Issue 4154: MODL Appendix needs updating (mof-rtf)
Source: DSTC (Dr. Stephen Crawley, nobody)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary: In MOF 1.3 RTF, it was agreed (with some reluctance on my part) that the
spelling of the model element names in the XMI version of the MOF Model
was definitive.  This means that the MODL definition of the Model package
in the Appendix is out of date.

In addition, DSTC has made a number of changes to the MODL language
syntax that mean that the version in the MOF 1.3 spec no longer 
compiles.

Finally, the URL for the specification of the MODL language is stale.

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: A new version of the MODL Appendix will be supplied, fixing the problems mentioned and incorporating other changes to the MOF Model and the new PrimitiveTypes and CorbaIdlTypes packages. 


Actions taken:
January 17, 2001: received issue
December 3, 2001: closed issue
Discussion: 
Resolution: 
Since the Appendix containing the MODL for Model is non-normative, this issue can be addressed as an editorial action. 

End of Annotations:=====
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.0 09/18/1999
To: mof-rtf@omg.org, issues@omg.org
Subject: MODL Appendix needs updating
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 13:28:58 +1000
From: Stephen Crawley <crawley@dstc.edu.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-UIDL: 0dEe9B$*e93#M!!->_d9


In MOF 1.3 RTF, it was agreed (with some reluctance on my part) that
the
spelling of the model element names in the XMI version of the MOF
Model
was definitive.  This means that the MODL definition of the Model
package
in the Appendix is out of date.

In addition, DSTC has made a number of changes to the MODL language
syntax that mean that the version in the MOF 1.3 spec no longer 
compiles.

Finally, the URL for the specification of the MODL language is stale.


Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:22:14 -0400
From: Peter Denno <peter.denno@nist.gov>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephen Crawley <crawley@dstc.edu.au>
CC: mof-rtf@omg.org
Subject: Notes on MODL grammar /  Issue 4154
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
X-UIDL: $N(e98kO!!O@#!!o''!!

Steve,

WRT mof issue 4154, will the MODL grammar (now found only in the dMOF
documentation) be added to the specification? I think it should be in
there.

Also I think I found a few errors in that grammar:

1)
"const" is missing.

2)
<class> ::= <class_head> <inherits> <class_body> | <class_head>

Shouldn't <inherits> be optional?

--
Best Regards,
 - Peter

 Peter Denno
 National Institute of Standards and Technology,
 Manufacturing System Integration Division,
 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8260             Tel: +1 301-975-3595
 Gaithersburg, MD, USA 20899-8260             FAX: +1 301-975-4694

<constant> ::= <const_type> <identifier> 



From: "Iyengar, Sridhar" <Sridhar.Iyengar2@unisys.com>
To: Peter Denno <peter.denno@nist.gov>,
   Stephen Crawley
    <crawley@dstc.edu.au>
Cc: mof-rtf@omg.org
Subject: RE: Notes on MODL grammar /  Issue 4154
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:49:13 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	      charset="iso-8859-1"
X-UIDL: %0Ud9WQ"!!hJ]d9)&bd9

Peter 

There is not a general agreement (historically there has not been)
that MODL
or some other textual notation should be part of the MOF spec.  This
is MOF
2.0 discussion


There is a related RFP UML profile for Human Usable Textual Notation
(HUTN
that DSTC is working on) that we may need to look at.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Sridhar Iyengar
Unisys Fellow, Director of Advanced Technology
25725, Jeronimo Road
Mission Viejo, CA 92691

E-mail : Sridhar.iyengar2@unisys.com
Phone : 949-380-5692
Fax     : 949-380-6632
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Denno [mailto:peter.denno@nist.gov]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 9:22 AM
> To: Stephen Crawley
> Cc: mof-rtf@omg.org
> Subject: Notes on MODL grammar / Issue 4154
> 
> 
> Steve,
> 
> WRT mof issue 4154, will the MODL grammar (now found only in the
dMOF
> documentation) be added to the specification? I think it should be
in
> there.
> 
> Also I think I found a few errors in that grammar:
> 
> 1)
> <constant> ::= <const_type> <identifier> '=' <const_expr>
> 
> "const" is missing.
> 
> 2)
> <class> ::= <class_head> <inherits> <class_body> | <class_head>
> 
> Shouldn't <inherits> be optional?
> 
> --
> Best Regards,
>  - Peter
> 
>  Peter Denno
>  National Institute of Standards and Technology,
>  Manufacturing System Integration Division,
>  100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8260             Tel: +1 301-975-3595
>  Gaithersburg, MD, USA 20899-8260             FAX: +1 301-975-4694
> 
> 
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.2 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4
To: Peter Denno <peter.denno@nist.gov>
Cc: mof-rtf@omg.org
Subject: Re: Notes on MODL grammar / Issue 4154 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:22:14 -0400."
             <3AD33335.9E371ADD@nist.gov> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 12:20:29 +1000
From: Stephen Crawley <crawley@dstc.edu.au>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 1.0
(http://www.roaringpenguin.com/mimedefang/)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-UIDL: 6>&!!dUb!!R<>!!<E?e9


Peter,

I'd like to be able to submit MODL or something like it as part of a
MOF
2.0 RFP submission.  Should I take it that you would also like to see
this
happen?  As Sridhar noted, HUTN will also come into the picture,
assuming
that it gets adopted.  I can envisage a MODL-like language specified
in 
terms of HUTN ...

Thanks for reporting those two 2 MODL grammar typos.  I'll take a note
to
fix them in the next dMOF product release.  (We're in beta testing at
the
moment.)

-- Steve

From: "David Frankel" <david.frankel@iona.com>
To: "Iyengar, Sridhar" <Sridhar.Iyengar2@unisys.com>,
   "Peter Denno" <peter.denno@nist.gov>,
   "Stephen Crawley" <crawley@dstc.edu.au>
Cc: <mof-rtf@omg.org>
Subject: RE: Notes on MODL grammar /  Issue 4154
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 20:23:23 -0500
Message-ID: <NCBBIABNAFMDDIJMPEMCKELNFNAA.david.frankel@iona.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To:
<E2521628FB27D111BAF60000C09247D605CB26E9@mv_exchange_1.mv.unisys.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	      charset="iso-8859-1"
X-UIDL: 9a?!!ZQad9_QBe9(<cd9

Note that the HUTN RFP has coverage of the MOF as an optional
requirement.

================================
David S. Frankel
Chief Consulting Architect,
Advanced Technologies
Strategic Enterprise Solutions
IONA Technologies, Inc.
741 Santiago Court
Chico, CA 95973-8781 USA

+1 530 893-1100 voice
+1 530 893-1153 fax
david.frankel@iona.com
================================

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Iyengar, Sridhar [mailto:Sridhar.Iyengar2@unisys.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 12:49 PM
> To: Peter Denno; Stephen Crawley
> Cc: mof-rtf@omg.org
> Subject: RE: Notes on MODL grammar / Issue 4154
>
>
> Peter
>
> There is not a general agreement (historically there has not
> been) that MODL
> or some other textual notation should be part of the MOF spec.
> This is MOF
> 2.0 discussion
>
>
> There is a related RFP UML profile for Human Usable Textual Notation
(HUTN
> that DSTC is working on) that we may need to look at.
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> Sridhar Iyengar
> Unisys Fellow, Director of Advanced Technology
> 25725, Jeronimo Road
> Mission Viejo, CA 92691
>
> E-mail : Sridhar.iyengar2@unisys.com
> Phone : 949-380-5692
> Fax     : 949-380-6632
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Peter Denno [mailto:peter.denno@nist.gov]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 9:22 AM
> > To: Stephen Crawley
> > Cc: mof-rtf@omg.org
> > Subject: Notes on MODL grammar / Issue 4154
> >
> >
> > Steve,
> >
> > WRT mof issue 4154, will the MODL grammar (now found only in the
dMOF
> > documentation) be added to the specification? I think it should be
in
> > there.
> >
> > Also I think I found a few errors in that grammar:
> >
> > 1)
> > <constant> ::= <const_type> <identifier> '=' <const_expr>
> >
> > "const" is missing.
> >
> > 2)
> > <class> ::= <class_head> <inherits> <class_body> | <class_head>
> >
> > Shouldn't <inherits> be optional?
> >
> > --
> > Best Regards,
> >  - Peter
> >
> >  Peter Denno
> >  National Institute of Standards and Technology,
> >  Manufacturing System Integration Division,
> >  100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8260             Tel: +1 301-975-3595
> >  Gaithersburg, MD, USA 20899-8260             FAX: +1 301-975-4694
> >
> >
>
Importance: Normal
Subject: RE: Notes on MODL grammar / Issue 4154
To: "David Frankel" <david.frankel@iona.com>
Cc: "Iyengar, Sridhar" <Sridhar.Iyengar2@unisys.com>,
   "Peter Denno" <peter.denno@nist.gov>,
   "Stephen Crawley" <crawley@dstc.edu.au>, <mof-rtf@omg.org>
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.4a  July 24, 2000
Message-ID: <OF4514A4E5.4F9E64C7-ON88256A37.00635A8E@LocalDomain>
From: "Stephen Brodsky" <sbrodsky@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 11:06:33 -0700
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM039/03/M/IBM(Release 5.0.6
|December 14, 2000) at
 04/23/2001 12:13:19 PM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-UIDL: ME]!!#Ue!!)fUd9`4kd9
Status: U


