${taskforce.name} Avatar
  1. OMG Task Force

XMI RTF — All Issues

  • Key: XMI11
  • Issues Count: 8
Open Closed All
All Issues

Issues Descriptions

Examples are instances of non-MOF metamodels (medium)

  • Key: XMI11-101
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4602
  • Status: open  
  • Source: 88solutions ( Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    Example 3 in A.4 purports to show instances of the Department model defined
    in the previous example (it says that "Department is considered the
    metamodel for Chemistry"). However Department is not a MOF-compliant
    metamodel (it is a fairly basic UML model). So XMI just does not apply!

    Similarly the XMI Document Instance in Example 4 in A.5 shows instance data
    for the Mail model which again is not a MOF-compliant metamodel.

  • Reported: XMI 1.0 — Mon, 8 Oct 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 20:03 GMT

MOF and UML tagged value alignment.

  • Key: XMI11-100
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3835
  • Status: open  
  • Source: David Frankel Consulting ( David Frankel)
  • Summary:

    Question if both MOF and UML were defining the same tag values for initialValue. No change. This is a DTD initialValue which differs from UML's initial value.

  • Reported: XMI 1.0 — Wed, 13 Sep 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 20:03 GMT

MOF and UML DTDs

  • Key: XMI11-99
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4393
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Tim Grose)
  • Summary:

    I propose that the XMI RTF not regenerate UML and MOF DTDs, for the
    following reasons:

    1) UML 1.1 and MOF 1.1 are now out of date.
    2) Both the UML RTF and the MOF RTF are now creating their own DTDs, so it
    is not appropriate for the XMI RTF to continue to create them.

  • Reported: XMI 1.0 — Tue, 3 Jul 2001 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — XMI 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 19:58 GMT

Reference to ""restrictions"" is unclear."

  • Key: XMI11-98
  • Legacy Issue Number: 3828
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: David Frankel Consulting ( David Frankel)
  • Summary:

    The second and third paragraphs in 6.6.1 define exactly how to use Namespaces in XMI DTDs and serve as both the restriction and the solution. Accept. Clarify to indicate that the following text is the definition of the restriction.

  • Reported: XMI 1.0 — Wed, 13 Sep 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — XMI 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    Accept. Clarify to indicate that the following text is the definition of the restriction.

  • Updated: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 19:58 GMT

Multiple Inheritance hard to handle in XMI

  • Key: XMI11-94
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2854
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: THe background it is the use of XMI for interchange of warehouse
    information. The person prototyping
    the exchange is Brain Volpi so if you have follow on questions, please
    copy him since I am on vacation for the next two weeks.

    1. We are using UML to define the meta models and the created the DTD"s
    and document streams.

    • our model contains multiple inheritance which is hard to handle
      in XMI. Does anyone have any
      comments or suggestion on the mapping to XMI we should consider.
    • our model contains UML interface definitions which we have mapped
      into abstract classes
      any comments on a better way to do this?
    • UML has ordered associations and we are currently assuming the
      XMI stream will always be
      in the correct order. Is this valid?
  • Reported: XMI 1.0 — Fri, 20 Aug 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — XMI 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved in XMI 1.1 RTF

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

. XMI has specific rules for attribute ordering. Can this be relaxed?

  • Key: XMI11-97
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2857
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: 4. XMI has specific rules for attribute ordering. Can this be relaxed?

  • Reported: XMI 1.0 — Fri, 20 Aug 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — XMI 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved in XMI 1.1 RTF

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

Is it valid to use alternative DTD generation rules?

  • Key: XMI11-96
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2856
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: 3. XMI uses containment rules to drive the document generation process.
    Is it valid to use alternative
    DTD generation rules that allow for reference semantics where we can
    use bi-directional references
    instead of the single direction references you are limited to with
    containment. We need roles at both
    ends.

  • Reported: XMI 1.0 — Fri, 20 Aug 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — XMI 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved in XMI 1.1 RTF

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

How should null values be transmitted

  • Key: XMI11-95
  • Legacy Issue Number: 2855
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Summary: 2. How should null values be transmitted. Currently we don"t transmit
    them. This is really the issue of
    partial models versus null values that Steve raised in the original
    submission discussions.

  • Reported: XMI 1.0 — Fri, 20 Aug 1999 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — XMI 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    resolved in XMI 1.1 RTF

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT