Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [mdt-sbvr.dev] A proposal for modeling Concepts andrelated aspects

Mark Linehan wrote:
> I forgot to list EPackages in the following list.   I think 
> the closest
> SBVR concept to EPackage is "body of shared concepts".  

How about set? 
What does an ePackage contain? 
We should preferably map to the concepts in the Meaning and Representation
Vocabulary.

Stan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mdt-sbvr.dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:mdt-sbvr.dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mark H Linehan
> Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 6:37 PM
> To: mdt-sbvr.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Fw: [mdt-sbvr.dev] A proposal for modeling Concepts 
> andrelated aspects
> 
> 
> I forgot to list EPackages in the following list.   I think 
> the closest
> SBVR concept to EPackage is "body of shared concepts".   An 
> EPackage does
> not contain individual concepts or rules, so is neither a "conceptual
> schema" nor a "body of shared meanings".
> --------------------------------
> Mark H. Linehan
> STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation
> IBM Research
> 
> phone: (914) 945-1038 or IBM tieline 862-1038
> internet: mlinehan@xxxxxxxxxx
> ----- Forwarded by Mark H Linehan/Watson/IBM on 05/24/2008 
> 09:22 PM -----
>                                                               
>              
>              Mark H                                           
>              
>              Linehan/Watson/IB                                
>              
>              M                                                
>           To 
>                                        SBVR developer list    
>              
>              05/23/2008 08:52          
> <mdt-sbvr.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>          
>              AM                                               
>           cc 
>                                                               
>              
>                                                               
>      Subject 
>                                        RE: [mdt-sbvr.dev] A 
> proposal for   
>                                        modeling Concepts and 
> related       
>                                        aspects(Document link: 
> Mark H.      
>                                        Linehan)               
>              
>                                                               
>              
>                                                               
>              
>                                                               
>              
>                                                               
>              
>                                                               
>              
>                                                               
>              
> 
> 
> 
> Dave,
> 
> We definitely need to do some experiments to understand the 
> ramifications
> of the approach that I proposed.  I have a summer intern 
> working with me
> for the next few months, and I will work with him to figure 
> out the answers
> to your questions and other questions.
> 
> I am proposing dynamically generating the following aspects 
> of SBVR using
> EClass:
> 
>       object types of type text or quantity as EAttributes of 
> type ESTRING
> or EINT
> 
>       characteristics -- as EAttribute of type EBOOLEAN
> 
>       other object types -- as EClass
> 
>       binary fact types -- as EReference or EList
> 
> I also want to look into implementing n-ary fact types and 
> objectifications
> as extensions of EReference / EList because that would fit 
> better with the
> above.  I propose that all other SBVR concepts would be 
> implemented in the
> "conventional" way.
> 
> The EMF book (2nd edition, section 14.3) says that "All 
> EObjects, whether
> generated, dynamic, or these generated/dynamic hybrids, 
> support exactly the
> same reflective APIs. So, they can be freely mixed and used with all
> reflection-based generic EMF utilities and frameworks, including the
> persistence framework, change recorders, the validation framework, and
> EMF.Edit. The persistence framework also supports dynamic EMF 
> directly by
> automatically demand-loading serialized models to provide 
> needed dynamic
> implementations for arbitrary instances. "
> 
> The text above is not clear (to me, at least) about whether "all
> reflection-based generic EMF utilities and frameworks" work 
> at both the
> modeling level and the instance level.  Since I am proposing 
> to represent
> an SBVR vocabulary with a combination of dynamically-generated and
> statically-generated EMF components, and the vocabulary needs both
> model-level and instance-level elements, I definitely need to 
> clarify these
> questions.   Part of that can be figuring out whether one can export a
> regular .ecore model file for dynamically-generated EMF components.
> 
> - --------------------------------
> Mark H. Linehan
> STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation
> IBM Research
> 
> phone: (914) 945-1038 or IBM tieline 862-1038
> internet: mlinehan@xxxxxxxxxx
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mdt-sbvr.dev mailing list
> mdt-sbvr.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mdt-sbvr.dev
> 



Back to the top