Issue 2025:  MOF names implicitly tied to implementation (mof-rtf)
Source:  (, )
Nature:  Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary: Summary: The relationship between MOF names and 
 generated interfaces places implicit restrictions on 
 valid MOF names.  For example, IDL keywords and namespaces 
 may conflict with otherwise valid MOF names.  MOF should allow 
 flexibility in the generation rules for IDL, C++, Java, etc. 
 to prevent restrictions from these externals reducing the 
 set of valid MOF names.  In UML, names such as "Class" and 
 AssociationClass cause conflicts when IDL is generated.  
 Namespaces in MOF metamodels may be useful when generating 
 IDL to prevent name collisions between constructs in different 
 MOF spaces.
 
 

Resolution: resolved and closed
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
September 30, 1998: received issue
May 8, 2000: closed issue
Discussion: 
Discussion: (crawley@dstc.edu.au)
This issue is substantially the same as issue 1307, though it is not clear to me what Steve
means by "Namespaces in MOF metamodels may be useful ...".
Proposed resolution: See issue 1307. The proposed resolution to issue 1307 is to use Tags
attached to model elements to allow the meta-modeller to supply substitute names to a map-ping.
The Tag names would include the name of the mapping which would use the substi-tution.
Discussion (mof-rtf Burlingame ): An alternative to tag is to offer an attribute in ModelEle-ment
which is a sequence of (language : string, name : string) pairs and two operations
set_Alternate_name (name : string) and get_alternateName (language: string)
Resolution : The tagging mechanism to be implemented. Preconditions for IDL generation
will be enforced. Note that specific tools can use tagging to prevent potential conflicts
Implementation: Resolved as a byproduct of “Issue 1307: IDL Mapping/Identifier
Naming (mof-rtf)”. Nothing more to do. Done. [KR]
End of Annotations:=====
Return-Path: <www>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 22:19:11 -0400
From: www
To: juergen@omg.org, web-incoming@omg.org
Subject: WWW Form output

Name: Stephen Brodsky
Company: IBM
Email: sbrodsky@us.ibm.com
Notification: Yes
Specification: MOF
Section: 
Formal #: 98/08-14
Version: 
Revision_Date: 9/1/97
Page: 
Nature: Enhancement
Severity: Significant
full_desc: Issue:  MOF names implicitly tied to implementation
Description: The relationship between MOF names and 
generated interfaces places implicit restrictions on 
valid MOF names.  For example, IDL keywords and namespaces 
may conflict with otherwise valid MOF names.  MOF should allow 
flexibility in the generation rules for IDL, C++, Java, etc. 
to prevent restrictions from these externals reducing the 
set of valid MOF names.  In UML, names such as "Class" and 
AssociationClass cause conflicts when IDL is generated.  
Namespaces in MOF metamodels may be useful when generating 
IDL to prevent name collisions between constructs in different 
MOF spaces.

submit: Submit Issue Report