Issue 7627: Profiles in Compliance Level 1? (uml2-superstructure-ftf) Source: Simula Research Laboratory (Mr. Bran Selic, selic(at)acm.org) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: It has been suggested that Profiles should be part of Compliance Level 1 (Basic Level) rather than part of Compliance Level 2 (Intermediate Level) as currently defined. The rationale is that it gives any UML user the ability to specialize UML. We already know from experience that UML is almost ALWAYS specialized when it is used -- implicitly or explicitly. Given that, we might as well provide users at all levels with the ability to use profiles. I feel that this is a reasonable suggestion. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: August 10, 2004: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== ubject: Discussion point: Profiles in Compliance Level 1? X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.1CF1 March 04, 2003 From: Branislav Selic Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:58:40 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML01/25/M/IBM(Release 6.0.2CF2|July 23, 2003) at 08/10/2004 10:58:44, Serialize complete at 08/10/2004 10:58:44 It has been suggested that Profiles should be part of Compliance Level 1 (Basic Level) rather than part of Compliance Level 2 (Intermediate Level) as currently defined. The rationale is that it gives any UML user the ability to specialize UML. We already know from experience that UML is almost ALWAYS specialized when it is used -- implicitly or explicitly. Given that, we might as well provide users at all levels with the ability to use profiles. I feel that this is a reasonable suggestion. What do others think? Bran Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 16:21:08 +0100 From: Guus Ramackers Organization: Oracle Corporation User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Branislav Selic CC: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: Discussion point: Profiles in Compliance Level 1? Bran, At the London meeting we discussed that Profiles should really be part of Infrastructure, such that MOF and QVT can reuse them. If they were moved there, they would be part of Level 1 (as is the rest of Infra). Thanks, Guus Branislav Selic wrote: It has been suggested that Profiles should be part of Compliance Level 1 (Basic Level) rather than part of Compliance Level 2 (Intermediate Level) as currently defined. The rationale is that it gives any UML user the ability to specialize UML. We already know from experience that UML is almost ALWAYS specialized when it is used -- implicitly or explicitly. Given that, we might as well provide users at all levels with the ability to use profiles. I feel that this is a reasonable suggestion. What do others think? Bran -- __________________________________________________________ Guus Ramackers Product Manager UML and Web Services, Oracle JDeveloper Tools group e-mail: guus.ramackers@oracle.com 520 Oracle Parkway, TVP work: +44-(0)1189-245101 Reading RG6 1RA, UK fax: +44-(0)1189-245148 To: Guus Ramackers Cc: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: Discussion point: Profiles in Compliance Level 1? X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.1CF1 March 04, 2003 From: Branislav Selic Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 12:02:53 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML01/25/M/IBM(Release 6.0.2CF2|July 23, 2003) at 08/10/2004 12:02:57, Serialize complete at 08/10/2004 12:02:57 Guus, Profiles ARE a part of the Infrastructure. But, this does not automatically place them into Level 1. The Classes package imports and/or merges most of the Infrastructure packages, but not Profiles. In fact, if you check the model, you will find that Profile is not even imported in L2, although the spec says that it should be (bug in the metamodel). There is an empty package called Profiles in the overall UML package, which I assume by some sleight of hand is supposed to represent the Profiles package from Infrastructure, but, because it is not merged into any of the L packages, strictly speaking, it is not a part of any compliance level. In any case, I guess you are agreeing that it should be part of L1. Bran Guus Ramackers 08/10/2004 11:21 AM To Branislav Selic/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject Re: Discussion point: Profiles in Compliance Level 1? Bran, At the London meeting we discussed that Profiles should really be part of Infrastructure, such that MOF and QVT can reuse them. If they were moved there, they would be part of Level 1 (as is the rest of Infra). Thanks, Guus Branislav Selic wrote: It has been suggested that Profiles should be part of Compliance Level 1 (Basic Level) rather than part of Compliance Level 2 (Intermediate Level) as currently defined. The rationale is that it gives any UML user the ability to specialize UML. We already know from experience that UML is almost ALWAYS specialized when it is used -- implicitly or explicitly. Given that, we might as well provide users at all levels with the ability to use profiles. I feel that this is a reasonable suggestion. What do others think? Bran -- __________________________________________________________ Guus Ramackers Product Manager UML and Web Services, Oracle JDeveloper Tools group e-mail: guus.ramackers@oracle.com 520 Oracle Parkway, TVP work: +44-(0)1189-245101 Reading RG6 1RA, UK fax: +44-(0)1189-245148 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.4.030702.0 Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 12:34:47 -0400 Subject: Re: Discussion point: Profiles in Compliance Level 1? From: James Odell To: Bran.s suggestion makes sense. The only downside I can think of is for those vendors that just want to do Basic Level compliance. Adding