Meta Object Facility Avatar
  1. OMG Specification

Meta Object Facility — Closed Issues

  • Acronym: MOF
  • Issues Count: 330
  • Description: Issues resolved by a task force and approved by Board
Closed All
Issues resolved by a task force and approved by Board

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
MOF2RDF-8 In Clause 10, the base URL is misspelled MOF2RDF 1.0b1 MOF2RDF 1.0 Resolved closed
MOF2RDF-7 References to, and explanation of Usage for Turtle and QVT MOF2RDF 1.0b1 MOF2RDF 1.0 Resolved closed
MOF2RDF-3 Phrase owl:allValuesFrom garbled MOF2RDF 1.0b1 MOF2RDF 1.0 Resolved closed
MOF2RDF-2 Insert missing word MOF2RDF 1.0b1 MOF2RDF 1.0 Resolved closed
MOF2RDF-1 Improve Formatting and Correct Captions MOF2RDF 1.0b1 MOF2RDF 1.0 Resolved closed
MOF24-167 Section 12.2, page 32: add sentences to explain relationship to Figure 12-1 through 12-4. MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-166 Section 8.4: Indicate clearly the clauses in which the differences are described MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-165 the return type of the remove() operation is inconsistent with the description MOF 2.4.1 MOF 2.4.2 Resolved closed
MOF24-164 References in MOF Core to Infrastructure/Superstructure are obsolete, as are Figures 7.1, 12.1, 14.1 . MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-163 Resolve MOF 2 PAS National Body Ballot Comments MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-162 Annex C page 77 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-154 Section 15.3 page 55 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-159 Subpart V Annexes page 71 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-158 Section 16 page 67 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-157 Section 15.8 page 62 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-161 Annex B page 75 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-160 Annex A page 73 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-156 Section 15.8 page 62 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-155 Section 15.4 page 58 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-153 Section 14.5.2 page 53, Note MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-152 Section 14.5 page 53 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-148 Section 14.1 page 49, Figure 14-1 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-147 Subpart IV: Abstract Semantics page 47 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-146 Section 13.7 page 45, Paragraph Changes from MOF 1.4 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-151 Section 14.3 page 50 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-150 Section 14.2 page 49 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-149 Sections 14.1, 14.2, 14.5 pages 49, 50, 53, Figure 14-1 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-145 Section 13.6 page 45, Paragraph Changes from MOF 1.4 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-141 Section 13.3 page 43, Paragraph Semantics MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-140 Section 13.2 page 43, Paragraph Changes from MOF 1.4 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-139 Section 13.2 page 43, Paragraph Semantics MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-138 Section 13.1 page 41: add sentences to explain relationship to Figure 13-1 and 13-2. MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-137 12.4 page 35: Be consistent with UML 2.4.1 and OCL 2.4.1 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-144 Section 13.5 page 44, Paragraph Changes from MOF 1.4 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-143 Section 13.4 page 44, Paragraph Changes from MOF 1.4 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-142 Section 13.3 page 43, Paragraph Changes from MOF 1.4 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-136 Section 12.2 page 33, 34, Figure 12-1, 12-2, 12-3, 12-4, get rid of volour in diagrams MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-135 Section 12.2, Page 32, 33, Figure 12-1: There are two figures in Page 32 and 33 as same number as 12-1 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-134 Section 12.1 page 32: add sentences to explain relationship to Figure 12-1. MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-130 Subpart II The MOF Model General Page 29 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-129 Section 11.1, Page 27 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-133 Section 12.1, Page 31, 2nd Paragraph MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-132 Section 12.1 Page 31 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-131 Subpart II The MOF Model, Page 29 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-128 Sections 10.5, 10.6 Page 23, 24 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-127 Section 10, Page 23, Figure 10-1 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-126 Section 10, Page 23 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-125 Section 10.3, page 23, paragraph Changes from MOF 1.4 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-121 Section 10.1 page 21 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-120 Section 9.3, page 18, paragraph Changes from MOF 1.4 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-124 Section 10.1 page 21, figure 10-1: There are two diagrams in one Figure 10-1. MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-123 Section 10.2 Page 22, Paragraph Changes from MOF 1.4 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-119 Section 9.2: Page 17, Paragraph Changes from MOF 1.4 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-118 Section 9.1, page 15, Figure 9-1 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-117 Figure 9-1 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-116 Section 9 Reflection: add sentences for Common package MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-122 Section 10.1 page 21, figure 10-1 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-115 Subpart II Capabilities General (PP.13) MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-114 Setion 8.4 Change from MOF1.4 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-113 Section 8: explain all terms for language formalism MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-110 Section 7.2 Subclause title “MOF 2 Design Rationale” is not suitable for goals for this specification. MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-109 Section 7: Designate the precise version of the referred standards MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-112 Section 8: Delete “81. General". It is also a “Hanging Paragraph” MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-111 Section 7.4 Reuse of Common packages MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-108 Clause 7 and sbuclause7.1 forms a “Hanging Paragraph” MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-101 Section 5: There is no reference of other specifications as UML MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-100 Section 4 terms & Definitions: Nothing defined MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-107 delete subtitle “General Information.” MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-106 Section 6 subpart 1: MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-103 Section 6.4 Clause “Acknowledgements” is informative - move to an informative ANNEX MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-102 Section 6.2 Technical Specification: Use ISO Number for MOF1.4 -- MOF1.4 (ISO/IEC 1502) MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-105 Section 6: Clause “Additional Information” is not needed MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-104 Section 6.4: delete last line MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-91 Foreword, page vii: Title of ISO/IEC 19505-2:2011 is different MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-96 Section 3 References: The title should change to "Normative Reference". MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-95 Section 2 Conformance: Definition of conformance is insufficient MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-94 Section 1: The scope seems to be focused on OMG standards only, not for ISO standards MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-99 The style of Reference should conform to the JTC1 style. MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-93 Foreword, page vii: Title of ISO/IEC 14769 is different MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-92 Foreword, page vii: Title of ISO/IEC DIS 19509 is different MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-98 Section 3: add references to CORBA, QVT and OCL MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-97 Section 3: To refer ISO/IEC 19505. MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-86 Section 8.2: Identify the document here and provide a full reference in Clause 3. MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-85 Subpart 1: Delete the text from this location, possibly moving some of it to the Introduction MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-84 Section 6.4: Delete the clause. MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-83 Section 6.3: Either drop this clause, or identify the clauses that constitute "Part 1". MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-82 Section 6.2: Move the content of the second sentence to the (non-normative) Introduction. MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-90 Title: Category "Object Management Group" is not adequate for standards MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-89 Section 9.1 Value judgements, such as “An advantage of ...” are not appropriate in the normative text of a standard MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-88 Section 8.5, Subpart II” MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-87 Section 8.5: Move the definition to clause 3 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-78 Semantics and ownership of link slots needs clarification MOF 2.4.1 MOF 2.4.2 Resolved closed
MOF24-77 Invalid restrictions on concrete metaclasses allowed in EMOF and CMOF MOF 2.4.1 MOF 2.4.2 Resolved closed
MOF24-81 Section 4: Include an “Abbreviation” clause, and if appropriate a populated Definitions clause MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-80 Section 3: Include a reference to either or both parts of ISO/IEC 19505:2012, as appropriate. MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-79 General comment: The text should be reviewed for clarity before it progresses to IS. MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-75 Because MOF merges UML, UML as an instance of MOF is ill-formed MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-74 MOF 2.4 issue: duplicated paragraph in section 3 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-73 Revise conventions to avoid unnecessary duplication of descriptions for operations MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-72 linksOfType needs includeSubtypes parameter MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-76 EnumerationLiterals in the XMI MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-71 Bad description of set() MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-70 MOF 2 should merge UML 2 (merged) as opposed to Kernel MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-69 Primitive type values cannot be tested for equality using Reflection MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-68 MOF 2.0 9.1 Confusing instance superclass statement MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-67 MOF semantics chapter says nothing about ordering of links when association ends are marked “ordered”. MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-58 Associations should not be required to be unique MOF2I 1.0 MOF2I 2.0b1 Resolved closed
MOF24-66 MOF Figure 18 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-65 The 'isID' attribute in class MOF::CMOF::Property remains unclear MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-64 chapter 10 rewrite MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-63 diagrams mostly use unspecified «combine» MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Closed; No Change closed
MOF2I2-57 Issue for EMOF in UML 2 Infrastructure/MOF 2 FTF MOF2I 1.0 MOF2I 2.0b1 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-56 object in a useContainment Extent MOF2I 1.0 MOF2I 2.0b1 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-55 semantics of Reflection::Object MOF2I 1.0 MOF2I 2.0b1 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-54 Correct addAll() input parameter type MOF2I 1.0 MOF2I 2.0b1 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-53 Remove allowNull and serializable from EMOF DataType MOF2I 1.0 MOF2I 2.0b1 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-52 ReflectiveSequence is not sufficient - add iterator, remove addAll MOF2I 1.0 MOF2I 2.0b1 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-49 ad-03-04-07/Non-orthogonal additions to UML Core MOF2I 1.0 MOF2I 2.0b1 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-51 ReflectiveSequence is not sufficient, need nulls within a list MOF2I 1.0 MOF2I 2.0b1 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-50 No container for tags in tag model MOF2I 1.0 MOF2I 2.0b1 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-47 MOF 2.0 Core 03-04-07, Chapter 5. Identifiers MOF2I 1.0 MOF2I 2.0b1 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-46 MOF 2 Issue: Reflexion and Links MOF2I 1.0 MOF2I 2.0b1 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-45 Navigating metalevels/instance relationships MOF2I 1.0 MOF2I 2.0b1 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-48 MOF should include Profile package MOF2I 1.0 MOF2I 2.0b1 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-44 removing section 12.3 EMOF Merged Model ? MOF2I 2.0b1 MOF2I 2.0 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-43 Question on M-Levels MOF2I 2.0b1 MOF2I 2.0 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-42 Translation between EMOF and CMOF in MOF 2.0 MOF2I 2.0b1 MOF2I 2.0 Resolved closed
MOF14-169 Abstract package MOF 1.3 MOF 1.4 Duplicate or Merged closed
MOF2I2-41 names of the factory create operations MOF2I 2.0b1 MOF2I 2.0 Resolved closed
MOF24-62 Section 9.2: reconciliation with MOF Lifecycle should happen MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Duplicate or Merged closed
MOF24-61 MOF 2.4 issue: Part III contains the word Gagagaga MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Duplicate or Merged closed
MOF24-60 Multiple classifiers for an instance in MOF and RDF as defined in ODM MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-59 no documented standard serializiation of MOF 1.4 as an XMI 2.0 schema XMI 2.0 MOF 2.0 Transfered closed
MOF24-58 Absence of definitions of "XMI" and "MOF" MOF 2.4.1 MOF 2.4.2 Resolved closed
MOF24-57 No unambiguous way in MOF 2.4 to serialize UML 2.4's StructuredActivityNode MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-56 Problems in MOF operations delete(), invoke() and isInstanceOfType() operations MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOFM2T11-20 Annex A1 MOFM2T 1.0 MOFM2T 1.1 Closed; No Change closed
MOF24-55 Rule (11) and (12) MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF14-168 MOF 1.3: are Associations contained in Packages or not? MOF 1.3 MOF 1.4 Resolved closed
MOF14-167 No reflective all_links() operation MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-166 RefAssociation::link_exists() signature inconsistent MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-165 Error in "args" parameter of RefObject::invoke_operation. MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-164 Typos in Reflective::remove_value_at MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-161 Exception to indicate no corresponding "specific" operation MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-160 MissingParameter and TooManyParameters exceptions MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-163 Document how to "unset" using the RefObject interface MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-162 RefObject::value() needs to raise NotSet MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-157 Edit the MOF specification to improve clarity and readability MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-156 Revise `container" operations on RefBaseObject MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-159 Reflective::InvalidDesignator exception MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-158 Support for IDL prefixes in MOF spec MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-155 Add support for Package Consolidation / Clustering MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-154 Document different meaning of "abstract" MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-153 Update specification to track OCL syntax changes MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-152 MOF names implicitly tied to implementation MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-151 MOF RTF Issue: SMIF version of MOF MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-150 New name clash issue from CORBA 2.3 spec MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-149 Atomicity of updates MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-148 exceptions for resolve_qualified_name() MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-147 Need to specify when are side-effects allowed MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-146 MOF Constraints are pure predicates MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-145 MofAttribute values do not have aggregation==composite semantics MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-144 Cardinality of "RefersTo" and "Exposes" associations MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-143 Multiplicities on Attributes and References modelled incorrectly MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-142 Navigability constraint expressed wrongly MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-140 Navigability constraint expressed wrongly MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-139 Multiplicities on Attributes and References modelled incorrectly MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-141 Inconsistent multiplicity for TypeAlias MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-138 Convenient way to discriminate instances of subclasses MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-137 Should set_(nil) be legal? MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-136 set_ needs StructuralError MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-134 Exception for creating instances of imported supertypes? MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-135 Description of with_ operations MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-133 MOF RTF Issue: Behavior of M1 level interfaces vagualy specified MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-132 MOF RTF Issue: aggregations crossing M1 and M2 package boundary MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-129 Naming of Tags MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-128 Identifier formating error in MOF generates IDL MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-131 MOF RTF Issue: M1 life-cycle operations MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-130 MOF RTF Issue: Library of collection types? MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-127 IDL generation Association Template Syntax MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-126 IDL Mapping/Identifier Naming MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-125 IDL generation - IMPORT TEMPLATE clarification MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-124 Illegal IDL redefinitions MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-123 Incorrect ocl specification(s) MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-122 Consider a better approach to generated exceptions MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-121 Single-valued parameters should not be defined with sequences MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-120 Operations should return nil reference instead of raising NotSet MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-119 ConstraintError exception needed in more IDL generation templates MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-118 ConstrainViolation vs. ConstraintError confusion (editorial) MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-117 Association IDL generation needs to consider AssociationEnd.isChangeable MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-114 Generated location parameters need clear specification of base value MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-113 Type of Facility.MofRepository.packageFactory incompatible with its purpos MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Deferred closed
MOF14-116 Association interface generation templates require exceptions MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-115 Description of meta-model as a single package is incorrect MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-112 Editorial; change MOF Type to MOF Class MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-111 RefObject::create_instance and abstract types MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-110 MOF IDL Mapping with parameters MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-109 MOF IDL /MODL - Type Hierarchy error MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-108 MOF IDL mapping-types of parameters with multiplicities MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-107 IDL Mapping--#includes for inheritted Packages MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-106 Type Hierarchy Error in IDL MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-105 MOF-IDL needs to be re-generated MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-104 Type Create template, order of parameters MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-101 Similar to issue 940 MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-100 package create template: names of parameters need to be formated MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-103 Similar o issue 941 MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-102 $issue.summary MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-99 package create template: ConstraintError MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-98 Package create template: StructuralError needs to be raised MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-97 Package create template MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-94 Typos in MOF 1.1 document (1) MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-93 IDL Generation Issue - factory operation parameters for multivalued attrib MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-96 Typos in MOF 1.1 document (3) MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-95 Typos in MOF 1.1 document (2) MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF14-92 External Types as DataTypes Limits Modeling MOF 1.2 MOF 1.3 Resolved closed
MOF24-44 Rule 1 references 2:ContentElements which is undefined XMI 2.4 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-43 Rule 4i in 5.2 has the following with only 2 options XMI 2.4 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-46 Use of "xmi:" and //xmiPrefix// is inconsistent. XMI 2.4 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-45 1b has been deleted, but it is still referenced from 2g, 2l and 3 XMI 2.4 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-48 When 2n is used with 2j it is supposed to match the last part of schema production XMI 2.4 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-47 There is a missing colon in 2d. The last line should be (2h:FeatureAttrib)* XMI 2.4 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-50 The example in Issue 9645 doesn't seem like a particularly good one XMI 2.4 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-49 There was an error in the example in Issue 9626 XMI 2.4 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF14-87 Is the multiplicity of Model::Tag::values correct? MOF 1.2 MOF 1.4 Resolved closed
MOF14-86 Reflective typos MOF 1.2 MOF 1.4 Resolved closed
MOF14-84 Data types available to metamodels is restricted MOF 1.2 MOF 1.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-42 Relations UML 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF14-91 Missing exception for all_*_links operation MOF 1.2 MOF 1.4 Resolved closed
MOF14-90 Constraints on Associations. MOF 1.2 MOF 1.4 Resolved closed
MOF14-89 Section 5-54 of Meta Object Facility (MOF) Specification MOF 1.2 MOF 1.4 Resolved closed
MOF14-88 MOF is using CORBA string for its string data types MOF 1.2 MOF 1.4 Resolved closed
MOF14-85 Specify behaviour of RefObject.is_instance_of(null,...) MOF 1.2 MOF 1.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-53 MOF 2.4 references missing XMI 2.4 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-52 Issue 9673 contained "file:Co.xml" which is an invalid absolute URI XMI 2.4 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-51 Resolution text to issue 9650 not consistent XMI 2.4 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-54 The replacement text from Issue 15307 for "If true, serialize...is as follows:" doesn't makes sense XMI 2.4 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOFM2T-7 In chapter '7 Overview': MOFM2T 1.0b1 MOFM2T 1.0 Resolved closed
MOFM2T-9 Whitespace handling rules unclear MOFM2T 1.0b1 MOFM2T 1.0 Resolved closed
MOFM2T-8 Issue: Grammar error: MOFM2T 1.0b1 MOFM2T 1.0 Resolved closed
MOF24-31 MOF 2.0 9.1 Contradictory isSet default value semantics MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-30 Outdated descriptions MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-27 Section 9.1: paragraph needs clarification MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-26 Capturing Unnavigable Opposite Property Role Names MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-23 Wrong URLs MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-29 We urgently need simple and clear rules we can follow to determine, for each file associated to a given specification MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-28 Annex A refers to non-existing CMOF file MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-21 Issue for MOF 2 spec (ptc/04-10-15) MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-20 Container and owningProperty MOF 1.4 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-25 MOF 2.1 should be based on UML 2.1 Infrastructure MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-24 FormalNumber: formal/02-04-03 section 3.6.2 MOF 1.4 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-19 MOF 2.0 Core: Inconsistency about use of defaults MOF 1.4 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-18 MOF 2 Core: undefined behavior of convertToString MOF 1.4 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-22 Remove Annex B MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-34 Update and formalize the constraints that MOF applies to UML models MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-33 Use UML models ‘as is’ for metamodels MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-32 Remove isId and uri MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-36 Fix resolution to issue 15398 from MOF2.4 ballot 2 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-35 Remove the distinction between isSet and the default value MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-40 Delete incompletely specified MOF operation Object::verify() in 15.4 and in diagrams in clause 13 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-39 Delete unenforceable MOF constraint 12.4 [7] MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-37 Delete the redundant package MOF::CMOFExtension described in clause 14.4 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-38 Fix resolution to issue 6905 from MOF2.4 ballot 1 MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOF24-41 Move operations from 9.1 Element to 9.3 Object: equals, get/set/unset/isSet MOF 2.0 MOF 2.4 Resolved closed
MOFVD2-2 Sections 5.3 and 5.5 MOFVD 2.0b1 MOFVD 2.0 Resolved closed
MOFVD2-3 Section: section 5.5 MOFVD 2.0b1 MOFVD 2.0 Resolved closed
MOF14-36 Collections of imported DataTypes can cause name clashes MOF 1.3 MOF 1.4 Resolved closed
MOF14-47 MOF RTF Issue: typos in Reflective.idl MOF 1.3 MOF 1.4 Resolved closed
MOF14-46 "*" not needed on DataType name MOF 1.3 MOF 1.4 Resolved closed
MOF14-50 MODL Appendix needs updating MOF 1.3 MOF 1.4 Resolved closed
MOF14-49 Model::Contains::container return type wrong MOF 1.3 MOF 1.4 Resolved closed
MOF14-45 Can MOF Class contain a Constant? MOF 1.3 MOF 1.4 Resolved closed
MOF14-44 MOF 1.3 Why have rule against abstract packages? MOF 1.3 MOF 1.4 Resolved closed
MOF14-38 Operation Model::Tag::add_elements_before should not appear in the IDL MOF 1.3 MOF 1.4 Resolved closed
MOF14-37 Reflective IDL fix for CORBA 2.3 MOF 1.3 MOF 1.4 Resolved closed
MOF14-42 Incorrect return type for Assoc query operation MOF 1.3 MOF 1.4 Resolved closed
MOF14-41 "*" prefix on Simple Type Names (mof-rtf) MOF 1.3 MOF 1.4 Resolved closed
MOF14-43 MOF 1.3 Incorrect attribute order in diagrams MOF 1.3 MOF 1.4 Resolved closed
MOF14-48 MofErrors for refQueryLink and refModifyLink MOF 1.3 MOF 1.4 Resolved closed
MOF14-39 Can MOF Package contain a Constant? (mof-rtf) MOF 1.3 MOF 1.4 Resolved closed
MOF14-40 Package Contains Association (mof-rtf) MOF 1.3 MOF 1.4 Resolved closed
MOF14-60 Clarify whether null instances are currently valid MOF values MOF 1.3 MOF 1.4 Resolved closed
MOF14-59 IDL mapping Tag for specifying IDL #pragma versions MOF 1.3 MOF 1.4 Resolved closed
MOF14-58 ::Model::Package::internalize/externalize in MOF 1.4 MOF 1.3 MOF 1.4 Resolved closed
MOF14-57 Move the 'verify' operation to RefBaseObject MOF 1.3 MOF 1.4 Resolved closed
MOF14-56 Primitive data types usage in the MOF Model. MOF 1.3 MOF 1.4 Resolved closed
MOF14-55 Error in MOF 1.3 XMI - ViolationType MOF 1.3 MOF 1.4 Resolved closed
MOF14-53 predefined tag for marking attributes needed MOF 1.3 MOF 1.4 Resolved closed
MOF14-52 MOF IDL change MOF 1.3 MOF 1.4 Resolved closed
MOF14-54 MofError when Operation impl violates structural constraints MOF 1.3 MOF 1.4 Resolved closed
MOF14-51 MOF Unbounded should have type long MOF 1.3 MOF 1.4 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-39 Editorial issue(s) MOF2I 2.0b1 MOF2I 2.0 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-40 Resolution of issue 9154 does not work for primitives MOF2I 2.0b1 MOF2I 2.0 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-35 Semantic of reflective operations should match MOF2.0 Core MOF2I 2.0b1 MOF2I 2.0 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-34 Align reflective argument passing in EMOF to CMOF MOF2I 2.0b1 MOF2I 2.0 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-38 Mapping of subsetted properties do not need to change name of operation MOF2I 2.0b1 MOF2I 2.0 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-37 Align mapping of tags to MOF2.0 MOF2I 2.0b1 MOF2I 2.0 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-36 "set" operation for derived attributes MOF2I 2.0b1 MOF2I 2.0 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-33 RefObject::ref_get (PropertyName) specified on page 67 MOF2I 2.0b1 MOF2I 2.0 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-32 Align Base-IDL Reflection Mapping to MOF2.0 Core MOF2I 2.0b1 MOF2I 2.0 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-31 Align CCM Reflection Mapping to MOF2.0 Core MOF2I 2.0b1 MOF2I 2.0 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-30 RefCCMBaseObject and RefBaseObject MOF2I 2.0b1 MOF2I 2.0 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-29 Clarify the Extents concept in the mapping MOF2I 2.0b1 MOF2I 2.0 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-28 Rule (50) is not applied in example (12). MOF2I 2.0b1 MOF2I 2.0 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-27 Some referenced sections do not exist MOF2I 2.0b1 MOF2I 2.0 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-26 Numbering and references to examples are not consistent MOF2I 2.0b1 MOF2I 2.0 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-23 Remove the Common suffix from the interface names in the common mapping MOF2I 2.0b1 MOF2I 2.0 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-25 Example 4 is not totally consistent with rules (35) and (36). MOF2I 2.0b1 MOF2I 2.0 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-24 Align Handling of Collections to MOF2.0 Core MOF2I 2.0b1 MOF2I 2.0 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-20 Subsection 6.2.1 (Mapping of Identifiers) should be independent of MOF1.4 MOF2I 2.0b1 MOF2I 2.0 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-19 Not all assumptions of MOF2.0 Core do hold MOF2I 2.0b1 MOF2I 2.0 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-22 Align MOFObject to MOF2.0 Core MOF2I 2.0b1 MOF2I 2.0 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-21 specification should throughout be discretely divided into EMOF and CMOF MOF2I 2.0b1 MOF2I 2.0 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-18 References to other specification documents are not up to date MOF2I 2.0b1 MOF2I 2.0 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-17 CMOF::Exception class is no longer in MOF2.0 MOF2I 2.0b1 MOF2I 2.0 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-16 Remove FTF comments MOF2I 2.0b1 MOF2I 2.0 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-15 factory create_ (); MOF2I 2.0b1 MOF2I 2.0 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-14 Rule (38) p. 30 MOF2I 2.0b1 MOF2I 2.0 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-8 Rule (38): MOF2I 2.0b1 MOF2I 2.0 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-10 Rule (26) p. 21 MOF2I 2.0b1 MOF2I 2.0 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-9 Rule (35): MOF2I 2.0b1 MOF2I 2.0 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-13 Section 7.4 pp. 49,50 MOF2I 2.0b1 MOF2I 2.0 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-12 Section 7.6.3 pp. 59,60 MOF2I 2.0b1 MOF2I 2.0 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-11 Rule (27) p. 21 MOF2I 2.0b1 MOF2I 2.0 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-7 Section 7.4; MOF2I 2.0b1 MOF2I 2.0 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-6 Section 7.6.3 MOF2I 2.0b1 MOF2I 2.0 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-3 Section: 8.2.2;8.2.6 MOF2I 2.0b1 MOF2I 2.0 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-5 Rule (27) MOF2I 2.0b1 MOF2I 2.0 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-4 Rule (26): MOF2I 2.0b1 MOF2I 2.0 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-2 section 6.3.3, p.31, example IDL MOF2I 2.0b1 MOF2I 2.0 Resolved closed
MOF2I2-1 section 7.3, p.44, example IDL MOF2I 2.0b1 MOF2I 2.0 Resolved closed

