[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
[gmt-dev] incorporating MOF v1.4 into GME
|
Interesting news on GME.
Thoughts?
Think it would be good to get a tentative schedule for the delivery of this
work from the GME team.
Jorn
Jorn Bettin
jorn.bettin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.softmetaware.com
Tel +64 9 372 3073 | Mobile +64 27 448 3507 | Fax +64 9 372 3534
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew J. Emerson" <mjemerson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "gme-users" <gme-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 4:24 AM
Subject: RE: [gme-users] GME meta-metamodel
> With all of this world-wide interest in MOF, I'm sure all of you
> Nashville will be coming to my pizza lecture tomorrow, right? Right? :)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Gray [mailto:gray@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 11:25 AM
> To: gme-users
> Subject: RE: [gme-users] GME meta-metamodel
>
>
> Hi Matt-
>
> Thanks for writing about your MOF-based work. Please write to the
> users list whenever you have updates - it would be good to track your
> work.
>
> BTW: I just got dinged on a UML submission by a reviewer who was very
> much a MOF-fan and wanted to know why it was not fully supported in GME.
> I think the reviewer's comments were a bit too focused on MOF (the topic
> of the paper had nothing to do with this), but it is good to be able to
> head-off such comments by pointing out things that you identify below.
>
> Thanks
>
> Jeff
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Jeff Gray, Ph.D.
> Department of Computer and Information Sciences
> University of Alabama at Birmingham
> gray@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.gray-area.org
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gme-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:gme-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Matthew
> J. Emerson
> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 11:08 AM
> To: gme-users
> Subject: RE: [gme-users] GME meta-metamodel
>
> Hello Olivier.
>
> Currently I'm working toward incorporating MOF v1.4 into GME. There is
> a link on the GME Contributions page on the ISIS website where my work
> is available, but it seems that it hasn't been updated with my most
> current work. I'll send you all my most current stuff in a separate
> email so that you can play with it.
>
> I'll attempt to answer your question too, although others know better
> than I. I think that the adoption of GME's UML/OCL meta-metamodel
> predates the adoption of MOF as the OMG's standard meta-metamodel.
> Also, although MOF offers some advantages over our UML/OCL
> meta-metamodel, it's also lacking some features that we feel are
> important for defining domain-specific modeling languages, such as
> stateful Associations, facilities for multi-aspect modeling, and a
> standard way to specify the concrete syntax of models.
>
> --Matt Emerson
> mjemerson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Olivier.Brunner@xxxxxxx [mailto:Olivier.Brunner@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 4:11 AM
> To: gme-users
> Subject: [gme-users] GME meta-metamodel
>
> Hi !
>
> I'm a french student and GME user. I'd like to know why GME's
> meta-metamodel is
> based on UML class diagram and FCOs. It could be based on MOF. The
> papers and
> overviews of GME don't explain this choice.
> Sincerely, Olivier.
> _______________________________________________
> gme-users mailing list
> gme-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://list.isis.vanderbilt.edu/mailman/listinfo/gme-users
> _______________________________________________
> gme-users mailing list
> gme-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://list.isis.vanderbilt.edu/mailman/listinfo/gme-users
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gme-users mailing list
> gme-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://list.isis.vanderbilt.edu/mailman/listinfo/gme-users
> _______________________________________________
> gme-users mailing list
> gme-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://list.isis.vanderbilt.edu/mailman/listinfo/gme-users
>