Issue 4232: role is named 'containedElement' while the reference is named 'contents' (mof-rtf) Source: France Telecom R&D (Mr. Mariano Belaunde, mariano.belaunde(at)orange.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: The role name of the Namespace->ModelElement association end should be the same than the corresponding reference name. This role is named 'containedElement' while the reference is named 'contents'. Even if this is legal, we should avoid this in the MOF model because it's error prone (in particular when we use the UML class diagram notation as a convenience for specifying MOF compliant metamodels). Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: March 21, 2001: received issue Discussion: This has been agreed in principle. However, the RTF needs to determine the impact of this change and similar tidying up / regularisation of names in the MOF Model before proceeding to change the Model, and hence the IDL and generated DTDs and XMI documents. DSTC expressed concern that the impact of this change could be significant. End of Annotations:===== From: BELAUNDE Mariano FTRD/DTL/LAN To: "'Juergen Boldt'" Subject: Two Ossues to the MOF 1.4 RTF Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 12:25:05 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-UIDL: EWG!!f;h!!##e!!"]&!! Juergen, I would like to post the following two issues to the MOF 1.4 RTF. Thanks in advance, Mariano ----------------- ISSUE Title: The role name of the Namespace->ModelElement association end should be the same than the corresponding reference name. This role is named 'containedElement' while the reference is named 'contents'. Even if this is legal, we should avoid this in the MOF model because it's error prone (in particular when we use the UML class diagram notation as a convenience for specifying MOF compliant metamodels). X-Mailer: exmh version 2.2 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 To: mof-rtf@omg.org, mariano.belaunde@rd.francetelecom.fr Subject: MOF RTF Issue 4232 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 09:55:40 +1000 From: Stephen Crawley Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: \'!!!(']!!ibXd9S5Be9 > Title: role is named 'containedElement' while the reference is named > 'contents' > Description: > The role name of the Namespace->ModelElement association end should > be > the same than the corresponding reference name. This role is named > 'containedElement' while the reference is named 'contents'. Even if > this is legal, we should avoid this in the MOF model because it's > error prone (in particular when we use the UML class diagram > notation > as a convenience for specifying MOF compliant metamodels). I think you have a point. However, fixing this "mistake" at this stage would significantly impact on vendor implementations of MOF and XMI, and could lead to interoperability problems. I suggest we defer this for consideration by MOF 2.0 submitters. -- Steve Importance: Normal Subject: Re: MOF RTF Issue 4232 To: Stephen Crawley Cc: mof-rtf@omg.org, mariano.belaunde@rd.francetelecom.fr X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.4a July 24, 2000 Message-ID: From: "Stephen Brodsky" Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:02:49 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM039/03/M/IBM(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 03/30/2001 12:06:08 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: oW-!!&JRd9Xadd98&'!! Steve, It would be fine with us - it's a change with a big usability payoff. 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 Stephen Crawley on 03/21/2001 03:55:40 PM To: mof-rtf@omg.org, mariano.belaunde@rd.francetelecom.fr cc: Subject: MOF RTF Issue 4232 > Title: role is named 'containedElement' while the reference is named > 'contents' > Description: > The role name of the Namespace->ModelElement association end should > be > the same than the corresponding reference name. This role is named > 'containedElement' while the reference is named 'contents'. Even if > this is legal, we should avoid this in the MOF model because it's > error prone (in particular when we use the UML class diagram > notation > as a convenience for specifying MOF compliant metamodels). I think you have a point. However, fixing this "mistake" at this stage would significantly impact on vendor implementations of MOF and XMI, and could lead to interoperability problems. I suggest we defer this for consideration by MOF 2.0 submitters. -- Steve X-Mailer: exmh version 2.2 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 To: mariano.belaunde@rd.francetelecom.fr cc: mof-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Issue 4232: The role name of the Namespace->ModelElement association end Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 15:54:43 +1000 From: Stephen Crawley X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 1.0 (http://www.roaringpenguin.com/mimedefang/) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: H]A!!TE-!!HD*!!;0]d9 Mariano, The consensus of the RTF teleconference was that your proposed change is correct in principle. In practice, we need to weigh any uasability improvements with this and similar changes against the costs of implementing them, both for MOF vendors and for their customers. For instance, DSTC's dMOF codebase is full of code that depends the identifiers in the generated Model IDL file. We need to assess the impact of your proposed change (and similar ones) before we decide whether to act on this issue in the current MOF RTF. -- Steve