OMG-OCUP2-ADV300 Exam Dumps - OMG Certification Questions and Answers

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.

StateMachine Redefinition in UML allows for the specialization of a StateMachine by a derived Classifier. This is crucial as it ties into the broader capability of UML to specialize behaviors and classifiers:

• Ais incorrect; UML does discuss StateMachine Redefinition.
• Bdescribes one aspect of redefinition but is too narrow as it omits that redefinition can also redefine transitions and internal behaviors, not just states or events.
• Cdescribes more of an error correction or revision process, which is not specifically what StateMachine Redefinition is about.
• Dcaptures the essence of StateMachine Redefinition, emphasizing that it is a necessary extension of UML's capabilities to allow for specialization and refinement of classifiers and their behaviors.

References:

• UML Specification, Section on StateMachines
• StateMachine Redefinition is further elaborated in UML 2.5 Documentation under the Behavior StateMachines sections.

The reason for fUML to be compact is to facilitate the definition of clear semantics. A smaller, more focused subset of UML allows for a more precise and unambiguous specification of the execution semantics. This clarity is essential for ensuring that models are executed consistently and as intended across different tools and platforms2. The compact nature of fUML helps inachieving this goal by limiting the scope to the essential elements necessary for execution, thereby reducing complexity and potential for misinterpretation.

The approach described in option B aligns with the concept of template classifiers in UML, which allows for the creation of parameterized elements that can be instantiated with different arguments. By modelingVehicleas a template classifier with a parameter namedThrustor, other modelers can instantiate this template with their chosen propulsion system, as long as it is a type that specializes thePropulsionSystemabstract class. This method provides the flexibility needed for modelers to tailor theVehicleclass to different propulsion systems while enforcing that only derivatives ofPropulsionSystemcan be used as the actual parameter forThrustor. This tactic of using template classifiers and class parameters is an application of UML's syntax and semantics for creating modular and customizable models. This practice is detailed in the UML 2.x Superstructure Specification, particularly in the sections describing template classifiers and their parameters.

The difference between ValueSpecificationAction and CreateObjectAction in UML is fundamental to the kinds of results they produce:

• A.Incorrect, as there is a fundamental difference between the outputs of these two actions.
• B.Correct. A ValueSpecificationAction evaluates to a value but does not produce instances of Classifiers, whereas a CreateObjectAction is specifically designed to instantiate classifiers.
• C.Incorrect, because it reverses the capabilities of the two actions.
• D.Also incorrect, because it provides the wrong association of features with actions.

References:

• UML Specification: Action section, where both ValueSpecificationAction and CreateObjectAction are defined.
• Further clarifications on these actions are provided in the UML 2.5 Documentation, especially in parts discussing Actions and Activities.

Protocol Conformance in UML is a relationship between protocol state machines that ensures consistency in behavior inheritance:

• A.Incorrect as it describes a general-to-inherited relationship, which is not the focus of protocol conformance.
• B.Incorrect, as it describes a relationship the wrong way around (general to nested).
• C.Correct. Protocol Conformance ensures that a specific Protocol State Machine conforms to the rules and constraints specified by a redefined, more general Protocol State Machine.
• D.Incorrect, because it generally describes conformance but does not specifically focus on the relationship between specific and general state machines in the context of protocols.

References:

• UML Specification: Protocol State Machines section.
• Specifics of protocol conformance are detailed under state machine and classifier behaviors in the UML 2.5 Documentation.

The execution semantics of Alf (Action Language for Foundational UML) are defined by mapping the concrete syntax of Alf to the abstract syntax of fUML3. Alf provides a textual surface representation for a subset of UML model elements, and its main benefit is an execution semantics that allows for the generation of executable code out of Alf specifications4. This mapping ensures that Alf can be used to specify behavior in a way that is directly executable in the context of an fUML model.

"QueryCustomerFromParcel" is annotated with the «transformation» stereotype, which indicates that it is a behavior element that specifies how to convert input objects into output objects. Therefore, the answer is D, a Behavior element, for example, an Activity, State Machine, or OpaqueBehavior. In UML, the «transformation» stereotype is applied to specify that an action or activity is responsible for transforming an input (in this case, "Parcel") into an output ("Customer"), typically by employing a specific behavior element.

References:

• UML 2.5 Specification: Section on Object Flows describes how transformations can be used within activity diagrams to turn inputs into outputs using behavior elements.

In UML, a specialized behavior that is an extension or modification of a more general behavior is typically shown using the generalization relationship. Option A correctly models this scenario by showing behavior B as a specialization of behavior A, which is indicated by the containment within the package and a nesting of B inside A without any stereotype on the relationship. This representation implies that B inherits the characteristics of A while potentially adding or overriding some aspects of it.

References:

• UML 2.5 Specification: Generalization is defined in the UML 2.5 Specification, where a more specific classifier may override the behaviors of a more general classifier.

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