Issue 8997: CMOF should not itnore visibilities (mof2core-rtf)
Source: International Business Machines (Mr. Jim Amsden, jamsden(at)us.ibm.com)
Nature: 
Severity: 
Summary: Constraint [7] in section 14.3 of the MOF2 specification says that visibilities will be ignored, everything is assumed to be public, and name classes are possible and should be avoided. This constraint also appears in section 12.4 EMOF Constraints, constraint [4]. This is necessary for EMOF because it does not support package import or visibility. However, CMOF, which is based on InfrastructureLibrary Constructs does support both package import, namespace visibility, and visibility kind. It is not clear why CMOF would define visibility and then introduce a rule to ignore it. Perhaps this rule should be relaxed. 

Resolution: Significant work is needed to develop a complete support for visibilities.

Disposition:	Deferred

Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
September 19, 2005: received issue
Discussion: 

End of Annotations:=====
ubject: CMOF should not itnore visibilities
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.2CF2 July 23, 2003
From: Jim Amsden <jamsden@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 09:23:22 -0400
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM118/03/M/IBM(Build V70_08142005|August 14, 2005) at
 09/19/2005 07:23:34,
        Serialize complete at 09/19/2005 07:23:34



Constraint [7] in section 14.3 of the MOF2 specification says that visibilities will be ignored, everything is assumed to be public, and name classes are possible and should be avoided. This constraint also appears in section 12.4 EMOF Constraints, constraint [4]. This is necessary for EMOF because it does not support package import or visibility. However, CMOF, which is based on InfrastructureLibrary Constructs does support both package import, namespace visibility, and visibility kind. It is not clear why CMOF would define visibility and then introduce a rule to ignore it. Perhaps this rule should be relaxed.