Issue 4621: Navigability of assoc. ends in MOF model (mof-rtf) Source: GoodData Corporation (Mr. Martin Matula, matulic(at)gmail.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: When I was looking at the current MOF 1.4 spec I could not find a place where is specified, which assoc. ends are navigable and which are not. There is an inconsistency between the UML picture of MOF metamodel and XMI (and IDL). Where the picture indicates that some ends (like RefersTo.referent) are not navigable, XMI says that they are navigable and also IDL contains getter method for these ends. So I guess the picture is wrong. This should be fixed, because it is in fact the only place where the users of the spec can see the navigability without looking at the hard-to-read XML file or generated IDL. It would be also helpful to add this also to the description of particular associations in section 3.5. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: October 17, 2001: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== From: "Martin Matula" To: Cc: Subject: mof-rtf issue: Navigability of assoc. ends in MOF model Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 16:24:28 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-UIDL: ai/e9"b)!!\MS!!;n^d9 When I was looking at the current MOF 1.4 spec I could not find a place where is specified, which assoc. ends are navigable and which are not. There is an inconsistency between the UML picture of MOF metamodel and XMI (and IDL). Where the picture indicates that some ends (like RefersTo.referent) are not navigable, XMI says that they are navigable and also IDL contains getter method for these ends. So I guess the picture is wrong. This should be fixed, because it is in fact the only place where the users of the spec can see the navigability without looking at the hard-to-read XML file or generated IDL. It would be also helpful to add this also to the description of particular associations in section 3.5. Martin Matula (mailto:martin.matula@sun.com) tel: +420(2)3300-9153 Sun Micro: x49153 Praha, CR X-Mailer: exmh version 2.2 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 To: "Martin Matula" cc: issues@omg.org, mof-rtf@omg.org, crawley@dstc.edu.au Subject: Re: mof-rtf issue: Navigability of assoc. ends in MOF model In-Reply-To: Message from "Martin Matula" of "Wed, 17 Oct 2001 16:24:28 +0200." <073a01c15717$6e381cc0$844b9c81@matula> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 10:15:11 +1000 From: Stephen Crawley X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 1.0 (http://www.roaringpenguin.com/mimedefang/) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: 1CPe9l'%!!Jjh!!+Jh!! Martin, Section 3.2 is entitled "How the MOF Model is described". In section 3.2.2 "Associations", look for the subsection "Ends". The second paragraph of this subsection says (quoting from the MOF 1.3 spec): "Every AssociationEnd in the MOF Model has both ``isNavigable'' and ``isChangeable'' set to true." It is not necessary to repeat this for all ten Association defined in Section 3.5. Next, turn to 3.2.7 "UML Diagrams". The last paragraph clearly states that the arrowheads on the associations arcs in the MOF Model indicate the presence or absence of References ... NOT navigability. In other words, the diagrams are not wrong. In short, I don't think there is an issue here. The MOF 1.3 / 1.4 spec is clear and consistent in its description of navigability ... if you read the relevant parts. The only (minor) problem I can find is with the second paragraph of 3.2.7 which describes what arrowheads mean in UML. I think the last sentence would be more accurate if it read: "Absence of any arrowheads can mean that the Association is navigable in neither direction, or that the Association's navigability is unspecified." Since this is sentence is non-normative, it can be fixed editorially. -- Steve From: "Martin Matula" To: "Stephen Crawley" Cc: References: <200110180015.f9I0FBc00850@piglet.dstc.edu.au> Subject: Re: mof-rtf issue: Navigability of assoc. ends in MOF model Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 09:55:40 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-UIDL: @(d!!NE3J!!Nd#e9 Thanks. I think the text is perfect, I just didn't know where to look... Martin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Crawley" To: "Martin Matula" Cc: ; ; Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 2:15 AM Subject: Re: mof-rtf issue: Navigability of assoc. ends in MOF model > > Martin, > > Section 3.2 is entitled "How the MOF Model is described". In > section > 3.2.2 "Associations", look for the subsection "Ends". The second > paragraph of this subsection says (quoting from the MOF 1.3 spec): > > "Every AssociationEnd in the MOF Model has both ``isNavigable'' > and > ``isChangeable'' set to true." > > It is not necessary to repeat this for all ten Association defined > in Section 3.5. > > Next, turn to 3.2.7 "UML Diagrams". The last paragraph clearly > states that the arrowheads on the associations arcs in the MOF Model > indicate the presence or absence of References ... NOT navigability. > In other words, the diagrams are not wrong. > > In short, I don't think there is an issue here. The MOF 1.3 / 1.4 > spec > is clear and consistent in its description of navigability ... if > you > read the relevant parts. The only (minor) problem I can find is > with > the second paragraph of 3.2.7 which describes what arrowheads mean > in > UML. I think the last sentence would be more accurate if it read: > > "Absence of any arrowheads can mean that the Association is > navigable > in neither direction, or that the Association's navigability is > unspecified." > > Since this is sentence is non-normative, it can be fixed > editorially. > > -- Steve >