self describing MOF?



Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

From: Alexander Rupsch (Alexander.Rupsch@gmx.de)
Date: Tue 20 Apr 2004 - 12:33:16 BST


Hi all!

The  statement "MOF is self describing" is some kind of fuzzy to me, so 
I need enlightenment.

The spec says: "... the MOF Model is formally defined using its own 
metamodeling constructs."

Defining or describing to me means, explaining on thing using some other 
things. If I have the constructs A, B, C, that means for example "A = B" 
or "B = C + A" would be a description which contains new information. "A 
= A" does not. That is different to be elemental.

Is it really possible to express any MOF construct with some other MOF 
constructs without using some elemental concepts like "this is a"?

For example "Generalizable Element" is a  generalization of "Namespace" 
but it can't be because Namespace is not a "Generalizable Element". Yes 
if I model that in MOF it could be, because I can use a "Class" to 
express "Namespace" and the (in this case) meta-construct "Class" can be 
generalized. But I'm defining MOF so can I use it? This is chicken and egg.

I understand that this not matter to the usability of MOF since chicken 
and eggs are happy being (if keeping in their natural environment).

regards.
-- 
Alexander Rupsch
http://www.dreinhalb.de

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view