Issues Descriptions

In Clause 10, the base URL is misspelled

  • Key: MOF2RDF-8
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: 88solutions ( Manfred Koethe)
  • Summary:

    In Clause 10, the base URL of all displayed OWL code is spelled "exampe.com", which should be "example.com". The same misspelling is present in the machine-readable files. The URLs shall be corrected and the machine-readable files re-issued. This will also change the front page of the specification.

    While at it, Annex B (List of Machine-Readable Files) shall be deleted. This function is handled by the OMG Specification Catalog.

  • Reported: MOF2RDF 1.0b1 — Tue, 12 Nov 2019 22:38 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF2RDF 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    In Clause 10, the base URL is misspelled

    Indeed, "example.com" is misspelled as "exampe.com" throughout the whole Clause 10. While technically not worn, it looks unprofessional.

    Correct all occurrences of "exampe.com" throughout Clause 10, correct also the machine readable files and re-release the whole set.

    Delete Annex B, its function has been taken-over by the specification catalog.

  • Updated: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 19:49 GMT

References to, and explanation of Usage for Turtle and QVT

  • Key: MOF2RDF-7
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: 88solutions ( Manfred Koethe)
  • Summary:

    The specification uses OWL Turtle Syntax and the QVT Graphical Syntax in normative clauses, therefore references to these specifications in Clause 3.1 (Normative References) are required.

    In this context, the introductory paragraphs of Clauses 8 and 9 should be reworded to eliminate the explicit mentioning of XSLT and RDFXML. For the mapping specification it is irrelevant with which technology the definitions were produced. Regarding RDFXML, while it might be a transitional representation of the OWL output, it should be removed from the text since this transitional form never shows up in the specification.

  • Reported: MOF2RDF 1.0b1 — Tue, 12 Nov 2019 22:33 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF2RDF 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    References to, and explanation of Usage for Turtle and QVT

    RDF/XML is not used in this specification, all OWL code is in RDF Turtle syntax, therefore swap the RDF 1.1 Turtle reference in, replacing RDF/XML.

    The QVT graphical notation for transformations is used in the code displays, therefore a normative reference for QVT shall be added.

    As a consequence, the lead-in paragraphs for Clause 8 and Clause 9 shall be changed accordingly.

  • Updated: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 19:49 GMT

Phrase owl:allValuesFrom garbled

  • Key: MOF2RDF-3
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: 88solutions ( Manfred Koethe)
  • Summary:

    In Clause 9.2.5 after the code display for "ClassA3 / attr3" change the phrase "owl:allVal esFrom" to "owl:allValuesFrom"

  • Reported: MOF2RDF 1.0b1 — Mon, 11 Nov 2019 16:47 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF2RDF 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Phrase owl:allValuesFrom garbled

    In Clause 9.2.5, subsection "Properties typed by Flat Literal Type", after the code display for ClassA3 - attr3, the phrase "owl:allValuesFrom" is misspelled.

  • Updated: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 19:49 GMT

Insert missing word

  • Key: MOF2RDF-2
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: 88solutions ( Manfred Koethe)
  • Summary:

    In the first sentence after the code display, insert the word "link" after "This represents the sequence number of the current"

  • Reported: MOF2RDF 1.0b1 — Mon, 11 Nov 2019 16:42 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF2RDF 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    *Insert missing word *

    Insert the missing word "link" into the description.

  • Updated: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 19:49 GMT

Improve Formatting and Correct Captions

  • Key: MOF2RDF-1
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: 88solutions ( Manfred Koethe)
  • Summary:

    Improve the document formatting so that captions are not flowing to the next page following a figure or code display.

    Correct the following captions:
    Clause 8.2.2: "Class" => "Stereotype"
    Clause 8.2.6: "Association" => "AssociationClass"

    In Clause 9.2.5, subsection "Properties typed by Structure or Class Types", reword the second paragraph following the code display (without changing its meaning) so that it does not overflow into the page margin.

  • Reported: MOF2RDF 1.0b1 — Mon, 11 Nov 2019 16:37 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF2RDF 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Improve Formatting and Correct Captions

    Group code displays with corresponding captions to ensure code displays and captions appear always on the same page.

    Correct caption text for 8.2.2 Stereotype and 8.2.6 AssociationClass

    Reword second paragraph in clause 9.2.5, subsection "Properties typed by Structured or Class Types" to avoid overflow into page margin.

  • Updated: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 19:49 GMT

Section 12.2, page 32: add sentences to explain relationship to Figure 12-1 through 12-4.

