Talk:Meta-Object Facility

message: ===Unresolved issues===
* SPEM
* powertype
* ISO/IEC 24744
===QVT and model transformation languages===
Removed following section from article (see new tentative 'spoiler' on QVT) -- since it's to broad on transformation languages, less specific on QVT (as part of MOF 2.0).
 A very important new standard is QVT. This allows to transform any MOF-based model into another MOF-based model. 
 Furthermore, the transformation program itself is considered as another MOF-based model. Current examples of 
 Model Transformation Languages (MTLs) are VIATRA, Tefcat, GReAT, AndroMDA, or ATL. 
Furthermore, it's Tefkat, not Tefcat. (fbahr. July 26, 2006.)
==== strange deletion ====
I do not agree with the previous removal made by fbahr above. This removal seems very badly motivated. The fact that QVT allows transformation based on MOF-models is an important and clarifying information.  It gives more scope and understandibility to the article. I suggest to revert this action of fbahr. Furthermore the last remark made by fbahr about a spelling mistake (Tefkat, not Tefcat) makes me suspicious about all this. Why not simply correcting the mistake on simple Wikipedia ~practices? Strange. Myguest 19:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposals for addition, requests for completion

message: Removed following section from article (see new tentative 'spoiler' on QVT) -- since it's to broad on transformation languages, less specific on QVT (as part of MOF 2.0).
 A very important new standard is QVT. This allows to transform any MOF-based model into another MOF-based model. 
 Furthermore, the transformation program itself is considered as another MOF-based model. Current examples of 
 Model Transformation Languages (MTLs) are VIATRA, Tefcat, GReAT, AndroMDA, or ATL. 
Furthermore, it's Tefkat, not Tefcat. (fbahr. July 26, 2006.)
==== strange deletion ====
I do not agree with the previous removal made by fbahr above. This removal seems very badly motivated. The fact that QVT allows transformation based on MOF-models is an important and clarifying information.  It gives more scope and understandibility to the article. I suggest to revert this action of fbahr. Furthermore the last remark made by fbahr about a spelling mistake (Tefkat, not Tefcat) makes me suspicious about all this. Why not simply correcting the mistake on simple Wikipedia ~practices? Strange. Myguest 19:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: QVT and model transformation languages

message: I do not agree with the previous removal made by fbahr above. This removal seems very badly motivated. The fact that QVT allows transformation based on MOF-models is an important and clarifying information.  It gives more scope and understandibility to the article. I suggest to revert this action of fbahr. Furthermore the last remark made by fbahr about a spelling mistake (Tefkat, not Tefcat) makes me suspicious about all this. Why not simply correcting the mistake on simple Wikipedia ~practices? Strange. Myguest 19:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  strange deletion 

message: This article is badly missing the classical picture of the three-level OMG stack.
Who could provide one?
:Three-level? ... As far as I did understand, OMG concerns 4 levels (3 "modeling levels" + 1 "real-world level"). Due to critics on the instance_of notion reg. two staged levels (leading to a more generic, (in my words) less concrete conforms_to notion; cf. J. Bézivin from Univ. de Nantes) found in many academic publications on the theme of metamodeling, OMG seems to restrict itself on the class/instance relation of two consecutive levels from the modeling space. You do think in 3 levels as below? [June 29, 2006]
 M3: MOF          -- the meta-metamodel
 M2: MOF model    -- a metamodel, such as the UML metamodel
 M1: "user model" -- a metamodel instance
 
Looking Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core Specification Version 2.0 (Chapter 7.2: How Many "Meta Layers") I have got the feeling that this three / four level modeling stack is not considered relevant any more.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.232.65.109 (talk) 11:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: OMG's three level modeling stack

message: What is a closed metamodeling architecture? MDE 20:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Closed metamodeling architecture

message: From the authoritative MOF 2.0 definition, 
*The CMOF Model is the metamodel used to specify other metamodels such as UML2. It is built from EMOF and the Core::Constructs of UML 2.
*EMOF, like all metamodels in the MOF 2 and UML 2 family, is described as a CMOF model. However, full support of EMOF requires it to be specified in itself, removing any package merge and redefinitions that may have been specified in the CMOF model. This chapter provides the CMOF model of EMOF, and the complete, merged EMOF model.
So CMOF is built from EMOF - which itself is described as a CMOF model. Is this possible from a mathematical/logical perspective?
--Abdull (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  EMOF vs. CMOF 

message: This page misses to describe itself.
I hit the page via google and the first lines are simply a sequel of acronimous. This page misses to describe what the title is.
Sorry: what the title wanna be.
I would expect that the firsts lines are describing at least the field of application. I am exploring a new field, this is
simply confusing.
From the firsts lines I would not guess if it is a software model, a social model, marketing or an economical concept.
What is MOF? The second paragraph is not any better.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.172.104 (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing subject 

message: The article says:
:As of May 2006, the OMG has defined two variants of MOF: ⚫ EMOF for Essential MOF ⚫ CMOF for Complete MOF
However, I can't find anything like this on the OMG's site. I've added “Reference needed” to both in the article. --Hibou57 (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The OMG's site is a bit difficult to find things on, and there are a number of standards that have MOF or Meta-object in their name to make things more confusing. However, I have added the citation to the current MOF Core standard. EMOF is the minimal implementation you need to do to be "MOF complaint". CMOF is the second conformance point which has greater functionality. There are whole chapters devoted to each in the citation I have added. The two conformance points arose because various groups within OMG could not agree, some wanted a "lean and mean" MOF, others wanted a powerful tool with a more complex implementation. The two conformance points reflect each of those points of view. Kerry (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great Kerry, thanks. Just later, I myself landed into a PDF slide mentioning EMOF and CMOF. The reference you added is better than that slide. --Hibou57 (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  EMOF and CMOF: does that really exist? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Meta-Object Facility. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050105221436/http://www.irit.fr/~Ralph.Sobek/neptune/mof_2_0.shtml to http://www.irit.fr/~Ralph.Sobek/neptune/mof_2_0.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)