Issue 6559: Issue: Virtual machine (ocl2-rtf)
Source:  (, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary: Description: The OCL 2.0 specification should be behaviour-oriented and not implementation-oriented (see section 4.3). 
Rationale: The idea of using OCL to describe itself is interesting from the research point of view, but unfortunately OCL is not a suitable metalanguage to define the meaning of other textual languages. I think that the best thing to do is to define a virtual machine and to describe the behaviour of the virtual machine using natural language. This technique was successfully used for languages like C, C++, Java, C#, and Prolog. I see no reasons why such a technique would fail for OCL. After all, OCL is less complex than modern programming language like C++, Java, or C#.
A proper description and implementation of the OCL virtual machine will create all the conditions to have a language that is platform/tool independent. 

Resolution: 
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
November 11, 2003: received issue
Discussion: 
This is a request to improve language definition. Should better be solved in a RTF.
End of Annotations:=====
ssue: Virtual machine
Description: The OCL 2.0 specification should be behaviour-oriented and not implementation-oriented (see section 4.3). 
Rationale: The idea of using OCL to describe itself is interesting from the research point of view, but unfortunately OCL is not a suitable metalanguage to define the meaning of other textual languages. I think that the best thing to do is to define a virtual machine and to describe the behaviour of the virtual machine using natural language. This technique was successfully used for languages like C, C++, Java, C#, and Prolog. I see no reasons why such a technique would fail for OCL. After all, OCL is less complex than modern programming language like C++, Java, or C#.
A proper description and implementation of the OCL virtual machine will create all the conditions to have a language that is platform/tool independent.