  • Key: MOF24-167
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17690
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    It is hard to understand relationship between this sub clause and Figure 12-1 through 12-4. Because there is no sentence as explaining Figure 12-1 through 12-4. Add sentences to explain relationship to Figure 12-1 through 12-4.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 23:32 GMT

Section 8.4: Indicate clearly the clauses in which the differences are described

  • Key: MOF24-166
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17640
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    The first sentence implies that certain changes are specified in this clause, but there is no specification. However, unless the current document is intended as a delta document with respect to some earlier standard, which does not appear to be the case, then identifying such changes in the body of the standard is not appropriate. Indicate clearly the clauses in which the differences are described. If the differences are described, consider moving the information to an informative annex.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Proposed Resolution by NB:
    Indicate clearly the clauses in which the differences are described. If the differences
    are described, consider moving the information to an informative annex.
    Discussion:
    Delete subclause 8.4.
    Disposition: Merged with issue 18661

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 23:32 GMT

the return type of the remove() operation is inconsistent with the description

  • Key: MOF24-165
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18808
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: gmail.com ( Xavier Courangon)
  • Summary:

    "remove(object: Object): Object
    Removes the specified object from the collection. Returns true if the object was removed."

    Maybe the operation should return a Boolean.

  • Reported: MOF 2.4.1 — Wed, 10 Jul 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agreed. Correct the operation signature to return Boolean

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

References in MOF Core to Infrastructure/Superstructure are obsolete, as are Figures 7.1, 12.1, 14.1 .

  • Key: MOF24-164
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18782
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: agnos.ai UK Ltd ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    References in MOF Core to Infrastructure/Superstructure are obsolete, as are Figures 7.1, 12.1, 14.1 .

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agreed. The resolution for issue 15608 removed all remaining references to
    Infrastructure and Superstructure (where applicable) and updated all affected
    diagrams. However the figures listed above were deemed valuable and have
    therefore been updated and not removed.
    Disposition: Merged with 15608

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Resolve MOF 2 PAS National Body Ballot Comments

  • Key: MOF24-163
  • Legacy Issue Number: 18661
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: 88solutions ( Manfred Koethe)
  • Summary:

    This is a condensed issue covering the individual comments recorded in the consecutive issues 17631 to 17717, which shall be resolved as Duplicate/Merged with this issue, which was created to make the document revision process more manageable.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolve the ISO PAS comments sequentially throughout the document

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Annex C page 77

  • Key: MOF24-162
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17717
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Annex C is only described as an agreement for OMG. Delete Annex C.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 15.3 page 55

  • Key: MOF24-154
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17709
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    It is hard to understand relationship between this sub clause and Figure 15-1. Because there is no sentence as explaining Figure 15-1. Add sentences to explain relationship to Figure 15-1.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Subpart V Annexes page 71

  • Key: MOF24-159
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17714
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Annexes should be referred as Annex A,B,C. Change A, B, C to Annex A, Annex B, Annex C.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 16 page 67

  • Key: MOF24-158
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17713
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Issue as “migration from MOF, v1.4” is not needed because it is informative. Move to an annex or delete this clause.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 15.8 page 62

  • Key: MOF24-157
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17712
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    This diagram uses a color. Get rid of the color.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Annex B page 75

  • Key: MOF24-161
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17716
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Annex B is not needed because it is not relevant to this standard. Delete Annex B.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Annex A page 73

  • Key: MOF24-160
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17715
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Annex A is not adequate as normative. Because it refers external documents that are not standardized. Put enough description in Annex A or change to an informative annex.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 15.8 page 62

  • Key: MOF24-156
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17711
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Caption is missing for a diagram in this sub clause. Add a caption.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 15.4 page 58

  • Key: MOF24-155
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17710
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Title “Notes” is not suitable for clauses. Change to a note format defined in ISO/IEC Directive Part 2.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 14.5.2 page 53, Note

  • Key: MOF24-153
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17708
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    In this the last line, there is "Figure 11.1". However, the figure label is "Figure 11-1". Be consistent with each other.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 14.5 page 53

  • Key: MOF24-152
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17707
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    It is hard to understand relationship between this sub clause and Figure 14-1. Because there is no sentence as explaining Figure 14-1. Add sentences to explain relationship to Figure 14-1.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 14.1 page 49, Figure 14-1

  • Key: MOF24-148
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17703
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    It is hard to understand relationship between this sub clause and Figure 14-1. Because there is no sentence as explaining Figure 14-1. Add sentences to explain relationship to Figure 14-1.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Subpart IV: Abstract Semantics page 47

  • Key: MOF24-147
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17702
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Sentences of this part header are not needed. Delete this part.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 13.7 page 45, Paragraph Changes from MOF 1.4

  • Key: MOF24-146
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17701
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    “Changes” is not suitable to explain differences between MOF 1.4 and 2.4.1. To use “Differences” rather than “Changes”
    MOF1.4 --> ISO/IEC19502

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 14.3 page 50

  • Key: MOF24-151
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17706
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Three packages as Reflection, Identifiers and Extension are merged. However, four packages are merged in Figure 14-1. Add “Common” as a fourth package.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 14.2 page 49

  • Key: MOF24-150
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17705
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    In this the first line, there is "Figure 14.2". However, there is no figure labeled "Figure 14.2". Refer an existing figure.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Sections 14.1, 14.2, 14.5 pages 49, 50, 53, Figure 14-1

  • Key: MOF24-149
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17704
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    There are three figures in Page 49, 50 and 53 as same number as 14-1. Renumber a second figure as 14-2 and a third figure as 14-3.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 13.6 page 45, Paragraph Changes from MOF 1.4

  • Key: MOF24-145
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17700
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    “Changes” is not suitable to explain differences between MOF 1.4 and 2.4.1. To use “Differences” rather than “Changes”
    MOF1.4 --> ISO/IEC19502

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 13.3 page 43, Paragraph Semantics

  • Key: MOF24-141
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17696
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    This designates "None". This prescription is insufficient. Describe adequately.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 13.2 page 43, Paragraph Changes from MOF 1.4

  • Key: MOF24-140
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17695
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    “Changes” is not suitable to explain differences between MOF 1.4 and 2.4.1. Use “Differences” rather than “Changes”

    MOF1.4 ?ISO/IEC19502

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 13.2 page 43, Paragraph Semantics

  • Key: MOF24-139
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17694
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    The sentence should define a grammatical prescription. However this definition is constraint and insufficient. Replace the text with precise one.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 13.1 page 41: add sentences to explain relationship to Figure 13-1 and 13-2.

  • Key: MOF24-138
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17693
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    It is hard to understand relationship between this sub-clause and figures as Figure 13-1 and 13-2. Because there is no sentence as explaining Figure 13-1 and 13-2. Add sentences to explain relationship to Figure 13-1 and 13-2.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

12.4 page 35: Be consistent with UML 2.4.1 and OCL 2.4.1

  • Key: MOF24-137
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17692
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    There are references to W3C documents in the Term [5]. These are normative reference. Besides, this definition style is different from UML 2.4.1 and OCL 2.4.1. Be consistent with UML 2.4.1 and OCL 2.4.1

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 13.5 page 44, Paragraph Changes from MOF 1.4

  • Key: MOF24-144
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17699
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    “Changes” is not suitable to explain differences between MOF 1.4 and 2.4.1. To use “Differences” rather than “Changes”
    MOF1.4 --> ISO/IEC19502

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 13.4 page 44, Paragraph Changes from MOF 1.4

  • Key: MOF24-143
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17698
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    “Changes” is not suitable to explain differences between MOF 1.4 and 2.4.1. To use “Differences” rather than “Changes”
    MOF1.4 --> ISO/IEC19502

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 13.3 page 43, Paragraph Changes from MOF 1.4

  • Key: MOF24-142
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17697
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    “Changes” is not suitable to explain differences between MOF 1.4 and 2.4.1. To use “Differences” rather than “Changes”
    MOF1.4 --> ISO/IEC19502

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 12.2 page 33, 34, Figure 12-1, 12-2, 12-3, 12-4, get rid of volour in diagrams

  • Key: MOF24-136
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17691
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    These diagrams as Figure 12-1, 12-2, 12-3 and 12-4 are filled with color. However, these colors are meaningless. Get rid of the color.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 12.2, Page 32, 33, Figure 12-1: There are two figures in Page 32 and 33 as same number as 12-1

  • Key: MOF24-135
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17689
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    There are two figures in Page 32 and 33 as same number as 12-1. Renumber a second figure as 12-3 and following figures in order.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 12.1 page 32: add sentences to explain relationship to Figure 12-1.

  • Key: MOF24-134
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17688
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    It is hard to understand relationship between this sub clause and Figure 12-1. Because there is no sentence as explaining Figure 12-1. Add sentences to explain relationship to Figure 12-1.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Subpart II The MOF Model General Page 29

  • Key: MOF24-130
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17684
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    No need subtitle as “General.” Because title “The MOF Model” is enough to understand the meaning of this part. Delete subtitle “General.”

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 11.1, Page 27

  • Key: MOF24-129
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17683
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    It is hard to understand relationship between this sub clause and Figure 11-1. Because there is no sentence as explaining Figure 11-11. Add sentences to explain relationship to Figure 11-1.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 12.1, Page 31, 2nd Paragraph

  • Key: MOF24-133
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17687
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Three packages as Reflection, Identifiers and Extension are merged. However, four packages are merged in Figure 12-1. Add “Common” as a fourth package.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 12.1 Page 31

  • Key: MOF24-132
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17686
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    This clause “introduction” explains an overview of EMOF model. However, there are many sub clauses “general” as explaining overviews. Change “introduction” to “general.”

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Subpart II The MOF Model, Page 29

  • Key: MOF24-131
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17685
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    It is hard to identify a clause for MOF Model’s requirements and use UML 2 Infrastructure. Change to “CMOF Abstract Semantics.”

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:
  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Sections 10.5, 10.6 Page 23, 24

  • Key: MOF24-128
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17682
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Reflective Collection and Reflective Sequence are defined in Common package. However, they are described as a part of Identifiers Package. Change a sub clause as 10.5 Reflective Collection and 10.6 Reflective Sequence to a sub clause as 11.1 and 11.2.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 10, Page 23, Figure 10-1

  • Key: MOF24-127
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17681
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    There are two diagrams in one Figure 10-1. Split it into two figures 10-3 as classes and 10-4 as relationship between packages.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 10, Page 23

  • Key: MOF24-126
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17680
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Sub clause MOF::Common describes for Common Package. However, other descriptions for packages are described in clauses. Change a sub clause as 10.4 to a clause as 11 and renumber following clauses.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 10.3, page 23, paragraph Changes from MOF 1.4

  • Key: MOF24-125
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17679
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    “Changes” is not suitable to explain differences between MOF 1.4 and 2.4.1. Use “Differences” rather than “Changes”

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 10.1 page 21

  • Key: MOF24-121
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17675
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    It is hard to understand relationship between this sub clause and Figure 10-1. Because there is no sentence as explaining Figure 10-1. Add sentences to explain relationship to Figure 10-1

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 9.3, page 18, paragraph Changes from MOF 1.4

  • Key: MOF24-120
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17674
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    “Changes” is not suitable to explain differences between MOF 1.4 and 2.4.1. Use “Differences” rather than “Changes”

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 10.1 page 21, figure 10-1: There are two diagrams in one Figure 10-1.

  • Key: MOF24-124
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17678
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Split it into two figures 10-1 as classes and 10-2 as relationship between packages.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 10.2 Page 22, Paragraph Changes from MOF 1.4

  • Key: MOF24-123
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17677
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    “Changes” is not suitable to explain differences between MOF 1.4 and 2.4.1. Use “Differences” rather than “Changes”

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 9.2: Page 17, Paragraph Changes from MOF 1.4

  • Key: MOF24-119
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17673
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    “Changes” is not suitable to explain differences between MOF 1.4 and 2.4.1. Use “Differences” rather than “Changes

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 9.1, page 15, Figure 9-1

  • Key: MOF24-118
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17672
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    There are two diagrams in one Figure 9-1. Split it into two figures 9-1 as classes and 9-2 as relationship between packages.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Figure 9-1

  • Key: MOF24-117
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17671
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    It is hard to understand relationship between this sub clause and Figure 9-1. Because there is no sentence as explaining Figure 9-1.Add sentences to explain relationship to Figure 9-1.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 9 Reflection: add sentences for Common package

  • Key: MOF24-116
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17670
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Four packages are described in this part rather than three as Reflection, Identifiers and Extension.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 10.1 page 21, figure 10-1

  • Key: MOF24-122
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17676
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    There are two figures in Page 21 and 23 as same number as 10-1. Renumber a second figure as 10-3.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Subpart II Capabilities General (PP.13)

  • Key: MOF24-115
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17669
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    No need subtitle as “General.” Because title “Capabilities” is enough to understand the meaning of this part. Delete subtitle “General.”

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Setion 8.4 Change from MOF1.4

  • Key: MOF24-114
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17668
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    MOF 1.4 and 2.4.1 are independent specifications. “Changes” is not suitable to explain differences between MOF 1.4 and 2.4.1. Use “Differences” rather than “Changes”.
    Use ISO/IEC19502 for MOF 1.4

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 8: explain all terms for language formalism

  • Key: MOF24-113
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17667
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    There are unexplained terms for language formalism as Properties, Operations, Constrains, Semantics, Rationale, and so on.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 7.2 Subclause title “MOF 2 Design Rationale” is not suitable for goals for this specification.

  • Key: MOF24-110
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17664
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    To change a title to “MOF 2 Design Requirements.” There must be some statements to be ISO standards.. MOF1.4 had become ISO.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 7: Designate the precise version of the referred standards

  • Key: MOF24-109
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17663
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    There are descriptions of "UML2.0", "MOF2.0". And, "UML2", "MOF2", within this standard (for example Section 8 and etc.). These designations are ambiguous.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 8: Delete “81. General". It is also a “Hanging Paragraph”

  • Key: MOF24-112
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17666
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:
  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 7.4 Reuse of Common packages

  • Key: MOF24-111
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17665
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    In this the last line, there is "Figure 7.1". However, the figure label is "Figure 7-1". Make it consistent

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Clause 7 and sbuclause7.1 forms a “Hanging Paragraph”

  • Key: MOF24-108
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17662
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Delete the title “7.1 General”.
    Then Re-numbering must be needed.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 5: There is no reference of other specifications as UML

  • Key: MOF24-101
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17655
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    There is no reference of other specifications as UML. However, many symbols of UML are used. To add sentences for reference of symbols used in this specification

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 4 terms & Definitions: Nothing defined

  • Key: MOF24-100
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17654
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Terms and concepts that were used in this document should be defined here.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

delete subtitle “General Information.”

  • Key: MOF24-107
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17661
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    No need subtitle as “General Information.” Because title “Introduction” is enough to understand the meaning of this part.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 6 subpart 1:

  • Key: MOF24-106
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17660
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    There are two clauses as “Introduction.” It made a “Hanging Paragraph”. Merge into one clause

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 6.4 Clause “Acknowledgements” is informative - move to an informative ANNEX

  • Key: MOF24-103
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17657
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Section 6.4 Clause “Acknowledgements” is informative - move to an informative ANNEX

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    see pages 65 - 83 of ptc/2014-09-35

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 6.2 Technical Specification: Use ISO Number for MOF1.4 -- MOF1.4 (ISO/IEC 1502)

  • Key: MOF24-102
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17656
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    MOF1.4 (ISO/IEC 1502)

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 6: Clause “Additional Information” is not needed

  • Key: MOF24-105
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17659
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Move to an informative ANNEX or delete this clause. Is it allowed to show the mailing List as an ISO standard.. The contact must be a NB.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 6.4: delete last line

  • Key: MOF24-104
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17658
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    In the last line of this section, a description: "U2P, UU and 3C team" is meaningless.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Foreword, page vii: Title of ISO/IEC 19505-2:2011 is different

  • Key: MOF24-91
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17645
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    To use “ISO/IEC 19505-2:2012 Information technology – Object Management Group Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML) – Part 2: Superstructure”.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 3 References: The title should change to "Normative Reference".

