1. Monday, October 27, 2003 X-Change Technologies—Compliance proposal 1 Naming Proposal by X-Change Technologies

2. Monday, October 27, 2003 X-Change Technologies—Compliance proposal 2 Goals A naming scheme using a single namespace, for builders of generic model access and manipulation tools A single approved naming scheme that provides an identifier for each distinct element of the MOF, infrastructure, and superstructure metamodels (as does the current naming scheme)

3. Monday, October 27, 2003 X-Change Technologies—Compliance proposal 3 This proposal This proposal is for discussion and agreement in principle. It does not provide the full details that will be needed for the specification. These can be worked out once agreement is principle is reached.

4. Monday, October 27, 2003 X-Change Technologies—Compliance proposal 4 This proposal This proposal is concrete…

5. Monday, October 27, 2003 X-Change Technologies—Compliance proposal 5 Outline Goals org.omg.UML2, as proposed by IBM Unique names for every class, as in the final adopted specification More than one name for a MOF object The goals, met

6. Monday, October 27, 2003 X-Change Technologies—Compliance proposal 6 ODP::Namespace 2-12.3 Name space: A set of terms usable as names. www.joaquin.net/ODP/Part2/12.html

7. Monday, October 27, 2003 X-Change Technologies—Compliance proposal 7 UML2Names The set containing every model element name used in a UML package or model is an ODP::namespace. In particular, the set containing every model element name used in the UML 2 metamodel. Let’s call that set ‘UML2Names’: {‘Class’ ‘Property’ ‘Package’ ‘Action’ …}

8. Monday, October 27, 2003 X-Change Technologies—Compliance proposal 8 org.omg.UML2 Let’s have a package named, ‘org.omg.UML2’. In fact, if this is the IBM proposal, let’s have a lot of packages with that name. (This, our proposal, is silent on how to manage all those many packages.)

9. Monday, October 27, 2003 X-Change Technologies—Compliance proposal 9 Names in org.omg.UML2 Consider the package, org.omg.UML2 (the biggest such package, for the moment) Name each element in that package with the obvious name from the set, UML2Names The fully qualified name of an element in that package is ‘org.omg.UML2:: ’, where is the name of that element, from UML2Names.

10. Monday, October 27, 2003 X-Change Technologies—Compliance proposal 10 Them other packages And the same for all the smaller packages named, ‘org.omg.UML2’. Name the elements in these packages the same way.

11. Monday, October 27, 2003 X-Change Technologies—Compliance proposal 11 The first goal This meets the first goal: A naming scheme using a single namespace, for builders of generic model access and manipulation tools Whichever of the classes named ‘Class’ in the UML metamodel we provide, a tool can call this class, ‘org.omg.UML2::Class’ This avoids type casting in the tool.

12. Monday, October 27, 2003 X-Change Technologies—Compliance proposal 12 FineGrainPackage Consider any package from the current metamodels, say, Kernel::Class Name each element in that package with the obvious name from the set, UML2Names, just as it is now named. The fully qualified name of an element in that package is ‘Kernel::Class:: ’, where is the name of that element, from UML2Names

13. Monday, October 27, 2003 X-Change Technologies—Compliance proposal 13 First Class Namespace Enable the specification of more than one name for an element in a package, each name being an identifier. 2-12.2 Identifier: An unambiguous name, in a given naming context.

14. Monday, October 27, 2003 X-Change Technologies—Compliance proposal 14 ODP::Naming context 2-12.4 Naming context: A relation between a set of names and a set of [model elements]. The set of names belongs to a single name space. A package, for example, specifies a relation between a set of elements (those in the package) and a set of names (their names).

15. Monday, October 27, 2003 X-Change Technologies—Compliance proposal 15 The second goal This enables meeting the second goal: An identifier for each distinct element of the MOF, infrastructure and superstructure metamodels Whichever of the classes named ‘Class’ in the UML metamodel a tool is calling, ‘org.omg.UML2::Class’, we can call this class by a name that is an identifier.

16. Monday, October 27, 2003 X-Change Technologies—Compliance proposal 16 Whatever we call them We are not proposing today that UML conform to ODP concept names. Whatever we call the concepts, use these concepts (name, namespace, naming context, identifier) to permit the UML and MOF specifications to provide more than one identifier for each element of a metamodel.

17. Monday, October 27, 2003 X-Change Technologies—Compliance proposal 17 Both goals met Now, an element in a particular package can have two identifiers, each meeting one of the goals. Example: two names of the same class: ‘Kernel::Classes::Class’ ‘org.omg.UML2::Class’

18. Monday, October 27, 2003 X-Change Technologies—Compliance proposal 18 Yes: Both goals met Now, an element in a particular package can have two identifiers, each meeting one of the goals. Example: the same class, listed twice: Kernel::Classes::Class org.omg.UML2::Class unambiguosly, using identifiers

19. Monday, October 27, 2003 X-Change Technologies—Compliance proposal 19 Yes: Identifiers ‘org.omg.UML2::Class’ is an identifier. That’s because the tools we are talking about will handle only one of the many classes named, ‘Class’, at a time. The name is unambiguos in any given context: it names the Class the tool is currently handling

20. Monday, October 27, 2003 X-Change Technologies—Compliance proposal 20 Correction requested Is the following statement wrong? The tools we are talking about will handle only one of the many classes named, ‘Class’, at a time. If so, please correct us. And explain what it is we have mistaken. Thanks.

21. Monday, October 27, 2003 X-Change Technologies—Compliance proposal 21 Request In addition to the correction requested on the previous slide: X-Change Technologies requests: comments that improve this proposal or provide necessary additional detail, an alternate proposal that meets the same goals, or correction of our misstatement of the goals.