Dave,

I think the HUTN for MOF would be better in a HUTN submission than a
MOF
submission.

Thanks,

-Steve

Stephen A. Brodsky, Ph.D.
Software Architect
Notes Address:  Stephen Brodsky/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS
Internet Address:  sbrodsky@us.ibm.com
Phone:  408.463.5659


"David Frankel" <david.frankel@iona.com> on 04/22/2001 06:23:23 PM

To:   "Iyengar, Sridhar" <Sridhar.Iyengar2@unisys.com>, "Peter Denno"
      <peter.denno@nist.gov>, "Stephen Crawley" <crawley@dstc.edu.au>
cc:   <mof-rtf@omg.org>
Subject:  RE: Notes on MODL grammar /  Issue 4154



Note that the HUTN RFP has coverage of the MOF as an optional
requirement.

================================
David S. Frankel
Chief Consulting Architect,
Advanced Technologies
Strategic Enterprise Solutions
IONA Technologies, Inc.
741 Santiago Court
Chico, CA 95973-8781 USA

+1 530 893-1100 voice
+1 530 893-1153 fax
david.frankel@iona.com
================================

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Iyengar, Sridhar [mailto:Sridhar.Iyengar2@unisys.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 12:49 PM
> To: Peter Denno; Stephen Crawley
> Cc: mof-rtf@omg.org
> Subject: RE: Notes on MODL grammar / Issue 4154
>
>
> Peter
>
> There is not a general agreement (historically there has not
> been) that MODL
> or some other textual notation should be part of the MOF spec.
> This is MOF
> 2.0 discussion
>
>
> There is a related RFP UML profile for Human Usable Textual Notation
(HUTN
> that DSTC is working on) that we may need to look at.
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> Sridhar Iyengar
> Unisys Fellow, Director of Advanced Technology
> 25725, Jeronimo Road
> Mission Viejo, CA 92691
>
> E-mail : Sridhar.iyengar2@unisys.com
> Phone : 949-380-5692
> Fax     : 949-380-6632
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Peter Denno [mailto:peter.denno@nist.gov]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 9:22 AM
> > To: Stephen Crawley
> > Cc: mof-rtf@omg.org
> > Subject: Notes on MODL grammar / Issue 4154
> >
> >
> > Steve,
> >
> > WRT mof issue 4154, will the MODL grammar (now found only in the
dMOF
> > documentation) be added to the specification? I think it should be
in
> > there.
> >
> > Also I think I found a few errors in that grammar:
> >
> > 1)
> > <constant> ::= <const_type> <identifier> '=' <const_expr>
> >
> > "const" is missing.
> >
> > 2)
> > <class> ::= <class_head> <inherits> <class_body> | <class_head>
> >
> > Shouldn't <inherits> be optional?
> >
> > --
> > Best Regards,
> >  - Peter
> >
> >  Peter Denno
> >  National Institute of Standards and Technology,
> >  Manufacturing System Integration Division,
> >  100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8260             Tel: +1 301-975-3595
> >  Gaithersburg, MD, USA 20899-8260             FAX: +1 301-975-4694
> >
> >
>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.2 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4
To: "Stephen Brodsky" <sbrodsky@us.ibm.com>
cc: "David Frankel" <david.frankel@iona.com>,
   "Iyengar,
    Sridhar" <Sridhar.Iyengar2@unisys.com>,
   "Peter Denno" <peter.denno@nist.gov>,
   "Stephen Crawley" <crawley@dstc.edu.au>, mof-rtf@omg.org,
   crawley@dstc.edu.au
Subject: Re: Notes on MODL grammar / Issue 4154 
In-Reply-To: Message from "Stephen Brodsky" <sbrodsky@us.ibm.com> 
   of "Mon, 23 Apr 2001 11:06:33 MST."
   <OF4514A4E5.4F9E64C7-ON88256A37.00635A8E@LocalDomain> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 09:35:43 +1000
From: Stephen Crawley <crawley@dstc.edu.au>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 1.0
(http://www.roaringpenguin.com/mimedefang/)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-UIDL: OP2e9^/)e9P*k!!Q"ld9


> I think the HUTN for MOF would be better in a HUTN submission than a
  MOF
> submission.