  • Key: MOF24-96
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17650
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    The title "Reference" is insufficient. The title should be "Normative Reference".

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 2 Conformance: Definition of conformance is insufficient

  • Key: MOF24-95
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17649
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    To define conformance clearly or delete this clause.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 1: The scope seems to be focused on OMG standards only, not for ISO standards

  • Key: MOF24-94
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17648
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    It should provide a clear focus as an ISO standard. Especially, relationship to other ISO standards, such as ISO/IEC 19505 or 19502 &3

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

The style of Reference should conform to the JTC1 style.

  • Key: MOF24-99
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17653
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    The style of Reference does not conform to the JTC1 style.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Foreword, page vii: Title of ISO/IEC 14769 is different

  • Key: MOF24-93
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17647
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Information technology – Open Distributed Processing – Type Repository Function”.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Foreword, page vii: Title of ISO/IEC DIS 19509 is different

  • Key: MOF24-92
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17646
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    To use “ISO/IEC DIS 195059 Information technology – Object Management Group – MOF 2 XMI Version 2.4.1”.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 3: add references to CORBA, QVT and OCL

  • Key: MOF24-98
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17652
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    This specification refers to CORBA, QVT and OCL.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 3: To refer ISO/IEC 19505.

  • Key: MOF24-97
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17651
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    There is a JTC1 standard of UML 2.4.1.However, an OMG document is referenced

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 8.2: Identify the document here and provide a full reference in Clause 3.

  • Key: MOF24-86
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17639
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    The first sentence appears to make a normative reference to a “UML Infrastructure document”, but there is no specific identification of such a document.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Subpart 1: Delete the text from this location, possibly moving some of it to the Introduction

  • Key: MOF24-85
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17638
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    This unnumbered clause, lying between 6.4 and 7, contains only historical background and motivational material. As such it has no place in the normative body of an International Standard. It should be deleted.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 6.4: Delete the clause.

  • Key: MOF24-84
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17637
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    It is not usual in ISO or IEC standards to acknowledge contributors to the document. It is not obvious that in all cases the terms used uniquely identify a specific organisation.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    see pages 65 - 83 of ptc/2014-09-35

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 6.3: Either drop this clause, or identify the clauses that constitute "Part 1".

  • Key: MOF24-83
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17636
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    The first sentence refers to “Part 1”, which suggests that this is a multi-part standard, which is not the case. Assuming that the reference is intended to be to some subdivision of the text of the current document, there is no hint either here of in the Table of Contents as to what constitutes “Part 1”

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 6.2: Move the content of the second sentence to the (non-normative) Introduction.

  • Key: MOF24-82
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17635
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    The second sentence would be better placed in the Introduction, as it is essentially commentary rather than specification.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Title: Category "Object Management Group" is not adequate for standards

  • Key: MOF24-90
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17644
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    To change to “Information technology – Object Management Group Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core Version 2.4.1”.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 9.1 Value judgements, such as “An advantage of ...” are not appropriate in the normative text of a standard

  • Key: MOF24-89
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17643
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Value judgements, such as “An advantage of ...” are not appropriate in the normative text of a standard. Rewrite the introduction paragraph to contain only straight facts relevant to construction of implementations or exploitation of implementations of this standard

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 8.5, Subpart II”

  • Key: MOF24-88
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17642
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    This unnumbered clause, lying between 8.5 and 9, contains material that should be in a numbered clause, as it appears to be essential normative text. However, some of the text might be more appropriate to the Introduction or a description of MOF concepts.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 8.5: Move the definition to clause 3

  • Key: MOF24-87
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17641
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    This clause is essentially a definition of “Null” with some supporting information.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Semantics and ownership of link slots needs clarification

  • Key: MOF24-78
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17169
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Steve Cook)
  • Summary:

    Who owns LinkSlots? When an association end is owned by a Classifier, are there two slots for its instances (one for the link and one for the element) or only one?
    In the abstract semantics there is a concept called LinkSlot, which is shown as weakly aggregated (white diamond) by AssociationInstance. White diamond has not meaning in this context. Is it possible that a LinkSlot may be owned either by the link or by the adjacent instance, depending on “navigability”?
    The following sentence appears to be key: “Where the feature is a navigable end, then the ClassInstance Slot is consistent with the Link slot.” The reference to "navigable" is surely incorrect. What does "consistent" mean?

  • Reported: MOF 2.4.1 — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    LinkSlots are owned by the AssociationInstance. Update diagram 15-1 to show this
    correctly.

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Invalid restrictions on concrete metaclasses allowed in EMOF and CMOF

  • Key: MOF24-77
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17049
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NASA ( Nicolas Rouquette)
  • Summary:

    Per UML2.4.1, a

    In 12.4, constraint [8] currently reads:

    An EMOF metamodel is restricted to use the following concrete metaclasses from UML’s Kernel:
    • Class
    • Comment
    • DataType
    • Enumeration
    • EnumerationLiteral
    • Generalization
    • InstanceValue
    • LiteralBoolean
    • LiteralInteger
    • LiteralNull
    • LiteralReal
    • LiteralString
    • LiteralUnlimitedNatural
    • Operation
    • Package
    • Parameter
    • PrimitiveType
    • Property

    The list includes InstanceValue but incorrectly omits InstanceSpecification.

    InstanceSpecification must be included in the list because an InstanceValue requires an InstanceSpecification;
    see UML2.4.1, 7.3.23:

    • instance: InstanceSpecification [1]
    The instance that is the specified value.

    Since the list includes Class and a Class can have Property features, an InstanceSpecification that is the value of an InstanceValue in EMOF may have to specify values for the instantiated Class' Property features. Therefore, the list should also include UML2.4.1's Slot as well.

    The list should be corrected as follows:

    • Class
    • Comment
    • DataType
    • Enumeration
    • EnumerationLiteral
    • Generalization
    • InstanceSpecification
    • InstanceValue
    • LiteralBoolean
    • LiteralInteger
    • LiteralNull
    • LiteralReal
    • LiteralString
    • LiteralUnlimitedNatural
    • Operation
    • Package
    • Parameter
    • PrimitiveType
    • Property

    In 14.4, constraint [10] currently reads:

    A CMOF metamodel is restricted to use the following concrete metaclasses from UML’s Kernel:
    • Association
    • Class
    • Comment
    • Constraint
    • DataType
    • ElementImport
    • Enumeration
    • EnumerationLiteral
    • Generalization
    • InstanceValue
    • LiteralBoolean
    • LiteralInteger
    • LiteralNull
    • LiteralReal
    • LiteralString
    • LiteralUnlimitedNatural
    • OpaqueExpression
    • Operation
    • Package
    • PackageImport
    • PackageMerge
    • Parameter
    • PrimitiveType
    • Property

    The list includes InstanceValue but incorrectly omits InstanceSpecification.

    InstanceSpecification must be included in the list because an InstanceValue requires an InstanceSpecification;
    see UML2.4.1, 7.3.23:

    • instance: InstanceSpecification [1]
    The instance that is the specified value.

    Since the list includes Class and DataType, both of which can have Property features, an InstanceSpecification that is the value of an InstanceValue in CMOF may have to specify values for the instantiated Class' or DataType's Property features. Therefore, the list should also include UML2.4.1's Slot as well.

    The list should be corrected as follows:

    • Association
    • Class
    • Comment
    • Constraint
    • DataType
    • ElementImport
    • Enumeration
    • EnumerationLiteral
    • Generalization
    • InstanceSpecification
    • InstanceValue
    • LiteralBoolean
    • LiteralInteger
    • LiteralNull
    • LiteralReal
    • LiteralString
    • LiteralUnlimitedNatural
    • OpaqueExpression
    • Operation
    • Package
    • PackageImport
    • PackageMerge
    • Parameter
    • PrimitiveType
    • Property
    • Slot

  • Reported: MOF 2.4.1 — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Accept the proposal

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 4: Include an “Abbreviation” clause, and if appropriate a populated Definitions clause

  • Key: MOF24-81
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17634
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Whilst the statement that the document contains no formal definitions taken from other documents may well be true, it is not particularly useful. It may also be true that no terms are used in this document with meanings that cannot be found in common dictionaries. If this is the case, then a statement to that effect would be more useful than the existing statement. Otherwise definitions of terms that are used with special meanings must be included here. There are a number of abbreviations, e.g. EMOF and CMOF in 8.1, that are used in the body of the document without explanation. They should be expanded or otherwise explained here.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Include an "Abbreviation" clause, and if appropriate a populated Definitions clause.

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Section 3: Include a reference to either or both parts of ISO/IEC 19505:2012, as appropriate.

  • Key: MOF24-80
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17633
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    The final line of the clause identified UML 2.4.1 as a required specification, but does not give any indication of the source of the specification. The Introduction refers in non-normative text to ISO/IEC 19505 as a specification of UML 2.4.1

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Starting with version 2.4, MOF shares the metamodel with UML (Superstructure).
    Therefore from version 2.4 on, MOF depends only on the corresponding UML
    Superstructure specification. Within the document, replace all mentioning of UML
    Infrastructure by UML Superstructure and add normative references to UML
    Superstructure as ISO and as OMG document to clause 3.
    Disposition: Merged with 18661

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

General comment: The text should be reviewed for clarity before it progresses to IS.

  • Key: MOF24-79
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17631
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    The technical intent of the document is reasonably clear, and it appears to have been used for several effective implementations. The presentation of the material in the document is a long way from the ISO/IEC format, which is permitted for the first version of a standard introduced by the JTC1 PAS process, but there are a number of places where small changes would bring it closer to what users of ISO/IEC standards usually expect. There are also a number of places where the text is unclear or does not make obvious sense.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Because MOF merges UML, UML as an instance of MOF is ill-formed

  • Key: MOF24-75
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16489
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Steve Cook)
  • Summary:

    In MOF 2.4, Reflection::Element merges UML::Element. Then it is stated that Reflection::Element is an implicit superclass of all metaclasses defined using MOF. Hence UML::Element is a subclass of Reflection::Element which merges UML::Element. Reflection::Element has all of the properties of UML::Element (e.g. ownedComment) and so UML::Element may not validly have these properties.

    The solution is for MOF not to merge any part of UML, because there is no need to do so. MOF should simply refer to UML for its definitions.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    The fact that MOF merges UML is actually correct, and requires no changes. The
    important “fine print” detail is that PackageMerge is not inheritance. With
    PackageMerge, matching elements in the mergingPackage and the
    receivingPackage are merged into a single element without changing the position of
    that resulting element in the type hierarchy. This means in case of UML::Element
    versus Reflection::Element that UML::Element is augmented with the reflective
    capabilities defined in Reflection::Element without changing its position in the type
    hierarchy of the UML metamodel. In particular, UML::Element is not a subclass of
    Reflection::Element. If seen in the context of MOF, it remains unchanged the
    superclass of all UML metaclasses, but augmented with the MOF capabilities.
    Since version 2.4, MOF is based on a constrained-down UML metamodel. The only
    way to add the additional capabilities of MOF without altering the type hierarchy is
    PackageMerge, therefore MOF needs to merge UML.
    To provide absolute clarity, the clause describing the Package composition of MOF
    shall be improved.

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

MOF 2.4 issue: duplicated paragraph in section 3

  • Key: MOF24-74
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16393
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Steve Cook)
  • Summary:

    In MOF 2.4, section 3, Normative References, there is a single paragraph which is repeated. Both paragraphs refer to the UML Superstructure 2.4, but they refer to it with different document numbers – the first is 2010-08-02 and the second is 2010-11-14. The second would be correct for 2.4, although needs to be revised again for 2.4.1.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 25 Jul 2011 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    This has been corrected by resolving the ISO/IEC-PAS comments. See issue 18661.
    Disposition: Merged with 18661

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Revise conventions to avoid unnecessary duplication of descriptions for operations

  • Key: MOF24-73
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15829
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NASA ( Nicolas Rouquette)
  • Summary:

    Revise the conventions used in the MOF specification document to avoid unnecessary duplication of descriptions for inherited operations.
    in particular, the add/addAll/remove operations in 10.7 ReflectiveSequence are unnecessary duplicate descriptions of the add/addAll/remove operations inherited from 10.6 ReflectiveCollection

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Compared to the UML2 specifications, documenting inherited operations is unusual. More importantly, the MOF2.0 Core specification document lacks a clause documenting the specification and diagram formats used; however, this issue is beyond the scope of the MOF2.4 RTF.
    Disposition: Deferred

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

linksOfType needs includeSubtypes parameter

  • Key: MOF24-72
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15661
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: agnos.ai UK Ltd ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    In 13.6, elementsOfType has a parameter includeSubtypes, but linksOfType does not. There is no reason for this disparity – Associations can be generalized.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Clause 13.7 – operation linksOfType()
    Replace the signature:
    linksOfType(type : Association) : Link[0..*]
    by:
    linksOfType(type : Association, includesSubtypes : Boolean) : Link[0..*]
    Perform the same change in the MOF model.
    Replace the explanatory sentence following signature by the following text:
    This returns those links in the extent that are instances of the supplied Association,
    or of any of its specializations if includesSubtypes is true.
    [ the diagram will be updated by resolution of 15608 ]

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

EnumerationLiterals in the XMI

  • Key: MOF24-76
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16585
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: agnos.ai UK Ltd ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    The EnumerationLiterals in the XMI include values for the ‘classifier’ property which is redefined to be derived in the metamodel.

    Even if not derived it would be the inverse of the owning composition so should not be serialized.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Thu, 6 Oct 2011 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue is outdated.
    Disposition: Closed - No Change

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Bad description of set()

  • Key: MOF24-71
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15646
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: agnos.ai UK Ltd ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    In section 9.1 the description of the exceptions refer to ‘element’ instead of ‘object’ as the parameter.

    And the whole section needs clarification of null e.g. does C.isInstance(null) = true for any class or datatype?

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agreed. Correct the operation signature to return Boolean.
    C.isInstance(null) should return false at all time. Null is not a valid classifier and
    violates the constrains of UML::Type on which MOF::Reflection::Type is based.

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

MOF 2 should merge UML 2 (merged) as opposed to Kernel

  • Key: MOF24-70
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15608
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: agnos.ai UK Ltd ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    MOF 2 should merge UML 2 (merged) as opposed to Kernel and use the automated constraints from UML 2.4 production.

    Since UML2 now has a normative merged metamodel it makes sense to reference this – especially since Kernel will be disappearing at UML 2.5.

    The UML 2.4 team has produced a more complete set of executable constraints for valid MOF 2.4 metamodels which should be incorporated.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    This is part of a larger effort to do the final steps of MOF – UML harmonization.
    Change the MOF Model to merge UML (from 2.5) instead of UML::Kernel.
    Revise the whole MOF Core specification document to change any remaining
    references to Basic, Infrastructure, Kernel, etc. to the corresponding references
    based on UML 2.5. This effort includes replacement of diagrams where necessary

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Primitive type values cannot be tested for equality using Reflection

  • Key: MOF24-69
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15442
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: gmail.com ( Dmitry Semikin)
  • Summary:

    Reflection package of the MOF defines operation

    MOF::Element.equals(element:Object):Boolean

    for testing equality of model elements. Description of this function (on page 16) tells, that "For instances of DataType, returns true if the object has the same value as this Element instance."

