UML22 — UML 2.0: CMOF/UML mixup for profiles

The end of the semantics section for Profiles informally describes a CMOF model equivalent to a Profile. This discussion in the spec about profiles and equivalent MOF metamodels could be confusing and potentially misleading. A profile is an instance of a UML2 model which is not a CMOF model. Therefore the MOF to XMI mapping rules do not apply for instances of a profile. The equivalent CMOF model is a means to explain and formalize how profiles are serialized and exchanged as XMI. The spec should make it clear that the equivalent MOF model is a model-to-model mapping being introduced as a means for describing how a profile is serialized and exchanged using XMI and how an XSD schema for validating instances of a profile is defined.

The mapping from a profile to a CMOF model is incomplete. For example, there is no statement that an instance of a stereotype maps to an instance of a CMOF::Class. This mapping needs to be completed; e.g., by direct reference

The Profile to CMOF mapping also needs to specify the XMI tags for persisting and exchanging profiles. According to the UML2 metamodel, instances of a Profile can't have Tags because an instance of a Profile is not a CMOF::Element, UML2 is not reflective. Tools will have to provide tag support for instances of stereotypes some other way. These properties can be left undefined and tools can provide values as needed. Another possible solution would be to specify how the XMI tag values and options for profile exchange would be defined, perhaps derived from other information in the profile. For example:
nsURI = http://<profilePackagePath>/schemas/<profileName>.xmi
nsPrefix = <profileName>
all others use the XMI defaults

No Data Available