At this stage, it is up to HUTN submitters to decide what they want to
do.
Until we see HUTN final submissions, we won't know whether or not they
have
decided to meet the optional HUTN RFP requirement.

By making HUTN for MOF an optional requirement in the MOF 2.0 RFP
(with
appropriate caveats), we are hedging our bets.

-- Steve

From: "David Frankel" <david.frankel@iona.com>
To: "Stephen Brodsky" <sbrodsky@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "Iyengar, Sridhar" <Sridhar.Iyengar2@unisys.com>,
   "Peter Denno" <peter.denno@nist.gov>,
   "Stephen Crawley" <crawley@dstc.edu.au>, <mof-rtf@omg.org>
Subject: RE: Notes on MODL grammar / Issue 4154
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 19:38:38 -0500
Message-ID: <NCBBIABNAFMDDIJMPEMCMEMIFNAA.david.frankel@iona.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <OF4514A4E5.4F9E64C7-ON88256A37.00635A8E@LocalDomain>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	      charset="us-ascii"
X-UIDL: ]~c!!PBA!!o`X!!W\fd9

Steve--

Perhaps so.  I just wanted to point out that there is a vehicle for it
in
place in case anyone wants to use it.

--Dave

================================
David S. Frankel
Chief Consulting Architect,
Advanced Technologies
Strategic Enterprise Solutions
IONA Technologies, Inc.
741 Santiago Court
Chico, CA 95973-8781 USA

+1 530 893-1100 voice
+1 530 893-1153 fax
david.frankel@iona.com
================================

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Brodsky [mailto:sbrodsky@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 1:07 PM
> To: David Frankel
> Cc: Iyengar, Sridhar; Peter Denno; Stephen Crawley; mof-rtf@omg.org
> Subject: RE: Notes on MODL grammar / Issue 4154
>
>
>
> Dave,
>
> I think the HUTN for MOF would be better in a HUTN submission than a
MOF
> submission.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Steve
>
> Stephen A. Brodsky, Ph.D.
> Software Architect
> Notes Address:  Stephen Brodsky/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS
> Internet Address:  sbrodsky@us.ibm.com
> Phone:  408.463.5659
>
>
> "David Frankel" <david.frankel@iona.com> on 04/22/2001 06:23:23 PM
>
> To:   "Iyengar, Sridhar" <Sridhar.Iyengar2@unisys.com>, "Peter
Denno"
>       <peter.denno@nist.gov>, "Stephen Crawley"
<crawley@dstc.edu.au>
> cc:   <mof-rtf@omg.org>
> Subject:  RE: Notes on MODL grammar /  Issue 4154
>
>
>
> Note that the HUTN RFP has coverage of the MOF as an optional
requirement.
>
> ================================
> David S. Frankel
> Chief Consulting Architect,
> Advanced Technologies
> Strategic Enterprise Solutions
> IONA Technologies, Inc.
> 741 Santiago Court
> Chico, CA 95973-8781 USA
>
> +1 530 893-1100 voice
> +1 530 893-1153 fax
> david.frankel@iona.com
> ================================
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Iyengar, Sridhar [mailto:Sridhar.Iyengar2@unisys.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 12:49 PM
> > To: Peter Denno; Stephen Crawley
> > Cc: mof-rtf@omg.org
> > Subject: RE: Notes on MODL grammar / Issue 4154
> >
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > There is not a general agreement (historically there has not
> > been) that MODL
> > or some other textual notation should be part of the MOF spec.
> > This is MOF
> > 2.0 discussion
> >
> >
> > There is a related RFP UML profile for Human Usable Textual
Notation
> (HUTN
> > that DSTC is working on) that we may need to look at.
> >
> >
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----
> > Sridhar Iyengar
> > Unisys Fellow, Director of Advanced Technology
> > 25725, Jeronimo Road
> > Mission Viejo, CA 92691
> >
> > E-mail : Sridhar.iyengar2@unisys.com
> > Phone : 949-380-5692
> > Fax     : 949-380-6632
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Peter Denno [mailto:peter.denno@nist.gov]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 9:22 AM
> > > To: Stephen Crawley
> > > Cc: mof-rtf@omg.org
> > > Subject: Notes on MODL grammar / Issue 4154
> > >
> > >
> > > Steve,
> > >
> > > WRT mof issue 4154, will the MODL grammar (now found only in the
dMOF
> > > documentation) be added to the specification? I think it should
be in
> > > there.
> > >
> > > Also I think I found a few errors in that grammar:
> > >
> > > 1)
> > > <constant> ::= <const_type> <identifier> '=' <const_expr>
> > >
> > > "const" is missing.
> > >
> > > 2)
> > > <class> ::= <class_head> <inherits> <class_body> | <class_head>
> > >
> > > Shouldn't <inherits> be optional?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best Regards,
> > >  - Peter
> > >
> > >  Peter Denno
> > >  National Institute of Standards and Technology,
> > >  Manufacturing System Integration Division,
> > >  100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8260             Tel: +1
301-975-3595
> > >  Gaithersburg, MD, USA 20899-8260             FAX: +1
301-975-4694
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>

From: "David Frankel" <david.frankel@iona.com>
To: "Stephen Crawley" <crawley@dstc.edu.au>,
   "Stephen Brodsky" <sbrodsky@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "Iyengar,    Sridhar" <Sridhar.Iyengar2@unisys.com>,
   "Peter Denno" <peter.denno@nist.gov>, <mof-rtf@omg.org>
Subject: RE: Notes on MODL grammar / Issue 4154 
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 19:41:30 -0500
Message-ID: <NCBBIABNAFMDDIJMPEMCOEMJFNAA.david.frankel@iona.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <200104232335.f3NNZc407572@piglet.dstc.edu.au>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	      charset="us-ascii"
X-UIDL: ~1<e9Z(Wd9b;g!!'Sc!!

BTW, the optional requirement in the HUTN RFP says that if the
requirement
is addressed it must be done as a HUTN for a UML Profile for MOF.

--Dave

================================
David S. Frankel
Chief Consulting Architect,
Advanced Technologies
Strategic Enterprise Solutions
IONA Technologies, Inc.
741 Santiago Court
Chico, CA 95973-8781 USA

+1 530 893-1100 voice
+1 530 893-1153 fax
david.frankel@iona.com
================================

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Crawley [mailto:crawley@dstc.edu.au]
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 6:36 PM
> To: Stephen Brodsky
> Cc: David Frankel; Iyengar, Sridhar; Peter Denno; Stephen Crawley;
> mof-rtf@omg.org; crawley@dstc.edu.au
> Subject: Re: Notes on MODL grammar / Issue 4154
>
>
>
> > I think the HUTN for MOF would be better in a HUTN submission than
a MOF
> > submission.
>
> At this stage, it is up to HUTN submitters to decide what they want
to do.
> Until we see HUTN final submissions, we won't know whether or not
> they have
> decided to meet the optional HUTN RFP requirement.
>
> By making HUTN for MOF an optional requirement in the MOF 2.0 RFP
(with
> appropriate caveats), we are hedging our bets.
>
> -- Steve
>


X-Mailer: exmh version 2.2 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4
To: mof-rtf@omg.org
Subject: Re: Issue 4154 - MODL Appendix needs updating
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 21:22:44 +1000
From: Stephen Crawley <crawley@dstc.edu.au>
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 1.0
(http://www.roaringpenguin.com/mimedefang/)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-UIDL: ,*d!!!hV!!Uc#e9fe*!!

> Source: DSTC (Dr. Stephen Crawley, crawley@dstc.edu.au)
> Nature: Uncategorized Issue
> Severity:
> Summary: In MOF 1.3 RTF, it was agreed (with some reluctance on my
> part) that 
> the spelling of the model element names in the XMI version of the
> MOF Model 
> was definitive. This means that the MODL definition of the Model
> package in 
> the Appendix is out of date. In addition, DSTC has made a number of
> changes 
> to the MODL language syntax that mean that the version in the MOF
> 1.3 spec 
> no longer compiles. Finally, the URL for the specification of the
> MODL 
> language is stale.

Proposed Resolution:

Since the Appendix containing the MODL for Model is non-normative,
this
issue can be addressed as an editorial action.

Proposed Revised Text:

A new version of the MODL Appendix will be supplied, fixing the
problems
mentioned and incorporating other changes to the MOF Model and the new
PrimitiveTypes and CorbaIdlTypes packages.