    But instances of particular DataTypes (e.g. Integer, Bolean etc.) are just values (actually, I did not found, where exactly in MOF or UML Infrastructure specification, but somewhere I saw a definition of PrimitiveTypes like "instances of primitive types are identified only by their values"). So they are not Element-s (as I understand, they are Object-s, so each of primitive type, i.e. Integer, Boolean, String, UnlimitedNatural, can be considered as derived from Object, although they are not defined in such a way in MOF specification).

    As so, instances of primitive type has no operation "equals" (which is quite OK, as they should have no operations - for this reasons they are PrimitiveTypes). So we cannot call "equals" operation as member of e.g. Integer Object. So, we cannot compare two integer objects.

    Being more specific, let's cosider example (it is invalid call...):

    some_property.get(lower).equals(MOF::Factory.CreateFromString(integer, "1"))

    this test for equality (if lower bound of "some_property" equals to 1) is invalid, as "get" operation returns just number (value, instance of Integer), and it has not operation "equals".

    Note: in example above "some_property" is instance of MOF::Property, which represents some property of some class, and "lower" is either instance of MOF::Property, which represents lower bound of "some_proerty". "integer" is an instance of MOF::PrimitiveType meta-metaclass, which represents MOF::Integer meta-primitive-type.

    Actually, currently I have no Proposal for solution of this inconsistency, so this message is just report about it.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Fri, 3 Sep 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed no change

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

MOF 2.0 9.1 Confusing instance superclass statement

  • Key: MOF24-68
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15272
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Ed Willink)
  • Summary:

    The statement in clause 9.1 semantics

    "Class Element is the superclass of all model elements in MOF, and is the
    superclass of all instances of MOF model elements."

    is confusing since instances do not normally have superclasses.

    The statement could be interpreted to mean that every class always has
    Element as a superclass including user-defined classes. But this would then
    make it impossible to model lightweight application classes supporting
    solely the required functionality.

    Surely it is every M2 (and M3 and ...) class that has Element as a
    superclass?

    At M1 the superclasses are as modelled by the user.

    This is significant for OCL since OCL inserts at least OclAny as the top
    type at M1 in order to support some reflective behaviour. If Element really
    is an M1 superclass, then OCL should align. If Element is not an M1
    superclass, OCL should provide its reflection in OclAny.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Wed, 2 Jun 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed no change

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

MOF semantics chapter says nothing about ordering of links when association ends are marked “ordered”.

  • Key: MOF24-67
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14553
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Steve Cook)
  • Summary:

    MOF semantics chapter says nothing about ordering of links when association ends are marked “ordered”. In fact the MOF semantics chapter seems to add no value and perhaps it should be deleted from the spec altogether.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Fri, 9 Oct 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Adopt the explanation of “ordered” from UML 2.5 - Association

  • Updated: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 17:34 GMT

Associations should not be required to be unique

  • Key: MOF2I2-58
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6903
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: agnos.ai UK Ltd ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    I disagree with [7] (in Reflection Factory Constraints) - this is something we had a lot of discussion about
    with Steve and Joaquin and it was agreed that Associations should not be required to be unique.

  • Reported: MOF2I 1.0 — Thu, 15 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF2I 2.0b1
  • Disposition Summary:

    This is an inconsistency since the constraint is not documented as part of restrictions in CMOF or EMOF.

  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 22:12 GMT

MOF Figure 18

  • Key: MOF24-66
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7564
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    I'm confused by something in MOF Figure 18. I see that this is a "semantic domain model," and i know i'm not clear on what that means. But i feel my question makes sense absent a clear understanding of what the MOF specification means by 'semantic domain model.' This diagram is apparently the extension of "the UML 2 Instances model" mentioned at 15.1. I'll assume 'Instances model' means the Infrastructure package, Instances. And, indeed, the drawing there is (mostly) reproduced in Figure 18. My question is about the extensions shown. I'll pick one such extension to make the question concrete. The drawing shows a class, Instance, a subclass of InstanceSpecification. The Infrastructure specification is clear: an instance and an instance specification specifying that instance are not in the same model. My question: Does the term 'instance' have a different meaning in MOF than in the Infrastructure, or are the objects of the class, Instance, not instances, or what?

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Tue, 6 Jul 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 22:10 GMT

The 'isID' attribute in class MOF::CMOF::Property remains unclear

  • Key: MOF24-65
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6920
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fraunhofer FOKUS, Germany ( Michael Soden)
  • Summary:

    The 'isID' attribute in class MOF::CMOF::Property remains unclear for constructed types like e.g. collections.

    Proposed resolution: Detail specifcation of the 'isID' attribute with respect to other than primitive and class types. Suggestions: (1) identity is established for more complex types if identity 'isID' or "natural" identity (i.e. creation based identity) is given recursively for all referenced instances, or (2) if e.g. a collection has itself identity, then identity is established if the collections are the same

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 19 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 22:10 GMT

chapter 10 rewrite

  • Key: MOF24-64
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6695
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: XTG, LLC ( Joaquin Miller)
  • Summary:

    The submitters decided to put off to the FTF the chapter 10 rewrite, to correct text that refers to capabilities removed from the final submission.

    Proposed resolution: This reporter will prepare a proposed rewrite

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Thu, 11 Dec 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 22:10 GMT

diagrams mostly use unspecified «combine»

  • Key: MOF24-63
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6694
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: XTG, LLC ( Joaquin Miller)
  • Summary:

    The diagrams mostly use «combine», but what that means is not specified. The defined package merge types are define and extend.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Thu, 11 Dec 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 22:10 GMT

Issue for EMOF in UML 2 Infrastructure/MOF 2 FTF

  • Key: MOF2I2-57
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7548
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Stephen Brodsky)
  • Summary:

    The EMOF model should contain a tag on EMOF:Element of XMI ContentType with value "any".

    See the discussion and resolution of MOF 2 XMI FTF issue 6345 for background.

  • Reported: MOF2I 1.0 — Fri, 11 Jun 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF2I 2.0b1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add XMI tag contentType=”any” to Appendix A and in the metamodel.

  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 22:09 GMT

object in a useContainment Extent

  • Key: MOF2I2-56
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7454
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Queensland University of Technology ( Jim Steel)
  • Summary:

    Why is that an object in a useContainment Extent cannot have the extent as its container? (This is stated on page 22 of the Final Adopted Spec

  • Reported: MOF2I 1.0 — Wed, 9 Jun 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF2I 2.0b1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 22:09 GMT

semantics of Reflection::Object

  • Key: MOF2I2-55
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7453
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Queensland University of Technology ( Jim Steel)
  • Summary:

    According to page 17, the semantics of Reflection::Object require that all instances of MOF model elements must specialize EMOF::Object. My question is, does this specialization have to be explicit or implicit? That is, if I create a blank MOF Class and ask for its superclasses, will they include EMOF::Object? If I send it a "getMetaClass" message, for example, will it understand it, or do I have to explicitly add EMOF::Object to its superclass property?

  • Reported: MOF2I 1.0 — Wed, 9 Jun 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF2I 2.0b1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 22:09 GMT

Correct addAll() input parameter type

  • Key: MOF2I2-54
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6910
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: agnos.ai UK Ltd ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    ReflectiveCollection::addAll should take a ReflectiveCollection, not a ReflectiveSequence

  • Reported: MOF2I 1.0 — Thu, 15 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF2I 2.0b1
  • Disposition Summary:

    change as suggested

  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 22:09 GMT

Remove allowNull and serializable from EMOF DataType

  • Key: MOF2I2-53
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6908
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: GoodData Corporation ( Martin Matula)
  • Summary:

    EMOF:

    • DataType.allowNull should be removed
    • DataType.serializable should be removed. What are the use cases for
      it? It seems to me that all the values need to be serializable to allow
      interoperability
  • Reported: MOF2I 1.0 — Thu, 15 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF2I 2.0b1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 22:09 GMT

ReflectiveSequence is not sufficient - add iterator, remove addAll

  • Key: MOF2I2-52
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6907
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: GoodData Corporation ( Martin Matula)
  • Summary:

    Summary:
    Martin has proposed adding an iterator operation Iterator and removing addAll.
    Iterator would return a ReflectiveIterator that can be used to iterate through all the elements of the collection. If the underlying collection changes while holding an iterator, the behavior of iterator is undefined.

  • Reported: MOF2I 1.0 — Thu, 15 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF2I 2.0b1
  • Disposition Summary:

    AddAll is useful as an atomic operation. There would be limited value in a language independent iterator – it will tend to make for non-optimal language bindings

  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 22:09 GMT

ad-03-04-07/Non-orthogonal additions to UML Core

  • Key: MOF2I2-49
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6494
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: David Frankel Consulting ( David Frankel)
  • Summary:

    Issue: The MOF 2 Core specification adds elements to the meta-metamodel that
    are not part of the UML 2 Core. For example, see the sections entitled
    "EMOF Extensions to Basic" and "CMOF Extensions to Core::Constructs." The
    MOF 2 Core's abstract syntax should be a subset of UML. (For detailed
    explanation of why this is advisable, see ad/03-03-30). Note that this
    subset principal allows for MOF to specify orthogonal "mix-in" elements,
    such as packages for reflection and identity.

    Recommendation: Either add the extra elements to the UML 2 Core or else
    remove them from MOF.

  • Reported: MOF2I 1.0 — Fri, 7 Nov 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF2I 2.0b1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 22:09 GMT

ReflectiveSequence is not sufficient, need nulls within a list

  • Key: MOF2I2-51
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6906
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: GoodData Corporation ( Martin Matula)
  • Summary:

    Summary:
    For interoperability with the XML relational databases, we need to be able to support nulls within a list

  • Reported: MOF2I 1.0 — Thu, 15 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF2I 2.0b1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 22:09 GMT

No container for tags in tag model

  • Key: MOF2I2-50
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6905
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: agnos.ai UK Ltd ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    Summary:
    The tag model is lacking a container for tags. Why not make tags NamedElements (need to check if that’s
    good enough)?

  • Reported: MOF2I 1.0 — Thu, 15 Jan 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF2I 2.0b1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 22:09 GMT

MOF 2.0 Core 03-04-07, Chapter 5. Identifiers

  • Key: MOF2I2-47
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6390
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Hendryx & Associates ( Stan Hendryx)
  • Summary:

    On page 36:

    “Identity extends Basic::Property with the ability to designate a property as an identifier for the containing object. Properties: isID: Boolean [0..1] True indicates this property can be used to uniquely identify an instance of the containing Class. Only one Property in a class may have isID==true.”

    The restriction that only one Property in a class may have isID==true is debilitating. It is common for objects to be identified in the modeled application domain by a unique combination of a set of properties. For example, an object that represents an instance of an n-ary association in the modeled domain will, in general, be identified by a unique combination of n properties, each one of which is an identifier of a participating object in the association. Not being able to carry this natural condition into the MOF requires practitioners to devise a work-around, such as introducing a superfluous surrogate identifier, to be able to externally identify such objects.

    It is requested that the MOF 2.0 Core specification be revised by the FTF to allow any number of sets of properties to be identifiers. Any client of an object needs to be able to select the identifier set most convenient for them, and different clients need to be able to accurately identify the object, regardless of how other clients may find it.

    This issue is important to the Business Semantics of Business Rules submissions, which require domain identifiers for objects. Other MOF users will also benefit.

    Introduction of the Identity package is a potentially powerful and badly needed improvement over MOF 1.x to enable the use of external identifiers for MOF objects, which will greatly facilitate accurate model interchange, reuse, aggregation, and transformation. The present limitation stunts this potential. Please take this modest extra step to assure the full potential of the Identity package can be realized.

  • Reported: MOF2I 1.0 — Fri, 24 Oct 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF2I 2.0b1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 22:09 GMT

MOF 2 Issue: Reflexion and Links

  • Key: MOF2I2-46
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5996
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: MEGA International ( Antoine Lonjon)
  • Summary:

    The problem
    -----------

    In the reflexion package of MOF2, the proposal for links assumes that
    AssociationEnds are ordered.
    There is an implicit mapping between firstObject and secondObject roles and
    AssociationEnds is based on this assumption:
    FirstObject maps to the first associationEnd
    SecondObject maps to the second associationEnd

    This leads to the following Operation to create links in the Factory Class:

    createLink(association: Association, firstObject : Object, secondObject :
    Object): Link

    At first glance, this solution provides an easy way to identify the link
    members in parameters of link operations. However, the AssociationEnd is
    difficult to read. It is closer to relational concepts than to
    object/association principles.
    One will always have to guess which is the first or second object.
    The modeler who has created the association might remember the order. But
    the user using the association will probably be lost.

    Example:
    Country:Class - resident:AssociationEnd (First) - Citizenship:Association

    • country:AssociationEnd (Second) - Country:Class

    createLink("Citizenhip": Association, "Thomas": Object : "France" :
    Object)

    Proposal
    --------
    The idea is to benefit from the semantic carried by AssociationEnds
    themselves:
    A link defines members. Each member references a participant object
    according to a role defined by the AssociationEnd.
    Thanks to opposite association of AssociationEnds (aka Property), it is
    possible to identify one end from another. This means that if we create
    links from an AssociationEnd viewpoint, there is no need to order
    AssociationEnd.
    The proposal is to order the creation parameters as follow: sourceObject,
    oppositeRole, oppositeObject.
    Of course, this approach only works for binary associations. But the focus
    of AssociationEnd is the first step to take into account nary associations.

    This also highlight that what matters most in Association semantic is the
    role name of AssociationEnds.
    It is usually much more difficult to have a meaningful name for association.
    This is why we can often see names such as "has for ..." which do not carry
    much information about the association.

    All operations on links are redefined as follow:

    createLink (sourceObject : Object, oppositeRole : Property, oppositeObject :
    Object)
    Example:
    createLink("Thomas:Object","country:Role","France:Object")
    equivalent to:
    createLink("France:Object","resident:Role","Thomas:Object")

    linkedObjects (sourceObject : Object, oppositeRole : Property) :
    Object[0..*]

    LinkExists (sourceObject : Object, oppositeRole : Property, oppositeObject :
    Object) : Boolean

    Proposal Comments
    -----------------
    A better proposal would not use the opposite role but the role attached to
    the object participation to the association.

    createLink("resident:Property","Thomas:Object","France:Object")

    But experience shows that this is two much unsual for modelers. This would
    however be the right path for the introduction of nary associations.

  • Reported: MOF2I 1.0 — Fri, 11 Jul 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF2I 2.0b1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 22:09 GMT

Navigating metalevels/instance relationships

  • Key: MOF2I2-45
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5948
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Queensland University of Technology ( Jim Steel)
  • Summary:

    Hi, this question from Mike Lawley @ DSTC (I have CC'd him),
    >
    > How does one navigate metalevels in MOF2? "Object" has the operation
    > "getMetaClass(): Class", but how can I explicitly model (via
    > a reference/
    > association) that MyObj is an instance of MyClass.
    >
    > Note, I can see exactly how to do this in CMOF for Links –
    > there is an "instance" association between Link and
    > Association in Fig 8-8.
    >
    > Incidentally, is this list the right forum for questions
    > about the submission, or should it be addressed to a mof-rtf
    > list or similar?

  • Reported: MOF2I 1.0 — Tue, 10 Jun 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF2I 2.0b1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 22:09 GMT

MOF should include Profile package

  • Key: MOF2I2-48
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6408
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: gmail.com ( Guus Ramackers)
  • Summary:

    The Infrastructure library contains a Core model package and a Profile package.
    The former is reused in MOG, but the latter is not part of MOF.
    This means that MOF QVT submissions cannot build on the Profiles concept for marking (meta) models and they cannot define mappings for profiled meta models.
    MDA style mappings from PIM to PSM or between PSMs requires support for mapping between profiled models in many UML modeling tools that implement PSMs as profiles.
    If MOF QVT cannot deal with mappings to and between profiled models, these tools will require another solution.

