Issue 9556: Question on InfrastrucutreLibrary::BehavioralFeatures::Parameter (uml2-rtf) Source: EMC (Mr. George Ericson, ericson_george(at)emc.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Minor Summary: In Infrastructures, since TypedElements::TypedElement is subclassed from Namespaces::NamedElement, is it necessary that BehavioralFeatures::Parameter be subclassed from both TypedElements::TypedElement and Namespaces::NamedElement? Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: April 10, 2006: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: ericson_george@emc.com To: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Question on InfrastrucutreLibrary::BehavioralFeatures::Parameter Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 07:49:06 -0400 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) X-PMX-Version: 4.7.1.128075, Antispam-Engine: 2.3.0.1, Antispam-Data: 2006.04.10.041110 X-PerlMx-Spam: Gauge=, SPAM=3%, Reason='EMC_FROM_0+ -2, HTML_50_70 0.1, NO_REAL_NAME 0, __CT 0, __CTYPE_HAS_BOUNDARY 0, __CTYPE_MULTIPART 0, __CTYPE_MULTIPART_ALT 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HAS_X_MAILER 0, __IMS_MSGID 0, __IMS_MUA 0, __MIME_HTML 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __TAG_EXISTS_HTML 0' In Infrastructures, since TypedElements::TypedElement is subclassed from Namespaces::NamedElement, is it necessary that BehavioralFeatures::Parameter be subclassed from both TypedElements::TypedElement and Namespaces::NamedElement? To: ericson_george@emc.com Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Question on InfrastrucutreLibrary::BehavioralFeatures::Parameter X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.1CF1 March 04, 2003 From: Branislav Selic Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 10:29:04 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML01/25/M/IBM(Release 6.5.4|March 27, 2005) at 04/10/2006 10:29:05, Serialize complete at 04/10/2006 10:29:05 You are correct. This generalization is superfluous. In fact, in the Constructs package -- which is the one that is actually used for the UML superstructure, this generalization has been removed. Please note that the metamodel elements in the Infrastructure::Abstractions package are not formally merged into the definition of the UML Superstructure. The idea behind Abstractions was to provide a "grab-bag" of potentially useful metamodeling patterns that are likely to be of value in designing different modeling languages. However, there has been some controversy within the RTF about the pros and cons of this, with the result that the Constructs package does not actually merge the Abstractions packages but only reuses them "logically". Because the RTF had very limited time and resources, we decided to focus on Constructs, since it is the basis for both UML and MOF, at the expense of Abstractions. Consequently, very little maintenance was done on Abstractions, and you will find that there are a number of such places where Abstractions and corresponding elements in Constructs diverge. An issue has been raised whether or not Abstractions should be removed from the Infrastructure but no resolution has been reached as yet. It is proving rather difficult to maintain all this extra stuff. Cheers, Bran Selic IBM Distinguished Engineer IBM Rational Software 770 Palladium Drive Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2V 1C8 ph.: (613) 591-7915 fax: (613) 599-3912 e-mail: bselic@ca.ibm.com ericson_george@emc.com 04/10/2006 07:49 AM To uml2-rtf@omg.org cc Subject Question on InfrastrucutreLibrary::BehavioralFeatures::Parameter In Infrastructures, since TypedElements::TypedElement is subclassed from Namespaces::NamedElement, is it necessary that BehavioralFeatures::Parameter be subclassed from both TypedElements::TypedElement and Namespaces::NamedElement? George From: ericson_george@emc.com To: bselic@ca.ibm.com Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: Question on InfrastrucutreLibrary::BehavioralFeatures::Parame ter Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 14:17:51 -0400 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) X-PMX-Version: 4.7.1.128075, Antispam-Engine: 2.3.0.1, Antispam-Data: 2006.04.11.105107 X-PerlMx-Spam: Gauge=, SPAM=2%, Reason='EMC_FROM_0+ -2, NO_REAL_NAME 0, __C230066_P5 0, __CT 0, __CTYPE_HAS_BOUNDARY 0, __CTYPE_MULTIPART 0, __CTYPE_MULTIPART_ALT 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HAS_X_MAILER 0, __IMS_MSGID 0, __IMS_MUA 0, __MIME_HTML 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __TAG_EXISTS_HTML 0' I understand the resource issue. I know it is a major hurdle. I'll keep in mind that Infrastructure is only conceptual and that Superstructure stands-alone. What is the group's opinion on using XMI or MOF to hold the model definitions. After the initial work of going there, wouldn't it provide significant benefit via ability to use UML tools to check consistency? George -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Branislav Selic [mailto:bselic@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 10:29 AM To: Ericson, George Cc: uml2-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Question on InfrastrucutreLibrary::BehavioralFeatures::Parameter You are correct. This generalization is superfluous. In fact, in the Constructs package -- which is the one that is actually used for the UML superstructure, this generalization has been removed. Please note that the metamodel elements in the Infrastructure::Abstractions package are not formally merged into the definition of the UML Superstructure. The idea behind Abstractions was to provide a "grab-bag" of potentially useful metamodeling patterns that are likely to be of value in designing different modeling languages. However, there has been some controversy within the RTF about the pros and cons of this, with the result that the Constructs package does not actually merge the Abstractions packages but only reuses them "logically". Because the RTF had very limited time and resources, we decided to focus on Constructs, since it is the basis for both UML and MOF, at the expense of Abstractions. Consequently, very little maintenance was done on Abstractions, and you will find that there are a number of such places where Abstractions and corresponding elements in Constructs diverge. An issue has been raised whether or not Abstractions should be removed from the Infrastructure but no resolution has been reached as yet. It is proving rather difficult to maintain all this extra stuff. Cheers, Bran Selic IBM Distinguished Engineer IBM Rational Software 770 Palladium Drive Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2V 1C8 ph.: (613) 591-7915 fax: (613) 599-3912 e-mail: bselic@ca.ibm.com ericson_george@emc.com 04/10/2006 07:49 AM To uml2-rtf@omg.org cc Subject Question on InfrastrucutreLibrary::BehavioralFeatures::Parameter In Infrastructures, since TypedElements::TypedElement is subclassed from Namespaces::NamedElement, is it necessary that BehavioralFeatures::Parameter be subclassed from both TypedElements::TypedElement and Namespaces::NamedElement? George George