Profiles means more they have to do more work for basic support. On the other hand, if Bran is correct that .UML is almost ALWAYS specialized when it is used,. then I second Bran.s suggestin. -Jim O On 8/10/04 10:58 AM, "Branislav Selic" indited: It has been suggested that Profiles should be part of Compliance Level 1 (Basic Level) rather than part of Compliance Level 2 (Intermediate Level) as currently defined. The rationale is that it gives any UML user the ability to specialize UML. We already know from experience that UML is almost ALWAYS specialized when it is used -- implicitly or explicitly. Given that, we might as well provide users at all levels with the ability to use profiles. I feel that this is a reasonable suggestion. What do others think? Bran To: Guus Ramackers Cc: Branislav Selic , uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: Discussion point: Profiles in Compliance Level 1? X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.2CF2 July 23, 2003 From: Jim Amsden Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 12:37:28 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM119/03/M/IBM(Release 6.51HF338 | June 21, 2004) at 08/10/2004 10:37:31, Serialize complete at 08/10/2004 10:37:31 Guus, Profiles are in InfrastructureLibrary, but are not merged into MOF (CMOF or Constructs) or L1 at the moment. Guus Ramackers 08/10/2004 11:21 AM To Branislav Selic cc uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject Re: Discussion point: Profiles in Compliance Level 1? Bran, At the London meeting we discussed that Profiles should really be part of Infrastructure, such that MOF and QVT can reuse them. If they were moved there, they would be part of Level 1 (as is the rest of Infra). Thanks, Guus Branislav Selic wrote: It has been suggested that Profiles should be part of Compliance Level 1 (Basic Level) rather than part of Compliance Level 2 (Intermediate Level) as currently defined. The rationale is that it gives any UML user the ability to specialize UML. We already know from experience that UML is almost ALWAYS specialized when it is used -- implicitly or explicitly. Given that, we might as well provide users at all levels with the ability to use profiles. I feel that this is a reasonable suggestion. What do others think? Bran -- __________________________________________________________ Guus Ramackers Product Manager UML and Web Services, Oracle JDeveloper Tools group e-mail: guus.ramackers@oracle.com 520 Oracle Parkway, TVP work: +44-(0)1189-245101 Reading RG6 1RA, UK fax: +44-(0)1189-245148 Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:58:03 +0100 From: Guus Ramackers Organization: Oracle Corporation User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Jim Amsden CC: Branislav Selic , uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: Discussion point: Profiles in Compliance Level 1? Jim, Thank you for correcting my sloppy formulation. Try again: The suggestion discussed in London was to move Profiles to the MOF namespace. It would make Profiles available as an optional mechanism for MOF models, and it would make it available to MOF QVT (and other standards) without a dependency on UML. The ability to define transformations between profiled models is one important part of QVT. If this package refactoring can be done practically, then Profiles would quite naturally fit in Compliance Level 1 within UML. Thanks, Guus Jim Amsden wrote: Guus, Profiles are in InfrastructureLibrary, but are not merged into MOF (CMOF or Constructs) or L1 at the moment. Guus Ramackers 08/10/2004 11:21 AM To Branislav Selic cc uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject Re: Discussion point: Profiles in Compliance Level 1? Bran, At the London meeting we discussed that Profiles should really be part of Infrastructure, such that MOF and QVT can reuse them. If they were moved there, they would be part of Level 1 (as is the rest of Infra). Thanks, Guus Branislav Selic wrote: It has been suggested that Profiles should be part of Compliance Level 1 (Basic Level) rather than part of Compliance Level 2 (Intermediate Level) as currently defined. The rationale is that it gives any UML user the ability to specialize UML. We already know from experience that UML is almost ALWAYS specialized when it is used -- implicitly or explicitly. Given that, we might as well provide users at all levels with the ability to use profiles. I feel that this is a reasonable suggestion. What do others think? Bran -- __________________________________________________________ Guus Ramackers Product Manager UML and Web Services, Oracle JDeveloper Tools group e-mail: guus.ramackers@oracle.com 520 Oracle Parkway, TVP work: +44-(0)1189-245101 Reading RG6 1RA, UK fax: +44-(0)1189-245148 -- __________________________________________________________ Guus Ramackers Product Manager UML and Web Services, Oracle JDeveloper Tools group e-mail: guus.ramackers@oracle.com 520 Oracle Parkway, TVP work: +44-(0)1189-245101 Reading RG6 1RA, UK fax: +44-(0)1189-245148 Subject: RE: Discussion point: Profiles in Compliance Level 1? Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:34:13 -0700 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Discussion point: Profiles in Compliance Level 1? Thread-Index: AcR+6pZXqsxG1w32QIigPmcYbKHtnwA5ufmg From: "Karl Frank" To: "Branislav Selic" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Aug 2004 18:34:13.0685 (UTC) FILETIME=[CCF70650:01C47FD1] Please Keep Profiles in Compliance Level 2. profiles are only one of 2 extension mechanisms (the other being MOF) and to require support for that particular mechanism at level 1 is against the spirit of what EXTENSION means. The UML in its unadorned form needs to be supported before one gets into a choice of what extension mechanism is usd. - Karl -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Branislav Selic [mailto:bselic@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 10:59 AM To: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: Discussion point: Profiles in Compliance Level 1? It has been suggested that Profiles should be part of Compliance Level 1 (Basic Level) rather than part of Compliance Level 2 (Intermediate Level) as currently defined. The rationale is that it gives any UML user the ability to specialize UML. We already know from experience that UML is almost ALWAYS specialized when it is used -- implicitly or explicitly. Given that, we might as well provide users at all levels with the ability to use profiles. I feel that this is a reasonable suggestion. What do others think? Bran Subject: RE: Discussion point: Profiles in Compliance Level 1? Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:38:02 -0700 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Discussion point: Profiles in Compliance Level 1? Thread-Index: AcR+7rZvurG3YtK3T0+NBWN4OzuOzAA4yM0Q From: "Karl Frank" To: "Guus Ramackers" , "Branislav Selic" Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Aug 2004 18:38:01.0887 (UTC) FILETIME=[54FBE2F0:01C47FD2] As MOF is in itself an extension mechanism, the other one being MOF, one may question whether moving profiles to MOF makes sense. It contradicts the formerly agreed principal that UML can be extended in either of two ways, in accord with OMG standards: 1. Use profiles, a part of the UML spec. 2. Use MOF, the general OMG language specification mechanism. Guss: I was at London and do not recall any agreement to the topic, just a discussion. - Karl -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Guus Ramackers [mailto:Guus.Ramackers@oracle.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 11:21 AM To: Branislav Selic Cc: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: Discussion point: Profiles in Compliance Level 1? Bran, At the London meeting we discussed that Profiles should really be part of Infrastructure, such that MOF and QVT can reuse them. If they were moved there, they would be part of Level 1 (as is the rest of Infra). Thanks, Guus Branislav Selic wrote: It has been suggested that Profiles should be part of Compliance Level 1 (Basic Level) rather than part of Compliance Level 2 (Intermediate Level) as currently defined. The rationale is that it gives any UML user the ability to specialize UML. We already know from experience that UML is almost ALWAYS specialized when it is used -- implicitly or explicitly. Given that, we might as well provide users at all levels with the ability to use profiles. I feel that this is a reasonable suggestion. What do others think? Bran -- __________________________________________________________ Guus Ramackers Product Manager UML and Web Services, Oracle JDeveloper Tools group e-mail: guus.ramackers@oracle.com 520 Oracle Parkway, TVP work: +44-(0)1189-245101 Reading RG6 1RA, UK fax: +44-(0)1189-245148 To: "Karl Frank" Cc: "Guus Ramackers" , uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: Discussion point: Profiles in Compliance Level 1? X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.1CF1 March 04, 2003 From: Branislav Selic Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 15:47:59 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML01/25/M/IBM(Release 6.0.2CF2|July 23, 2003) at 08/11/2004 15:48:05, Serialize complete at 08/11/2004 15:48:05 I recall someone telling me that it was decided that it would be useful to give MOF users the ability to use profiles if they chose to do so. This was the main reason why Profiles were moved to the Infrastructure. Philippe would know the details, but I am pretty sure that this decision was made a long time ago. Bran "Karl Frank" 08/11/2004 02:38 PM To "Guus Ramackers" , Branislav Selic/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA cc Subject RE: Discussion point: Profiles in Compliance Level 1? As MOF is in itself an extension mechanism, the other one being MOF, one may question whether moving profiles to MOF makes sense. It contradicts the formerly agreed principal that UML can be extended in either of two ways, in accord with OMG standards: 1. Use profiles, a part of the UML spec. 2. Use MOF, the general OMG language specification mechanism. Guss: I was at London and do not recall any agreement to the topic, just a discussion. - Karl -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Guus Ramackers [mailto:Guus.Ramackers@oracle.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 11:21 AM To: Branislav Selic Cc: uml2-superstructure-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: Discussion point: Profiles in Compliance Level 1? Bran, At the London meeting we discussed that Profiles should really be part of Infrastructure, such that MOF and QVT can reuse them. If they were moved there, they would be part of Level 1 (as is the rest of Infra). Thanks, Guus Branislav Selic wrote: It has been suggested that Profiles should be part of Compliance Level 1 (Basic Level) rather than part of Compliance Level 2 (Intermediate Level) as currently defined. The rationale is that it gives any UML user the ability to specialize UML. We already know from experience that UML is almost ALWAYS specialized when it is used -- implicitly or explicitly. Given that, we might as well provide users at all levels with the ability to use profiles. I feel that this is a reasonable suggestion. What do others think? Bran -- __________________________________________________________ Guus Ramackers Product Manager UML and Web Services, Oracle JDeveloper Tools group e-mail: guus.ramackers@oracle.com 520 Oracle Parkway, TVP work: +44-(0)1189-245101 Reading RG6 1RA, UK fax: +44-(0)1189-245148