  • Reported: MOF2I 1.0 — Mon, 3 Nov 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF2I 2.0b1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 22:09 GMT

removing section 12.3 EMOF Merged Model ?

  • Key: MOF2I2-44
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7957
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Jim Amsden)
  • Summary:

    Issue 6494 resolution calls for removing section 12.3 EMOF Merged Model. Removing this section would require readers to understand and mentally perform a package merge in order to see the complete EMOF model. It would also make it necessary for EMOF implementers to have an implementation of Constructs and package merge in order to implement EMOF. Retaining section 12.3 provide all the information required to fully understand and implement EMOF without requiring the reader or implementer to know anything about package merge.

  • Reported: MOF2I 2.0b1 — Wed, 1 Dec 2004 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF2I 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 22:06 GMT

Question on M-Levels

  • Key: MOF2I2-43
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7749
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: SAP SE ( Axel Uhl)
  • Summary:

    section 7.2 of the MOF 2.0 specification (similar to previous versions of the MOF spec) still contains this bold sentence: "The MOF 1.4 Reflection interfaces allow traversal across any number of metalayers recursively." I'm wondering how I would create a MOF-based system with more than three layers that really "live" inside a MOF-based repository. Let's take a look at UML, for example. If we forget for a while that UML 2.0 and MOF 2.0 share a common core, I could consider the UML metamodel as just another modeling language defined using MOF.

    Now the UML metamodel defines zillions of classes, all of them being instances of MOF::Class. One of them happens to be UML::Class, a classifying model element which allows me to create model elements in the UML modeling languages that themselves conceptually act as meta-objects that I may wish to instantiate.

    However, apart from the "shared core trick," the MOF doesn't have any knowledge about the MOF::Class object UML::Class being special, and in particular being a classifying meta-object.

    The sentence from 7.2 suggests that I can have the following:

    myDog.getClass() == Dog
    Dog.getClass() == UML::Class
    UML::Class.getClass() == MOF::Class

    However, creation of a model element with the reflective capabilities as found in the MOF 2.0 specification seems to allow me only to create the UML::Class instance named "Dog" as I can use UML::Class as an argument to Factory::createObject(...). The resulting object, however, is no longer an instance of MOF::Class and can therefore not be used for a factory call in order to create an instance.

    Currently available language bindings for MOF 1.4 as I understand them correspondingly don't allow for this flexible multi-layering idea. Take JMI, for example. While the standard defines how to derive the class proxy for UML::Class, I cannot simply instantiate the UML::Class instance Dog because it's not a MOF::Class instance.

    Would I have to import the MOF core into my metamodel and have UML::Class specialize MOF::Class? (Tricky enough, MOF 2.0 doesn't even have to create a specialization relation because the two are identical. But I think you get the picture; I could have chosen to use my own metamodel, different from UML, but still introducing a classifying class.) If this was the case, then probably there would be something missing from the language bindings and reflective capabilities. For the JMI example, I'd then expect to be able to obtain a class proxy for an instance of my UML::Class so that I can create instances of that particular UML class, e.g., the "myDog" instance used in the example above.

    Any ideas?

  • Reported: MOF2I 2.0b1 — Thu, 9 Sep 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF2I 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 22:06 GMT

Translation between EMOF and CMOF in MOF 2.0

  • Key: MOF2I2-42
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7647
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    I am reading the "Meta Object Facility (MOF) 2.0 Core Specification"
    document ptc/03-10-04. In the section about EMOF, there is the statement
    "The value of Essential MOF is that it provides a straightforward
    framework for mapping MOF models to
    implementations such as JMI and XMI for simple metamodels." From that
    statement, I inferred that the reason that EMOF exists is largely to
    define XMI 2.0 and (hypothetically) JMI 2.0. In particular, it seemed
    from reading the EMOF introduction that the XMI 2.0 and JMI 2.0
    specifications would depend only on EMOF (and NOT depend on CMOF).

    However, when I read the XMI 2.0 spec., it specifically provides
    mappings for features in CMOF that aren't in EMOF, so
    implementing/understanding EMOF is not enough to implement/understand
    XMI 2.0. There is no JMI 2.0 specification yet, but it seems likely that
    the case would be the same as with XMI 2.0. Therefore, it is not clear
    to me what the purpose of EMOF is. When is using EMOF more appropriate
    than using CMOF?

    Are there any examples of complete EMOF models? In particular, does
    anybody have the EMOF model defined as an instance of itself, as an XMI
    document? I could only find the EMOF model defined as an instance of
    CMOF. And finally, is it possible to represent the (merged) CMOF model
    as an instance of the EMOF model (useful for bootstrapping)?

    Finally, is there a well-defined mapping between EMOF and CMOF? That is,
    how can I convert an instance of the EMOF model to an instance of the
    CMOF model, and vice versa?

  • Reported: MOF2I 2.0b1 — Fri, 13 Aug 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF2I 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 22:06 GMT

Abstract package

  • Key: MOF14-169
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4202
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: GoodData Corporation ( Martin Matula)
  • Summary:

    MOF-RTF issue: Abstract Package

    In MOF 1.3 there is a constraint which says that Package cannot have
    isAbstract attribute set to true.
    However, it does make sense to have abstract packages in MOF.
    One example of an abstract package could be a package containing some basic
    set of primitive datatypes which I would like to reuse in my models. There
    is no reason to instantiate this kind of package - the result of
    instantiation of this package would be nothing more than an empty package
    proxy object.

  • Reported: MOF 1.3 — Fri, 16 Feb 2001 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — MOF 1.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 18:39 GMT

names of the factory create operations

  • Key: MOF2I2-41
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9161
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fraunhofer FOKUS ( Michael Soden)
  • Summary:

    The names of the factory create operations for home interfaces in subsection 7.5.2.2 are not consistent with rules (35) and (36). Rules (35) and (36) state that the name of the factory create operations end with format_2 (<class identifier>).

  • Reported: MOF2I 2.0b1 — Tue, 15 Nov 2005 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF2I 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 18:08 GMT

Section 9.2: reconciliation with MOF Lifecycle should happen

  • Key: MOF24-62
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17394
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: agnos.ai UK Ltd ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    Section 9.2 factory starts: “Note – This section will need to be reconciled with the work underway in MOF lifecycle RFP.” Since the latter is now formal, this reconciliation should happen.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Thu, 24 May 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 15:36 GMT

MOF 2.4 issue: Part III contains the word Gagagaga

  • Key: MOF24-61
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16394
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Steve Cook)
  • Summary:

    The page of the MOF 2.4 spec headed Part III – The MOF Model has the meaningless word Gagagaga at the end of it.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Mon, 25 Jul 2011 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Duplicate or Merged — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    This has been corrected by resolving the ISO/IEC-PAS comments. See issue 18661.

  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 15:36 GMT

Multiple classifiers for an instance in MOF and RDF as defined in ODM

  • Key: MOF24-60
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9466
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Cory Casanave)
  • Summary:

    This is a question involving ODM as well as MOF XMI and Life-cycle.

    In ODM we have RDF and OWL defined as MOF meta models, the assumption being, of course, that you can have MOF instances of RDF graphs. But can you? In RDF & OWL an instance (at any M level) can have (and frequently does have) multiple types – it is classified by more than one class. While this is perfectly legal in UML and even in the MOF meta model, I don’t think the concept is supported in XMI or the current life-cycle. So, can you actually represent RDF in MOF? If not, the ODM models are not valid – I hope I am wrong about this.

    The ability for an instance to be classified by more than one class is a major advantage of RDF and of ontology languages, the C++ heritage in MOF of an instance statically being a member of a single class puts MOF at a disadvantage in relation to these other technologies. It makes it very difficult to represent different aspects of an instance, as can be seen from the package merge complexities - which would not have been required is we had multiple classification in MOF.

    If this is actually a semantic mis-match between MOF and ODM, is may make more sense to add the capability to MOF since the MOF meta model does not preclude this capability – it is only a restriction of the MOF-PSM (XMI).

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Wed, 22 Mar 2006 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 15:36 GMT

no documented standard serializiation of MOF 1.4 as an XMI 2.0 schema

  • Key: MOF24-59
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7605
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: ISIS ( Matt Emerson)
  • Summary:

    There is no documented standard serializiation of MOF 1.4 as an XMI 2.0 schema. OMG has published a document for MOF 1.3 as an XMI 2.0 document and MOF 1.4 and an XMI 1.2 DTD, but not MOF 1.4 as an XMI 2.0 schema. This is despite the fact that XMI 2.0 was designed around MOF 1.4. As far as I know, OMG has not released a single full XMI 2.0 schema example. Do any exist?

  • Reported: XMI 2.0 — Tue, 27 Jul 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Transfered — MOF 2.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    This is requesting that an XMI-compliant XML Schema be provided for MOF itself, as an example of a metamodel. This is an issue for MOF not XMI.

    Revised Text:

    • none -

    Disposition: Transferred to MOF RTF

  • Updated: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 15:36 GMT

Absence of definitions of "XMI" and "MOF"

  • Key: MOF24-58
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19198
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: cebe IT & KM ( Claude Baudoin)
  • Summary:

    The document, which is about a mapping of MOF to XMI, does not define the initialisms MOF or XMI anywhere in the documents, either in Chapter 1 (Scope) or in a glossary, which does not exist in this document.

    Chapter 1 starts with "XMI is a widely used interchange format..." and ends with "MOF is the foundation technology for describing metamodels..." but there is no mention of what the terms actually stand for, a significant omission in a formal document.

    One may also question the use of "MOF 2 XMI" in the title. While "MOF2XMI" may be a common way to create a meta-abbreviation for a relationship between two concepts denoted by abbreviations, there is little justification to eschew the grammatically correct "MOF-to-XMI Mapping" (with hyphens or spaces) in the document title. Using the numeral "2" is actually ambiguous – does it mean "to" or does it refer to a version 2 of MOF?

    Overall, this issue is more about casual editing than about correctness, but I believe it makes the specification weaker, editorially, than the usual OMG standard of documentation.

  • Reported: MOF 2.4.1 — Tue, 28 Jan 2014 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Make the change as suggested

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 23:16 GMT

No unambiguous way in MOF 2.4 to serialize UML 2.4's StructuredActivityNode

  • Key: MOF24-57
  • Legacy Issue Number: 16329
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Nerijus Jankevicius)
  • Summary:

    We just recently had discussion with Ed about an issue with Activity::node and Activity::group. Both are composite non-derived properties and it causes problems with all StructuredActivityNodes, which are ActivityNodes and ActivityGroups at the same time.
    MagicDraw or Eclipse implementation of UML does not allow to own the same element in two composites , even if owner element is the same.
    Does XMI support that?

    So, ExpansionRegion or any other StructuredActivityNode appears in Activity::group only.

    fUML spec/engine expects to find them in Activity::node , as all owned nodes should be there.

    Any suggestions? Don't you think we should fix that somehow

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved as an urgent issue

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 23:16 GMT

Problems in MOF operations delete(), invoke() and isInstanceOfType() operations

  • Key: MOF24-56
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15859
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: NASA ( Nicolas Rouquette)
  • Summary:

    13.3 describes an operation Object::delete() that does not appear in figure 13.2.
    The operation isInstanceOfType() makes sense for an Element but not for an Object where it is misspelled.
    The operation invoke() should be defined only on Object and should return set of Objects instead of a set of Elements.

    Resolution:

    in 13.3, delete the following operations:
    delete()
    isInstanceOfType(type : Class, includeSubtypes : Boolean) : Boolean

    replace:
    invoke(op:Operation, arguments : Argument[0..*]) : Element[0..*]
    with:
    invoke(op:Operation, arguments : Argument[0..*]) : Object[0..*]

    in the metamodel, add:
    MOF::CMOFReflection::Object::invoke(op:Operation, arguments : Argument[0..*]) : Object[0..*]

    in 13.4, delete the operation:
    invoke(op:Operation, arguments : Argument[0..*]) : Element[0..*]

    in 13.4, rename the operation:
    instanceOfType(type: Class, includeSubtypes: Boolean): Boolean
    to:
    isInstanceOfType(type : Class, includeSubtypes : Boolean) : Boolean

    Update the diagrams & metamodel accordingly

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Thu, 2 Dec 2010 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    It is unclear from the MOF2.0 Core specification where the Object::delete() operation is to be defined; it could be in MOF::Reflection::Object or in MOF::CMOFReflection::Object. It is also unclear whether each specialization of Object should have a delete operation – e.g., there is no delete() for MOF::Common::ReflectiveCollection. With so many important details under-specified, it is better to remove this operation than to leave it.
    Since the resolution to issue 15825 for Object::getType() is deferred, it does not make sense to have Object::isInstanceOfType() either, this operation should be deleted and only defined for Element as described in the summary.
    In 13.3, invoke() returns a collection of Elements but in 13.4, it returns a collection of Objects. Clearly an operation could return any kind of Object; the return type should be Object, not Element. Since MOF::Common::ReflectiveCollection provides the capability for representing a collection of Objects, it is not necessary for invoke() to return yet another collection of Objects, a single Object suffice; if the actual return is in fact a collection of Objects, then the return can be a single ReflectiveCollection object. Therefore, the multiplicity on the return parameter should be changed from 0..* to 0..1

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 23:15 GMT

Annex A1

  • Legacy Issue Number: 11604
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: CrimsonLogic India Pvt. Ltd. ( M. Jayaprakash)
  • Summary:

    The sample input model diagram on page 26 (Annex A, Example 1 – RDBMS model to Oracle DDL) is inaccurate. The 'refersTo' relation from the Department_fky entity should point to the Department_pky entity and not to the Employee_pky entity. Also, the 'foreignKey' relation from the Employee entity should point towards the Department_fky entity and not as shown.

  • Reported: MOFM2T 1.0 — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — MOFM2T 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    issue withdrawn by submitter, closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:56 GMT

Rule (11) and (12)

  • Key: MOF24-55
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7591
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Humboldt-Universitaet ( Mario Winkler)
  • Summary:

    In my opinion it has to be stated in Rule (11) and (12) that getter and setter operations are only generated for non-derived attributes.

  • Reported: MOF 2.0 — Thu, 15 Jul 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 22:55 GMT

MOF 1.3: are Associations contained in Packages or not?

  • Key: MOF14-168
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3527
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Steve Cook)
  • Summary:

    Section 3.3.4 of MOF 1.3 gives a table that shows allowed containments.
    According to this table, Associations cannot be contained in anything.

    Sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 give examples where an Association (A) is
    contained in a Package (P1).

    These seem inconsistent.

  • Reported: MOF 1.3 — Mon, 3 Apr 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    duplicate of issue 3131

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:38 GMT

No reflective all_links() operation

  • Key: MOF14-167
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2197
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: There should be a RefAssociation operation corresponding
    to "specific" all_<association_name>_links() operations.

    Additional text:

    The following operation signature is proposed:

    LinkSet all_links();

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Fri, 6 Nov 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed resolved

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

RefAssociation::link_exists() signature inconsistent

  • Key: MOF14-166
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2196
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The link_exists() declaration in section 5.3.7 is incorrect.
    It should match the one in the appendix.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Fri, 6 Nov 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed resolved

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

Error in "args" parameter of RefObject::invoke_operation.

  • Key: MOF14-165
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2195
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The ValueTypeList argument should be an "inout" instead of
    an "in" parameter. Otherwise, a client cannot see values passed
    back using "out" or "inout" parameters in a specific operation.

