BACM 1.0b2 FTF Avatar
  1. OMG Issue

BACM — The BACM specification does not document XML for interoperability

  • Key: BACM-75
  • Status: closed   Implementation work Blocked
  • Source: Agile Enterprise Design ( Mr. Fred A. Cummins)
  • Summary:

    The BACM specification, diagrams and text, specifies the BACM model using stereotypes that are not consistent with MOF. Consequently, the XML of the specified model is translated to a MOF-compliant XML as required by the RFP and interoperability of implementations. Both XML models are unnecessarily complex since there is no need to use stereotypes. MOF associations are sufficient, and the model would be more straightforward. The implementation Intent can be adequately specified in text with constraints, if necessary. The intent appears to be an effort to over-specify the expected method for development of an application of the model.

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Mon, 9 Jan 2023 01:04 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — BACM 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    No changes are made to the specification

    As noted in the comment of 2/16/2023, the submitters decided to resolve the conflict between visual and descriptive complexity in the specification document by using stereotypes in a UML model that is transformed into a MOF model. The issue author feels that the specification document should actually use the MOF model and not the UML model. It is not an OMG requirement to do this and other specifications have taken this path prior to BACM. Addressing this issue would require months of work in creating a new document that would be very different from that approved by the AB and the DTC and would likely require re-approval. It is not clear that this degree of change would comply with the P&P policies for FTFs. Consequently, this proposal recommends rejection of the issue.

  • Updated: Mon, 2 Oct 2023 12:56 GMT