Issue 2175:  Document different meaning of "abstract" (mof-rtf)
Source:  (, )
Nature:  Uncategorized Issue
Severity:  Minor
Summary: Summary: The MOF uses "abstract Class" in the same sense as UML, and
 also Java and other object oriented programming languages. However,
 defining a Class as "abstract" (as per the Object-by-Value extensions)
 does not make any statements about the way that subtype instances are
 transmitted; i.e.  a MOF abstract Class does not correspond to a CORBA
 2.3 IDL "abstract interface".
 
 Additional text:
 
 The MOF spec should note the different meanings of "abstract" both
 in the Model chapter and in the Glossary.
 
 
 
 

Resolution: resolved and closed
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
November 6, 1998: received issue
May 8, 2000: closed issue
Discussion: 
Proposed resolution: since nobody seems interested in fixing it, just document the discrep-ancy
as above.
Implementation: Added this statement to the introductory Section 2.3.1, “Classes,”
on page 2-6 and also in Section 3.2.1, “Classes,” on page 3-3. Done
[KR].
End of Annotations:=====
Return-Path: <crawley@dstc.edu.au>
X-Exmh-Isig-CompType: unknown
X-Exmh-Isig-Folder: inbox
To: mof-rtf@omg.org, issues@omg.org
Subject: Document different meaning of "abstract"
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 14:01:16 +1000
From: Stephen Crawley <crawley@dstc.edu.au>


["new issue 6" from Seattle RTF doc.]

Source: DSTC (Dr. Stephen Crawley, crawley@dstc.edu.au)
Nature: Editorial
Severity: Minor
Summary: The MOF uses "abstract Class" in the same sense as UML, and
also Java and other object oriented programming languages. However,
defining a Class as "abstract" (as per the Object-by-Value extensions)
does not make any statements about the way that subtype instances are
transmitted; i.e.  a MOF abstract Class does not correspond to a CORBA
2.3 IDL "abstract interface".

Additional text:

The MOF spec should note the different meanings of "abstract" both
in the Model chapter and in the Glossary.