Re: self describing MOF?



Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

From: Laurence Tratt (laurie@tratt.net)
Date: Tue 20 Apr 2004 - 16:05:46 BST


On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 04:15:26PM +0200, Stefan Haustein wrote:

Dear Stefan,

>> Firstly, MOF isn't formally defined in a manner that any mathematician or
>> logician worth their salt would recognise.
> I thought an UML core was formally defined in Richters' PhD, his formal
> definitions were adopted in the OCL 2.0 spec which will be a part of the
> UML 2 spec, and since the MOF happens to be a subset of UML itself we are
> in not-so-muddy waters, or at least on the way out??

You are assuming that there is a seamless transition between the OCL, UML
and MOF specs - I'm not convinced! These standards are huge documents, and
often involve largely disconnected groups. I haven't tracked OCL 2.0 closely
enough to know how much of Marc's work got in [Jos? Marc? comments?].
However, that's academic: to be perfectly honest, and based on personal
experience, there are many reasons why I think it *highly* unlikely that a
truly formal definition of MOF and UML will ever get in. I don't expect that
fact to stop lots of papers defining UML use cases in Z etc at UML 2004
though ;)

Yours,


Laurie
-- 
http://tratt.net/laurie/

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view