Free OMG OMG-OCUP2-ADV300 Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 3

In UML, a simple State can indeed be redefined, but the specifics of how it is redefined matter:

• Ais incorrect as redefinition of States, including simple States, is permitted.
• Bis correct. A simple State can be effectively removed or altered through redefinition in a derived StateMachine, which could include changing its type or characteristics.
• Csuggests that a simple State can be turned into a composite State. While theoretically possible in the context of redefinition, this option might be considered a significant alteration that could be misleading without additional context.
• Dis incorrect; UML does support State Redefinition.

References:

• UML Specification, particularly the sections on Redefinition and StateMachines.
• Detailed rules on state redefinition are outlined in the UML 2.5 Documentation, specifically under StateMachine specializations.

In the diagram, "mycarVehicle" represents a class that likely encapsulates the concept of a vehicle within the system being modeled. The elements within "mycarVehicle" are properties that represent different parts of the car. The term "wheels" is not explicitly shown in the diagram, but based on UML conventions and the context provided, it would be a property of the Vehicle class. This property would likely be associated with the "frontleft" and "frontrightwheels" parts of the car. In UML, properties represent structural features of a class that hold data values or references to other objects. The correctness of this answer is consistent with the principles found in the UML 2.x Superstructure Specification regarding the structural features of classes.

In the sequence diagram 'GO', the event 'h receives x' is depicted before 'k sends q', as indicated by the solid arrow from 'g' to 'h' labeled 'x' and the dashed arrow from 'k' labeled 'q'. Since messages are processed in the order they are depicted from top to bottom, 'h' must receive 'x' before 'k' can send 'q'.

The other options (B, C, and D) cannot be determined to be always true based on the information provided in the diagram alone. Especially with asynchronous messages, the send event may occur before the corresponding receive event, and the diagram does not contain sufficient information about timing constraints or message processing durations to ascertain the exact ordering of these events.

References include:

• UML 2.5 Specification (formal/2017-12-05), specifically the sections regarding message sends and receives, lifelines, and the semantics of sequence diagrams.
• Introduction to UML 2 Sequence Diagrams by Scott W. Ambler, which provides insights into the interpretation of sequence diagrams and the flow of messages.

The UML model fragment that best supports the project's requirements for collection class design is one that allows the fixed length of the collections to be specified but also permits flexibility for collections longer than 25 elements. In Option C, theClarusCollectionclass is shown as a template class with a template parameterSizeset to a default of 25. However, the dashed lines and the separate box forTypeandSizeindicate that while there is a default value, it can be overridden. This means that theSizecan be parameterized, thus allowing the creation ofClarusCollectioninstances with different fixed lengths, not just 25. This design will enable most collections to be created with the default size of 25, but also allows for creating collections with sizes greater than 25, providing the flexibility required by the project's requirements. This adheres to the UML 2.x specification on templates and parameterization.

The correct representation of a binding of the template operationaddElement<E>withEbeing bound to the typeCardisaddElement (e : Card). This notation means that the template parameterEis being replaced by the concrete typeCard, thus instantiating the template operation with that specific type. In UML, this instantiation does not require the«bind»keyword or the template brackets<>around the type in the operation signature itself; it is simply represented by using the concrete type as the type of the parameter in the operation. Thisusage is consistent with the UML 2.x Superstructure Specification, which explains how operations of a template classifier are instantiated when template parameters are bound to actual types.

The Model-Driven Architecture (MDA) approach is a design methodology that covers the entire software development lifecycle, from requirements to technology implementation. It emphasizes the use of models as the primary artifacts in the development process, allowing for a more abstract and high-level approach to software design. MDA supports the transformation of models from platform-independent models (PIMs) to platform-specific models (PSMs) and ultimately to code, ensuring that the initial requirements are accurately reflected in the final technology implementation.

MDA is not limited to Meta Data Aspects (A) or Design and Architectural Models (B) alone, nor is it primarily about deriving models from Artificial Intelligence Systems (D). Instead, it provides a comprehensive framework that facilitates the creation of software systems by bridging the gap between business requirements and technology solutions.

References:

• An MDA Approach Based on UML and ODM Standards to Support Big Data Analytics1
• Improving Automatic UML2 Profile Generation for MDA Industrial Development2
• Applying 4+1 View Architecture with UML 2

In UML, the keyword «isSubstitutable» is used to indicate that instances of one classifier may be used in place of instances of another classifier. This concept is commonly applied in the context of generalization, where a subclass can be substituted for its superclass. The substitutability is a fundamental principle of object-oriented design, particularly in the Liskov Substitution Principle, which states that objects of a superclass should be replaceable with objects of a subclass without affecting the correctness of the program. This principle is reflected in UML's support for polymorphism, which is implicit in the generalization relationships between classifiers.