OMG Certification OMG-OCUP2-ADV300 OMG Study Notes

In UML, modeling individual things (such as instances) involves making statements about them. Here are the details for each option:

• A. A UML Model can contain individual things (e.g. Instances) UML does not prescribe the level of detail to be used in the description.
• B. A UML Model can contain statements about individual things If a thing is an instance of a Classifier, these statements must be consistent (all mandatory Properties must be defined, all Constraints must be satisfied).
• C. A UML Model can contain statements about individual things These statements can be incomplete, imprecise, and abstract, but not wrong.
• D. A UML Model can contain statements about individual things. These statements can be incomplete, imprecise, abstract, may turn out to be wrong, or even be asserted as counterfactual.
• E. A UML Model can only contain statements about sets of individual things (e.g. Classifiers).

References:

• UML 2.5.1 Specification

Remember that UML is a modeling language, and its primary purpose is to capture and communicate information about systems and their components. The level of detail, precision, and correctness can vary based on the modeling context and the specific use case. Therefore, option D best reflects the UML approach to modeling individual things.

Please note that the information provided here is based on UML 2.5.1, and it’s essential to consult the official UML specification for the most accurate and up-to-date details.

The scope of fUML (Foundational UML) is to define execution semantics for a subset of the UML 2 metamodel that provides a shared foundation for higher-level UML modeling concepts. This includes the precise definition of the execution semantics of that subset, which is intended to be used by a wide range of system types, including physically distributed and concurrent systems without assumptions about global synchronization1.

A MOF (Meta Object Facility) 2.x Model is not always a valid UML (Unified Modeling Language) 2.x Model. The MOF 2.x and UML 2.x serve different purposes and have different scopes of application. While UML is a general-purpose modeling language used to define software systems, MOF is a language for defining metamodels, which can include UML itself1.

The MOF 2.x specification provides the basis for metamodel definition in OMG’s (Object Management Group’s) family of modeling languages, which includes UML. However, it is based on a simplification of UML 2’s class modeling capabilities1. MOF is designed to be simpler, directly implementable, and provides a set of CORBA interfaces for manipulating meta objects2. In contrast, UML is used as a general-purpose modeling language with potentially many implementation targets2.

Therefore, a MOF 2.x Model can be a valid UML 2.x Model when certain limitations are observed, such as adhering to the simplified class modeling capabilities that MOF is based on. This means that while a MOF model can resemble a UML model in terms of visual representation, it is fundamentally a MOF model, and its validity as a UML model depends on the extent to which it conforms to the UML specifications

In the MOF class hierarchy, the class ‘Element’ sits at the top. It is the superclass of all classes defined in MOF and is an implicit superclass of all metaclasses defined using MOF1. This superclass relationship to ‘Element’ does not need to be explicitly declared in the metamodels.