFs? From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 1:12 PM To: issues@omg.org; mof2xmi-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 19239 -- MOF 2 XMI RTF issue From: "Rouquette, Nicolas F (313D)" To: "issues@omg.org" CC: "mof2core-rtf@omg.org" , "mof2xmi-rtf@omg.org" , "uml2-rtf@omg.org" Subject: Incomplete simplification & alignment between UML & MOF in 2.4: MOF::Extension::Tag Thread-Topic: Incomplete simplification & alignment between UML & MOF in 2.4: MOF::Extension::Tag Thread-Index: AQHPKRrgQfMVzDMfLEiN2AG0ukBtSQ== Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 00:22:43 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030 x-originating-ip: [128.149.137.114] X-Source-Sender: nicolas.f.rouquette@jpl.nasa.gov X-AUTH: Authorized X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at omg.org X-PE-GPVersion: 1.74 X-PE-Data: NA X-PE-BayesianScore: 40.000000% X-PE-CorpusSize: 0 Good, 0 Bad X-PE-BayesianWarning: Insufficient statistics for accurate Bayesian calculation. X-PE-BayesianWarning: No filtering took place based on this Bayesian score. Bayesian X-PE-BayesianWarning: statistics will be used to filter your email once the system X-PE-BayesianWarning: has collected sufficient statistics (normally a few days). X-PE-UniqueID: 1392339143-19608 X-PE-Report: Report this as spam: http://www.bopspam.co.uk/rs.php?ID=623&adt=1&c=2656 The simplification and alignment between UML and MOF in the 2.4 series is incomplete. In particular, the extensions that MOF adds to UML are missing in UML. The MOF extensions that are missing in UML mean that statements like the one below in UML 2.5, section 6.2 are technically incorrect: Since version 2.4.1 a MOF 2.x metamodel, including the UML 2.x metamodel, is a valid UML 2.x model. This was a substantial simplification and alignment compared to earlier versions. It is expected that future versions of MOF and UML will continue to be aligned in this manner. For example, UML has no mechanism to specify the information about MOF::Extension::Tag. Without this information, it is currently not possible to fully rely on the above statement to use UML as a language for representing models of UML itself or parts of it such as the PrimitiveTypes library. One fairly simple option would be to define a MOF profile with stereotypes corresponding to the contents of the MOF-specific extensions of UML. This idea is illustrated in a simple example of a MOFTag profile below: [] This idea is illustrated below in a fictitious example of what the UML 2.6 RTF could do to define the PrimitiveTypes library for UML 2.6 RTF as a UML 2.5 model with the above MOFTag profile applied: [] The difference between UML 2.5 RTF vs. UML 2.6 RTF would be: UML 2.5 RTF: these tags were added as a post-processing step to produce the official XMI for UML 2.5 UML 2.6 RTF: these tags would be part of the serialization of PrimitiveTypes for UML 2.6 and would only require converting their format from the serialization of a stereotype instance to the serialization of a MOF tag. - Nicolas. image001.png image001.png image002.png image002.png