    Additional text:

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Fri, 6 Nov 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed resolved

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

Typos in Reflective::remove_value_at

  • Key: MOF14-164
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2194
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: There are typos in Section 5 and the Appendix in the IDL for
    the RefObject::remove_value_at() operation. (The second parameter name
    is "posotion" and the InvalidValue exception cannot be raised.)

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Fri, 6 Nov 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed, resolved

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

Exception to indicate no corresponding "specific" operation

  • Key: MOF14-161
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2191
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Issue 968 states that there is a need for a new exception
    called (say) "AbstractType" which is raised by create_instance() when
    it is invoked for an abstract Class. This exception would only be
    raised by the create_instance() operation when when there is no
    corresponding "specific" operation. There are many other operations
    in which this general condition can occur. Section 5.4.2, states that
    the CORBA system Exception NO_IMPLEMENT should be raised in the case
    where modify or delete operations are not available. This needs to be
    handled more consistently.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Fri, 6 Nov 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed, resolved

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

MissingParameter and TooManyParameters exceptions

  • Key: MOF14-160
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2190
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Neither MissingParameter nor TooManyParameters indicate the
    number of parameters that were expected. The designator member of the
    MissingParameter exception (i.e. the parameter that is really missing)
    cannot be reliably determined.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Fri, 6 Nov 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed, resolved

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

Document how to "unset" using the RefObject interface

  • Key: MOF14-163
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2193
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: In cases where there "specific" interfaces unset operation,
    the unset operation can be called using the RefObject::set_value()
    operation, where the ValueType parameter of set_value() is a CORBA
    Any of kind tk_null. This needs to be stated in the spec.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Fri, 6 Nov 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed, resolved

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

RefObject::value() needs to raise NotSet

  • Key: MOF14-162
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2192
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: In cases with a multiplicity of [0..1], the NotSet exception
    can be thrown, so the value() method should be defined to raise the
    NotSet exception.

    Additional text:

    Proposed fix - redefine the value() to have the following signature.

    ValueType value (in DesignatorType feature)
    raises (InvalidDesignator,
    NotSet,
    SemanticError);

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Fri, 6 Nov 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed resolved

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

Edit the MOF specification to improve clarity and readability

  • Key: MOF14-157
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2185
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: he entire specification is in need of revision to improve its
    readability, structure and technical consistency and clarity. This
    requires a lot of copy editting work for the RTF!

    Additional text:

    For example, the semantics section should be repartitioned into
    sections on `semantic constraints on the MOF Model meta-models",
    `structural semantics of models" and `operational semantics of
    mapped interfaces".

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Fri, 6 Nov 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed, resolved

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

Revise `container" operations on RefBaseObject

  • Key: MOF14-156
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2180
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: We now need to have two operations on RefBaseObject to return
    the `composite" container and the `static" scope (i.e. the extent). The
    operation signatures should be similar, with distinctive names.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Fri, 6 Nov 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed issue

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

Reflective::InvalidDesignator exception

  • Key: MOF14-159
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2189
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The IDL should contain constant declarations for the
    possible values of the "element_kind" field of the exception.
    Since more than one element kind might be expected in some cases
    (e.g. RefObject::set_value() applies to attributes AND references)
    perhaps, the field should be multi-valued.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Fri, 6 Nov 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

Support for IDL prefixes in MOF spec

  • Key: MOF14-158
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2187
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: When the MOF is used to generate meta-models for other
    OMG specifications, it is necessary to include a "#prefix "org.omg""
    in the generated IDL. The MOF Model and IDL mapping do not currently
    support this.

    Additional text:

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Fri, 6 Nov 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed, resolved

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

Add support for Package Consolidation / Clustering

  • Key: MOF14-155
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2176
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Package Clustering is a new composition mechanism that is
    proposed as a way to deal with anomolies that can arise when one
    Package imports another.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Fri, 6 Nov 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved and closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

Document different meaning of "abstract"

  • Key: MOF14-154
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2175
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The MOF uses "abstract Class" in the same sense as UML, and
    also Java and other object oriented programming languages. However,
    defining a Class as "abstract" (as per the Object-by-Value extensions)
    does not make any statements about the way that subtype instances are
    transmitted; i.e. a MOF abstract Class does not correspond to a CORBA
    2.3 IDL "abstract interface".

    Additional text:

    The MOF spec should note the different meanings of "abstract" both
    in the Model chapter and in the Glossary.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Fri, 6 Nov 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved and closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

Update specification to track OCL syntax changes

  • Key: MOF14-153
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2172
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The MOF specification currently uses a version of the OCL that
    predates the final UML submission. It is understood that the OCL syntax
    was changed in the final UML submission. The MOF spec should be updated
    if necessary to track these changes.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Fri, 6 Nov 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, issue closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

MOF names implicitly tied to implementation

  • Key: MOF14-152
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2025
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The relationship between MOF names and
    generated interfaces places implicit restrictions on
    valid MOF names. For example, IDL keywords and namespaces
    may conflict with otherwise valid MOF names. MOF should allow
    flexibility in the generation rules for IDL, C++, Java, etc.
    to prevent restrictions from these externals reducing the
    set of valid MOF names. In UML, names such as "Class" and
    AssociationClass cause conflicts when IDL is generated.
    Namespaces in MOF metamodels may be useful when generating
    IDL to prevent name collisions between constructs in different
    MOF spaces.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Wed, 30 Sep 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved and closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

MOF RTF Issue: SMIF version of MOF

  • Key: MOF14-151
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1998
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: MOF RTF Issue: SMIF version of MOF
    Severity: Critical

    1) The MOF RTF must produce a normative representation in Rose (or equivalent)
    and SMIF form in the event that a SMIF submission is adopted.
    2) In the event that XMI is adopted as the SMIF technology, the normative XMI
    form of MOF is a generated XMI document and DTD.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Tue, 29 Sep 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved and closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

New name clash issue from CORBA 2.3 spec

  • Key: MOF14-150
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1900
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The ORB revision task force is proposing a change to the
    CORBA IDL spec that forbids the redefinition of an identifier in
    the immediate scope of an interface or module. This impacts on
    MOF IDL generation.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Mon, 31 Aug 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved and closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

Atomicity of updates

  • Key: MOF14-149
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1803
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: I don"t think that the MOF spec currently spells out the
    requirements (and non-requirements) for atomicity of update operations.
    I think it should.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Thu, 13 Aug 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved and closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

exceptions for resolve_qualified_name()

  • Key: MOF14-148
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1779
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: I think we should reconsider the exception(s) raised by
    NameSpace::resolve_qualified_name(). Firstly, it is not necessary
    to return the resolved part and the name that gave problems as two
    parameters. Secondly, the exception does not cover the case where
    one of the ModelElements on the path was not a Namespace.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Thu, 6 Aug 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, issue closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

Need to specify when are side-effects allowed

  • Key: MOF14-147
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1778
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The MOF was designed under the assumption that ordinary
    (i.e. non-derived) M1-level attribute values and links only change
    when the client expects them to. Unfortunately, the spec
    does not address this issue. In particular, it does not say
    what mapped IDL operations are allowed to change things by
    side-effect.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Thu, 6 Aug 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved and closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

MOF Constraints are pure predicates

  • Key: MOF14-146
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1775
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Modify the description of MOF Constraint in section 3 to make it
    clear that MOF Constraints should be interpreted as pure predicates
    that specify a "validity" condition on a collection of meta-objects
    They do not in any way require or allow modification of the default
    behavioral semantics of a server. Evaluation of constraints must
    be side-effect free.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Wed, 5 Aug 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved and closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

MofAttribute values do not have aggregation==composite semantics

  • Key: MOF14-145
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1770
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The spec should make it clear that the values of a MofAttribute are NOT
    intended to have aggregation semantics. For example, an instance of a
    Class should be allowed to refer to itself as an attribute, or to share
    an (object) attribute with other instances. This applies to MofAttributes
    whose type is a Class or a DataType (where its typecode is any kind of
    object reference type).

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Tue, 4 Aug 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved and closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

Cardinality of "RefersTo" and "Exposes" associations

  • Key: MOF14-144
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1749
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The cardinalities of the "referent" end of "RefersTo" and the
    "referrer" end of "Exposes" are both specified as [0..1] throughout the
    MOF specification. This means that a given AssociationEnd can be
    navigable from >>at most<< one Class (and its subclasses). I can"t
    think of a good reason for making this restriction, and I can"t recall
    it being discussed. The UML spec (ad/97-08-09) contains a diagram (figure
    5 on page 7) that purports to be a projection of the MOF model. This shows
    the cardinality of "referent" as [0..*]. If nothing else, there is a
    document alignment issue here.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Wed, 29 Jul 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved and closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

Multiplicities on Attributes and References modelled incorrectly

  • Key: MOF14-143
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1716
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The current Model defines a "multiplicity" attribute on StructuralFeature
    which is then inherited by MofAttribute and Reference. There is also
    a Constraint that says that the multiplicity of a Reference must be
    the same as the multiplicity of the corresponding AssociationEnd.
    This modeling is incorrect, as it makes it duplicates information.
    In particular, the ReferenceClass::create_reference() operation requires
    an extra multiplicity parameter.

    What is really going here is that the multiplicity of a Reference is
    implied by the multiplicity of the corresponding AssociationEnd.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Wed, 22 Jul 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    duplicate iswue....closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

Navigability constraint expressed wrongly

  • Key: MOF14-142
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1715
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The "is_navigable" attribute on AssociationEnd is intended to allow
    a modeler to prevent the creation of References for the end. Unfortunately
    the Constraint that expresses this is on the AssociationEnd and the
    "is_navigable" attribute rather than on Reference. This means that
    the existence of References constrains the value of "is_navigable"
    rather than the other way around.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Wed, 22 Jul 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed, no action required

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

Navigability constraint expressed wrongly

  • Key: MOF14-140
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1712
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The "is_navigable" attribute on AssociationEnd is intended to allow
    a modeler to prevent the creation of References for the end. Unfortunately
    the Constraint that expresses this is on the AssociationEnd and the
    "is_navigable" attribute rather than on Reference. This means that
    the existence of References constrains the value of "is_navigable"
    rather than the other way around.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Wed, 22 Jul 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved and closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

Multiplicities on Attributes and References modelled incorrectly

  • Key: MOF14-139
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1711
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The current Model defines a "multiplicity" attribute on StructuralFeature
    which is then inherited by MofAttribute and Reference. There is also
    a Constraint that says that the multiplicity of a Reference must be
    the same as the multiplicity of the corresponding AssociationEnd.
    This modeling is incorrect, as it makes it duplicates information.
    In particular, the ReferenceClass::create_reference() operation requires
    an extra multiplicity parameter.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Wed, 22 Jul 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved and closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

Inconsistent multiplicity for TypeAlias

  • Key: MOF14-141
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1714
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The section 3 definition for TypeAlias defines its "multiplicity"
    attribute as having exactly one value. The appendices (ammended
    by the addenda) show the "multiplicity" attribute as optional.
    I think that the section 3 gives the correct definition in this
    case.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Wed, 22 Jul 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved and closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

Convenient way to discriminate instances of subclasses

  • Key: MOF14-138
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1683
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The Reflective layer needs to provide an easy, universal
    way to identify the "most derived" class of a meta-object. At the
    moment, an application needs to make a sequence of "narrow" calls.
    In some situations, this is unavoidably network intensive.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Wed, 15 Jul 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:36 GMT

Should set_(nil) be legal?

  • Key: MOF14-137
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1518
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: This relates to the previous issue. Should it be legal to
    call a set_<referencename>(in <ReferenceType> new_value> operation
    (see 7.3.8) with a nil object reference as the new_value?

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Wed, 10 Jun 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

set_ needs StructuralError

  • Key: MOF14-136
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1517
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The set_<referencename> defined in the Reference Template
    (7.3.8) needs to be changed to allow StructuralError to be raised
    in some cases where upper = 1.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Wed, 10 Jun 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

Exception for creating instances of imported supertypes?

  • Key: MOF14-134
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1513
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: What exception should Reflective::RefObject::create_instance()
    raise if it is unable to create an instance of a supertype where the
    supertype is imported from another Package?

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Tue, 9 Jun 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved and closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

Description of with_ operations

  • Key: MOF14-135
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1516
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The description of the with_<associationname> operations
    in the IDL mapping needs to give more details of the results returned.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Wed, 10 Jun 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved and closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

MOF RTF Issue: Behavior of M1 level interfaces vagualy specified

  • Key: MOF14-133
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1502
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The current MOF spec is too vague in its specification
    of the behavior of the M1-level interfaces, both in the Reflective
    and IDL mapping sections. It is also rather disorganised with the
    text structure of Sections 5 through 7 reflecting authorship rather
    than relatedness of content. If left uncorrected, these problems
    are likely to lead to divergent implementations and interoperability
    problems.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Thu, 4 Jun 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved and closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

MOF RTF Issue: aggregations crossing M1 and M2 package boundary

  • Key: MOF14-132
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1501
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The current MOF spec allows Associations to be defined such
    that a Class in one Package to be "composed of" a Class in another
    Package. Similar "compositions" at the M1 level; i.e. can occur
    across "package object" boundaries. We propose to restrict such
    compositions since we believe that they make implementation of
    object life-cycle operations problematical in a federated environment.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Thu, 4 Jun 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved and closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

Naming of Tags

  • Key: MOF14-129
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1497
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The MOF Model allows Tags to be attached to any model element.
    This provides a mechanism for extending the MOF Model with extra
    meta-meta-information that (for example) could pertain to model server
    code generation. Tags are currently unrestricted name value pairs.
    However, in order to ensure interoperability of Tags, there needs to
    be agreement on their "meaning". The first step to ensuring this is
    to define conventions for Tag names. These should allow tag names
    that 1) apply to all kinds of meta-model, 2) are defined for specific
    families of meta-models (e.g. when the MOF Model is re-used in another
    OMG spec), 3) are defined by a vendors product line, or 4) are defined
    by the end user.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Thu, 4 Jun 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed issue, resolved

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

Identifier formating error in MOF generates IDL

  • Key: MOF14-128
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1496
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The IDL identifiers for the all_*_links attributes in the
    association interfaces were incorrectly generated. For example, in
    the interface Model::Generalizes, the attribute all_Generalizes_links
    should be all_generalizes_links. The error applies to all Association
    IDL, and appears both in the main text (chapter 3) and the appendices.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Thu, 4 Jun 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    close issue, resolved

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

MOF RTF Issue: M1 life-cycle operations

  • Key: MOF14-131
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1500
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The current MOF spec has no support for object life-cycle
    operations at the M1 level; i.e. in the interfaces generated by the
    IDL mapping. While this can "fixed" by vendor specific extensions,
    this raises interoperability problems. As an alternative, I propose
    that we amend the spec to provide a standard solution.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Thu, 4 Jun 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, issue closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

MOF RTF Issue: Library of collection types?

