Discuss OMG OMG-OCUP2-ADV300 Exam Topic 5 Question 11

Choose the correct answer:

A modeler wants to develop a customization for a standard UML tool that provides the ability to specify CORBA physical Components.

Which approach should the modeler use?

ACreate a profile for the CORBA component technologies and apply it to the model.

BCreate a MOF metamodel for the CORBA component technology and add It to the UML metamodel.

CCreate CORBA component instances that can be used as Parts in a composite structure compartment.

DCreate a set of execution semantic definitions for the CORBA component assembly Connectors and apply them to the model.

Suggested Answer: C

In fUML (Foundational UML), an execution model must be modeled as an Activity.fUML is a subset of UML that includes the ability to model behavior using UML activities, which are composed of a rich set of primitive actions1.Activities in fUML represent the executable aspects of a model and define the flow of control and data2. They are the primary means for specifying the detailed procedural logic of the behavior of a system within fUML.

Get Premium OMG-OCUP2-ADV300 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF Real Exam Format Detailed Explanations Instant Access Get Your Practice Test

35 comments · newest first

Lyda 10 months ago

Wait, can you really just create instances like that? Sounds odd!

Stephane 11 months ago

D seems too complicated for this scenario.

Tien 11 months ago

C sounds interesting, but is it really the best choice?

Annabelle 11 months ago

I think B might be better for metamodeling.

Gianna 11 months ago

A is definitely the way to go for profiles!

Daryl 12 months ago

The execution semantic definitions for connectors seem important, but I’m unsure if that’s what the modeler should prioritize in this scenario.

Josphine 12 months ago

I feel like using CORBA component instances in a composite structure could be a practical solution, but I’m not confident it’s the main focus of the question.

Susana 12 months ago

I remember practicing with MOF metamodels, but I can't recall if adding it to the UML metamodel is the right move here.

Lilli 1 year ago

I think creating a profile for CORBA component technologies sounds familiar, but I'm not entirely sure if that's the best approach.

Rocco 1 year ago

I'm a little confused by the options. Creating a MOF metamodel or CORBA component instances seems like overkill for just adding CORBA support to a UML tool. I think the profile approach is the most straightforward solution here.

Zena 1 year ago

Okay, I've got this. The question is asking about the right way to add CORBA component support to a UML tool. Based on my understanding, creating a UML profile is the way to go here, since it allows you to extend the standard UML metamodel without modifying it directly.

Mignon 1 year ago

Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about this one. The question mentions creating a customization, but it's not clear exactly what that entails. I'll need to think through the different UML extension mechanisms to figure out the best approach.

Gregoria 1 year ago

This looks like a question about customizing a UML tool to work with CORBA components. I think the key is understanding the different ways to extend the UML metamodel to support new technologies.

Yuette 1 year ago

Okay, let's see. I know that oversampling can skew the prevalence of the target class, so that might impact some of the metrics. I'll need to consider which ones are directly affected by the class distribution.

Blair 1 year ago

The size of Tier 1 not being sufficient is a good possibility. I'll need to consider the workload characteristics and how the tiering is configured.

Tonette 1 year ago

I bet the modeler is wishing they had a 'create CORBA component with a single click' feature. That would really streamline the process.

Jenifer 1 year ago

↳ replying to Tonette

C) Create CORBA component instances that can be used as Parts in a composite structure compartment.

Yuki 1 year ago

↳ replying to Tonette

B) Create a MOF metamodel for the CORBA component technology and add it to the UML metamodel.

Hana 1 year ago

↳ replying to Tonette

A) Create a profile for the CORBA component technologies and apply it to the model.

Lenna 1 year ago

Option D is a bit too complex for my liking. Defining execution semantics for CORBA connectors? That's overkill, in my opinion.

Glenn 1 year ago

↳ replying to Lenna

C: Yeah, creating a profile for the CORBA component technologies sounds like a good idea.

Jettie 1 year ago

↳ replying to Lenna

B: I think option A might be a simpler and more practical approach.

Myra 1 year ago

↳ replying to Lenna

A: I agree, option D does seem like a lot of unnecessary work.

Micaela 1 year ago

Hold up, what about Option C? Creating CORBA component instances as parts in a composite structure? That's an interesting approach, definitely worth considering.

Zena 1 year ago

↳ replying to Micaela

User 4: User Comment: Hold up, what about Option C? Creating CORBA component instances as parts in a composite structure? That's an interesting approach, definitely worth considering.

Elli 1 year ago

↳ replying to Micaela

User 3: Option C) Create CORBA component instances that can be used as parts in a composite structure compartment.

Merissa 1 year ago

↳ replying to Micaela

User 2: Option B) Create a MOF metamodel for the CORBA component technology and add it to the UML metamodel.

Tuyet 1 year ago

↳ replying to Micaela

User 2: I agree, using CORBA component instances as parts in a composite structure could be a good solution.

Adrianna 1 year ago

↳ replying to Micaela

User 1: Option A) Create a profile for the CORBA component technologies and apply it to the model.

Howard 1 year ago

↳ replying to Micaela

User 1: Option C does sound like a viable approach.

Sherly 1 year ago

I'm not sure about that. Option B sounds more robust - creating a MOF metamodel and integrating it with the UML metamodel could provide a more comprehensive solution.

Davida 1 year ago

Option A seems like the obvious choice here. Creating a CORBA profile for the UML tool is the most straightforward way to extend the modeling capabilities.

Portia 2 years ago

Why do you think option B is better?

Val 2 years ago

I disagree, I believe option B is the correct approach.

Portia 2 years ago

I think the modeler should choose option A.

OMG-OCUP2-ADV300 Exam - Topic 5 Question 11 Discussion