[
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
|
An EPackage contains:
- sub-EPackages. There is one top-level EPackage, and a tree of
sub-EPackages below it.
- EClassifiers: EClasses and EDataTypes
Each EPackage has a name, a URI, and a prefix. The package name need not
be unique, but the URI must be. The URI identifies the .ecore that models
the EPackage. The prefix is used as the XML namespace prefix in files that
store instances of EClassifiers that are in the EPackage.
Each EPackage is associated with an EFactory which can be used to create
EClassifiers of the EPackage.
The EClassifiers apparently should have unique names within an EPackage,
since there is a getEClassifier(String name)
A set doesn't seem to have the same semantics.
I agree that it would be best to avoid mixing the MRV concepts with those
from the other SBVR vocabularies. Maybe we could map EPackage to
"conceptual schema", but the match does not seem very good. How about
"vocabulary namespace"?
--------------------------------
Mark H. Linehan
STSM, Model Driven Business Transformation
IBM Research
phone: (914) 945-1038 or IBM tieline 862-1038
internet: mlinehan@xxxxxxxxxx
"Stan Hendryx"
<stan@hendryxasso
c.com> To
Sent by: "'SBVR developer list'"
mdt-sbvr.dev-boun <mdt-sbvr.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
ces@xxxxxxxxxxx cc
Subject
05/25/2008 03:14 RE: [mdt-sbvr.dev] A proposal for
AM modeling Concepts andrelated
aspects
Please respond to
SBVR developer
list
<mdt-sbvr.dev@ecl
ipse.org>
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
>
_______________________________________________
mdt-sbvr.dev mailing list
mdt-sbvr.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/mdt-sbvr.dev