  • Key: MOF14-130
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1498
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The MOF IDL mapping requires typedefs to be defined
    for Attributes, Operations and Associations, depending on the
    multiplicity settings. The current mapping specifies that the
    typedefs required are inserted into the generated IDL. In the
    case of multiplicities of the CORBA base data types, the typedefs
    are inserted at the start of the module for the outermost package
    (see 7.3.1). The proposal is that instead of this, the typedefs
    should be defined in a separate standard module; e.g. Reflective
    or a new one.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Thu, 4 Jun 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, issue closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

IDL generation Association Template Syntax

  • Key: MOF14-127
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1308
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Section 7.3.5, p. 7-15. Association Template syntax errors:

    • Following declaration is missing terminating ";"
    • // if associationend1 has max multiplicity > 1
    • <AssociationEnd1Type><CollectionKind> with_
      <associationend2_name> (in <AssociationEnd2Type> <associationend2_name>
      )
    • Following declaration fragment missing underscore after
      "add_before":
    • // if associationend1 has a max multiplicity of > 1 and
      is_ordered
    • void add_before <associationend1_name> (
  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Tue, 5 May 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed issue

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

IDL Mapping/Identifier Naming

  • Key: MOF14-126
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1307
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Section 7.2.1, ppf 7-2. There is a section on name mangling which
    describes how a MOF name is mapped to an IDL name. The mapping
    definition provided has the following problems:

    • There can be any number of MOF names which map to a single
      identifier in IDL. A legal configuration of names in a MOF namespace
      may result in name conflicts when mapped to IDL. Section 7.4, p 7-33
      states that the "IDL mapping may not produce valid CORBA IDL if
      ...preconditions on the input model is not satisfied:... the names
      within a NameSpace must be unique after application of the Format1 and
      Format2 name rewriting algorithms."
    • The name mangling is not based on any standard, but rather
      "stylistic conventions".
    • It is unnatural for a user to see different names in his MOF/UML
      model than in the corresponding IDL.
    • The IDL for MOF does not even follow the guidelines (see format
      for constants, ppf A-2, format for exceptions throughout document)
    • Some forms of identifier are not covered, such as enumeration
      value, structs, unions, discriminators.
    • Will need to add arcane mangling rules for object by value and
      other OMG specifications which extend IDL.
  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Mon, 4 May 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed issue

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

IDL generation - IMPORT TEMPLATE clarification

  • Key: MOF14-125
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1306
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Section 7.3.1, Page 7-8. and Section 7.3.14, page 7-32. The Package
    Template includes two references to "IMPORT TEMPLATE", each with a
    different semantic/IDL expansion. For clarity, the two usages of
    IMPORT TEMPLATE should be distinguished, have separate names, and
    separate descriptions.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Mon, 4 May 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed issue

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

Illegal IDL redefinitions

  • Key: MOF14-124
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1305
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: * Package Template attribute "enclosing_package_ref", if packages
    are nested. (Section 7.3.1, page 7-8)

    • Type Template attribute "enclosing_package_ref", for any
      subtype. (Section 7.3.4, page 7-12).
  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Mon, 4 May 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, close issue

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

Incorrect ocl specification(s)

  • Key: MOF14-123
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1141
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Incorrect ocl specification of
    Each ocl statement defining a constraint on the element
    types allowed to be contained by subtypes of Namespace is
    mis-specified. For instance, the following statement
    intended to constrain DataType instances to only
    containing instances of either TypeAlias or Tag. However,
    as specified, the intersection of sets is between
    instances (contents) and types (the defined set).

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Thu, 16 Apr 1998 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, close issue

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

Consider a better approach to generated exceptions

  • Key: MOF14-122
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1085
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Thought should be given to revamping the Exceptions
    generated in MOF"s IDL generation. Here are the
    issues/forces:

    The MOF has made a distinction between some constraints,
    which have been promoted to model features – like
    multiplicity constraints, isRoot, isLeaf, etc. – and the
    constraints defined by Constraint type. In the future,
    other constraints, such as ranges on attributes, may be
    likewise promoted. Yet in implementation, constraints can
    be handled uniformly. Having to generate different
    exceptions, based on these distinctions, makes
    implementation less streamlined.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Wed, 18 Mar 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, close issue

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

Single-valued parameters should not be defined with sequences

  • Key: MOF14-121
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1084
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: If attributes with a datatype as their type are constrained
    in the Model to disallow the cardinality of [0..1], as
    recommended in a separate issue, then the handling of
    parameters with cardinality defined as [0..1] can be
    simplified, as compared to the recommendation in issue #940.

    This constraint allows parameters with cardinality to be
    treated as optional, single-valued parameters, instead of as
    sets. The difference for clients and implementations is
    significant.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Wed, 18 Mar 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed issue

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

Operations should return nil reference instead of raising NotSet

  • Key: MOF14-120
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1083
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Currently, the Attribute Template and Reference Template of
    the Section on IDL mapping require the Exception NotSet to
    be returned in response to the invocation of the "read"
    operation generated for attributes and references with a
    cardinality of [0..1]. Since the lower bound is zero,
    having the attribute or reference "not set" is a normal
    occurrence.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Wed, 18 Mar 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed issue, resolved

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

ConstraintError exception needed in more IDL generation templates

  • Key: MOF14-119
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1081
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Section 7 underspecifies the use of ConstraintError in the
    raises clause of generated operations. It is only specified
    in the Type Create Template. However, it should be
    specified as part of the Package Create Template, the
    Association Template, the Attribute Template, the Reference
    Template, and the Operation Template. Its appearance
    depends on the constrained elements of constraint objects
    in the source model of IDL generation.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Wed, 18 Mar 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed, resolved

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

ConstrainViolation vs. ConstraintError confusion (editorial)

  • Key: MOF14-118
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1080
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Paragraph 5.3.3 calls ConstraintViolation an exception,
    although it is a structure. Also, paragraph 7.3.5 shows the
    Type Create template as potentially generating an operation
    which raises a Reflective::ConstraintViolation, but since
    it is a struct, this would generate illegal code.
    References to ConstraintViolation as an exception should
    instead refer to the exception "wrapper", ConstraintError.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Wed, 18 Mar 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed, resolved

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

Association IDL generation needs to consider AssociationEnd.isChangeable

  • Key: MOF14-117
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1079
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The Association Template for IDL generation should consider
    the isChangeable attribute value of the AssociationEnd
    objects. For instance, the derived Association DependsOn
    should have no generated operations which could change the
    links. Adding a dependency through the association makes no
    sense. Since both association ends of that association are
    defined with isChangeable=false, the IDL generation rules
    should provide only query capabilities for that association.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Wed, 18 Mar 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed, resolved

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

Generated location parameters need clear specification of base value

  • Key: MOF14-114
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1076
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: For the Reflective interface operations requiring a
    positional parameter (add_value_at, modify_value_at,
    remove_value_at), the base (the lowest legal value) is never
    specified. CORBA 2.1 does not either; Section 3.8.4 states:
    "The implementation of array indices is language mapping
    specific"

    The MOF Standard should state the index base (presumably
    either 0 or 1). It should not be left as a
    language-specific issue, since languages differ (C++ and
    java arrays are zero-based; Smalltalk collections are
    one-based).

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Wed, 18 Mar 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

Type of Facility.MofRepository.packageFactory incompatible with its purpos

  • Key: MOF14-113
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1075
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Facility.MofRepository.packageFactory is of type
    Reflective.RefPackage. Its purpose is to provide the object
    needed to instantiate a ModelPackage – the set of
    class-proxy and package-proxy objects needed to create and
    manage Mof models. It is expected to return a an object of
    type Model.ModelPackageFactory. However,
    Model.ModelPackageFactory does not derive from
    Reflective.RefPackage. So this attribute cannot provide its
    described capability.

    Suggest changing the type of this attribute to
    Model.ModelPackageFactory. The MofRepository package is
    specific to the Mof, and does not require defining this
    factory object in any generic manner.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Wed, 18 Mar 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

Association interface generation templates require exceptions

  • Key: MOF14-116
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1078
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: For IDL generation, the Association Template needs
    exceptions in the raises clause of some operations. Compare
    to the generic equivalent, RefAssociation. For instance,
    what if a null is passed in for a query or update?

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Wed, 18 Mar 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed issue

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

Description of meta-model as a single package is incorrect

  • Key: MOF14-115
  • Legacy Issue Number: 1077
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Section 6.3, Rules of ModelElement Containment, states that
    a "metamodel is defined by a Package object...". In The
    section on Repository naming "Element, Model, and Repository
    Naming" the text states: "A metamodel name is the name of
    its top-level Package..." In other places I believe the
    document also either states or implies that a Model is
    defined by a single package (and its contents).

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Wed, 18 Mar 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    nothing to do...close issue

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:35 GMT

Editorial; change MOF Type to MOF Class

  • Key: MOF14-112
  • Legacy Issue Number: 969
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: There are many examples in the later sections of the spec (5 onwards)
    where the MOF Model element "Class" is refered to by its old name of "Type".
    There needs to be a systematic scan of the spec to find and correct all
    occurences of this mistake.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Wed, 18 Feb 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved, to be implemented

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:34 GMT

RefObject::create_instance and abstract types

  • Key: MOF14-111
  • Legacy Issue Number: 968
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: This issue relates to the Reflective interfaces. The create_instance
    on Reflective::RefObject (5.2.2) is the generic "factory" for instances of
    types. The operation description states that an exception is raised if
    it is invoked for an abstract Class. However, it doesn"t state which
    exception this should be. This needs to be fixed.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Wed, 18 Feb 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:34 GMT

MOF IDL Mapping with parameters

  • Key: MOF14-110
  • Legacy Issue Number: 967
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The MOF Specification defines the Operation Template
    > such that each parameter is defined by its name and
    > type. This mapping ignores a parameter"s multiplicity
    > attribute. I believe the mapping should define the
    > parameter"s type corresponding to the multiplicity,
    > which is what the mapping already does for the
    > operation"s result parameter.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Wed, 18 Feb 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    This is a duplicate of Issue #965.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:34 GMT

MOF IDL /MODL - Type Hierarchy error

  • Key: MOF14-109
  • Legacy Issue Number: 966
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: While the MOF Spec text and diagrams define an AssociationEnd
    as derived from TypedElement, The IDL and MODL define it as
    derived from ModelElement.

    Clearly it must be derived from TypedElement.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Wed, 18 Feb 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    This is a duplicate of Issue #949.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:34 GMT

MOF IDL mapping-types of parameters with multiplicities

  • Key: MOF14-108
  • Legacy Issue Number: 965
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: The MOF Specification defines the Operation Template
    such that each parameter is defined by its name and
    type. This mapping ignores a parameter"s multiplicity
    attribute. I believe the mapping should define the
    parameter"s type corresponding to the multiplicity,
    which is what the mapping already does for the
    operation"s result parameter.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Wed, 18 Feb 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:34 GMT

IDL Mapping--#includes for inheritted Packages

  • Key: MOF14-107
  • Legacy Issue Number: 957
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: When one MOF Package is declared as inheriting from another Package, the
    IDL for the former needs a #include statement to access the interfaces
    of the latter. This is currently not mentioned in the mapping rules,
    but without it IDL does not compile.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Tue, 10 Feb 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:34 GMT

Type Hierarchy Error in IDL

  • Key: MOF14-106
  • Legacy Issue Number: 949
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: While the MOF Spec text and diagrams define an AssociationEnd
    as derived from TypedElement, The IDL and MODL define it as
    derived from ModelElement.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Mon, 16 Feb 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved and closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:34 GMT

MOF-IDL needs to be re-generated

  • Key: MOF14-105
  • Legacy Issue Number: 948
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: It will be necessary to re-generate the MOF IDL. Fortunately,
    > since the MOF Model is relatively simple, most of the changes
    > will have low impact; e.g. added exceptions and changed
    > parameter names. The bag attribute of Tag is the only
    > non-derived
    > attribute with multiplicity other than [1..1], and its type
    > is incorrect.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Tue, 17 Feb 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved and closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:34 GMT

Type Create template, order of parameters

  • Key: MOF14-104
  • Legacy Issue Number: 947
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: In the text describing Type Create template, the order of the
    > parameters should be defined as a depth-first traversal of
    > the supertypes, followed by the contained Attributes [in
    > containment order naturally ...]

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Tue, 17 Feb 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed issue, resolved

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:34 GMT

Similar to issue 940

  • Key: MOF14-101
  • Legacy Issue Number: 944
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Similar to 1) for the Type Create template.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Tue, 17 Feb 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed issue

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:34 GMT

package create template: names of parameters need to be formated

  • Key: MOF14-100
  • Legacy Issue Number: 943
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: In the Package Create template, the names of the parameters
    > need to be formed by concatenating the format2 names for the
    > attribute and its enclosing scopes. For example:
    >
    > "package1_type2_attribute3"
    >
    > This name mangling is necessary to avoid name collision when
    > there are two or more classifier level attributes with the
    > same name.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Tue, 17 Feb 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved and closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:34 GMT

Similar o issue 941

  • Key: MOF14-103
  • Legacy Issue Number: 946
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: 6) Similar to 2941 for the Type Create template.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Tue, 17 Feb 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed issue

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:34 GMT

${issue.summary}

  • Key: MOF14-102
  • Legacy Issue Number: 945
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:
  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Tue, 17 Feb 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed issue

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:34 GMT

package create template: ConstraintError

  • Key: MOF14-99
  • Legacy Issue Number: 942
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: In the Package Create template, if any of the Attributes or
    > their types are constrained, then the raises clause should
    > include ConstraintError.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Tue, 17 Feb 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    rsolved, close issue

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:34 GMT

Package create template: StructuralError needs to be raised

  • Key: MOF14-98
  • Legacy Issue Number: 941
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: In the Package Create template, the operation needs to raise
    > StructuralError if any of the attribute parameters has a
    > collection type.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Tue, 17 Feb 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    ressolved, close issue

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:34 GMT

Package create template

  • Key: MOF14-97
  • Legacy Issue Number: 940
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: In the Package Create template, the type of any parameter
    > corresponding to an attribute with mult.lower != 0 or
    > mult.upper != 0 needs to be the appropriate collection type.

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Tue, 17 Feb 1998 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved and closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:34 GMT

Typos in MOF 1.1 document (1)

  • Key: MOF14-94
  • Legacy Issue Number: 786
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Figure 3-6: in AssociationEnd AggregationKind should be AggregationType

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Wed, 26 Nov 1997 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed, already implemented

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:34 GMT

IDL Generation Issue - factory operation parameters for multivalued attrib

  • Key: MOF14-93
  • Legacy Issue Number: 785
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Multivalued, read-only attributes can never be given more than a single value

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Tue, 2 Dec 1997 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved and closed

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:34 GMT

Typos in MOF 1.1 document (3)

  • Key: MOF14-96
  • Legacy Issue Number: 788
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Figure 3-8: in Parameter DirectionKind should be DirectionType

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Wed, 26 Nov 1997 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    close - already implemented

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:34 GMT

Typos in MOF 1.1 document (2)

  • Key: MOF14-95
  • Legacy Issue Number: 787
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Figure 3-8: in Constraint EvaluationKind should be EvaluationType

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Wed, 26 Nov 1997 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    close, already implemented

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:34 GMT

External Types as DataTypes Limits Modeling

  • Key: MOF14-92
  • Legacy Issue Number: 784
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: Because typedefs and external types are represented as instances of DataType, it is not possible to inherit from, or define an association with, an external type, such as CORBA::InterfaceDef

  • Reported: MOF 1.2 — Wed, 3 Dec 1997 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 1.3
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed, to be implemented

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 21:34 GMT

Rule 1 references 2:ContentElements which is undefined

  • Key: MOF24-44
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15609
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: agnos.ai UK Ltd ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    This is intended to represent arbitrary XML elements which might be unrelated to XMI.

  • Reported: XMI 2.4 — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — MOF 2.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    Use a comment rather than a numbered clause

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Rule 4i in 5.2 has the following with only 2 options

  • Key: MOF24-43
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15454
  • Status: closed   </