BACM 1.0b2 FTF Avatar
  1. OMG Issue

BACM — Beta specification ambiguous with respect to SMOF

  • Key: BACM-84
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Mr. James Rhyne)
  • Summary:

    The beta specification states that SMOF is a requirement for implementors. However, SMOF lifts the MOF restriction that each instance have one and only one metaclass/meta-association. Consequently, the specification is ambiguous about what elements should be disjoint. Some meta-classes should be disjoint (e.g. business objects and capabilities).
    This omission also affects the issues raised in BACM-83.

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Tue, 21 Feb 2023 06:11 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — BACM 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Clarify the SMOF requirement and provide additional diagrams

    The changes affect all of section 7.3.1 which is to be replaced by the attached Word file. Prose changes clarify that SMOF allows multiple metaclasses and eliminates the MOF requirement of classifier disjointness. Consequently, additional diagrams are introduced to explicitly specify disjoint constraints. These disjoint constraints also appear in the MOF compliant XMI as OpaqueConstraints specified in the SMOF language. The consistency of the resulting model is tested by translating it into OWL and using a reasoner to determine any inconsistencies.

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