UML 2.0, Infrastructure and MOF

From: Boris (boris_at_gtemail.net)
Date: 12/26/03 

Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 02:21:09 +0100

Does anyone know the exact relationship between the UML 2.0 Superstructure,
the UML 2.0 Infrastructure and MOF? I wonder where the Infrastructure
belongs to as it isn't shown in the four-layer metamodel hierarchy.

As far as I can see the Infrastructure is a part of MOF which is reused and
specialised by the UML 2.0 Superstructure (in the Kernel package) to define
UML 2.0. Thus the Infrastructure is the magic core of MOF which contains
everything that is important to define a meta-model language (eg. UML, CWM,
whatever). Is this correct or is there a better explanation?

Boris

Relevant Pages

  • Re: UML 2.0, Infrastructure and MOF
    ... I wonder where the Infrastructure ... As I understand it the old UML definition as been split up ... MOF is still a meta model of meta models of meta models of ... ... defining it in the Infrastructure spec. ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: UML Composite Structure
    ... > of this construction other than the UML 2.0 documentation. ... In UML v2.0 there was an attempt to accommodate Component ... Engineering, as manifested in a number of layered model infrastructures, ... development with a specific infrastructure, ...
    (comp.object)
  • [OT] UML question / UML newsgroup
    ... newsgroup on UML but I did not find any. ... The question I have is about the relation between UML and MOF. ... when it was defined by its own metamodel (that is like MOF, ...
    (comp.lang.java.programmer)
  • Re: UML metamodel
    ... Not too many people here do a lot of UML modeling. ... (I'm pretty nebie on MOF and UML metamodels) ... other than the obvious advice to browse the OMG site. ...
    (comp.object)
  • UML metamodel
    ... (I'm pretty nebie on MOF and UML metamodels) ... I found the DTD for UML 1.1 but was looking for UML 2.0. ...
    (comp.object)