Re: comments on OCL



Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

Andy Evans (andye@cs.york.ac.uk)
Mon, 13 Dec 1999 17:53:17 -0000


>I remember a very similar informal discussion during the last UML'99 >conference (about "recursion in OCL operations"). You should be aware >that the OMG people definitely want to have such issues sorted out. So >there is no basic objection against, e.g., proposing a least fixpoint >operator for OCL. > Yes, Bernard Rumpe and a number of others were discussing this problem in detail. Probably, Bernard is the best person to provide follow up on this. The problem the OMG currently has is that nobody feels >really responsible for OCL. Jos Warmer is no longer able to spend much >time on OCL. But instead of speculating about the intentions of the >original designers, it would be an alternative to ask Jos. For a short >email question, one ususally gets a short reponse from him. On this point, I can be a little clearer. The pUML group have been informally offered the role of managing the OCL part of the semantics by the OMG. The group has ageed that this is a role it would be prepared to play, provided that Jos (and the other members of the Amsterdam group) are happy. If this is the case, then we would be keen to organise a workshop to discuss these issues in depth. In fact, I believe that Tony Clark and Stuart Kent are putting together a proposal for a workshop in Canterbury for early next year. Perhaps such a workshop would be a useful next step towards resolving these type of issues? Andy


Date view Thread view Subject view Author view