- From: Gerd Wagner <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>
- Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 19:40:36 +0100
- To: "'Chris Welty'" <cawelty@gmail.com>
- Cc: <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
> > Yes, it is. UML provides sophisticated ways of merging packages > > (similar to XMLS's possibilities with import and redefine). > > In several efforts I was involved in using UML, we ran into > *significant* problems with UMLs packaging. Several aspects > of the ODM > spec, for example, had to be redesigned to account for the > failures of the packaging mechanism. > > Most importantly, UML did not support the ability to add a > superclass to > a class in an imported package. So you can always extend classes > defined in an imported package by specialization, but you > cannot generalize. I don't think that this is a restriction of UML, but probably of the UML tool you have been using. Also, I don't quite see the point this would make against the use of MOF/UML: why would such a construction really be needed, and if it would, how would it be supported by the planned abstract syntax? -Gerd
Received on Friday, 1 December 2006 18:40:57 UTC