OMG-OCUP2-ADV300 - OMG Certified UML Professional 2 (OCUP 2) - Advanced Level

To represent specific hardware environments in a deployment model, a modeler should create a UML profile that includes the necessary hardware stereotypes with applicable details. A profile allows the modeler to extend the standard UML metamodel to include domain-specific elements that can be applied to deployment models. These stereotypes can represent different types of hardware components and their attributes, which can then be used to model the physical aspects of the deployment environment. The creation and application of profiles are supported by the UML 2.x Superstructure Specification, which details how to tailor UML to particular domains or platforms using profiles.

A minimal reflexive metamodel is a metamodel that is expressed using itself, meaning it can be used to describe its own structure and semantics. This concept is akin to a self-describing system. In the domain of metamodeling, this allows for a consistent and coherent definition of the metamodel that is both the subject and the tool of its own description2. This reflexivity is a key property that enables the metamodel to be used in a variety of contexts, ensuring that it remains consistent with its own definitions.

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