as written in the posting, EA does not support OCL on the model level.
With our Oclarity/XMI Software you can write OCL constraints and verify their (static) correctness against a EA model that has been exported as XMI file.

Best regards,
Andreas

I worked through the relevant chapters of the UML 2 Certification Guide
http://www.amazon.com/UML-Certification-Guide-Fundamental-Intermediate/dp/0123735858/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1320702798&sr=8-1
which was quite sufficient.
The book clearly lists the required chapters for each certification level.
The specification contains much more details and is much harder to read than the book.

Good Luck!

Best regards,
Andreas

This month I am planning to take the OMG-OCUP-100 Fundamentals exam and wondering how it will be structured.

I have been going by the coverage map and using the UML Superstructure Specification, v2.3. Also I have been reading
UML 2 Certification Guide, which has some mock questions at the end.

My question to you is:

-How did you prepare?
-Is it necessary to know the entire notation (ex. what the Constraints, Association, Attributes, Generalizations and Semantics are for say Class)?
-Anything you studied that you didn’t find on the exam?

Anything additionally I should be aware of would be helpful.

Thank you
Darold Davis

Of course I know the diagram standard since ex colleagues of mine wrote it But even with eclipse UML2 becoming the de facto standard there’s still room for interpretations. I once had a discussion with UML2 experts about how to use stereotypes with eclipse UML2 and we ended up with two ways to use eclipse UML2. So even a de facto standard doesn’t solve everything! And I think not having compliance test suites at the time of finalization of the UML2 spec opened the door for having different standards, so that it’s no already too late to solve vendor lock-ins. So UML2 never will fulfill the promise to be an interchange standard format. But perhaps the OMG will come up with UML3 in twenty years?

Best Regards,
Matthias

thanks for taking the time to comment!
Indeed, the OMG failed to provide a compact and comprehensible specification and compliance test suite for a model interchange format. That would have improved the acceptance of UML quite a bit, I think.
As far as diagram interchange is concerned, there is a specification from the OMG (http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/formal/diagram.htm) but it has even less practical use than XMI.
Probably the UML2 project/formats will just become the de facto standard.

Best regards,
Andreas

I’ve worked almost 5 years for a uml tool vendor in Hamburg (that should give you a hint;-) and we also supported XMI as standard format. To be honest: I’ve never fully read the XMI spec since we used frameworks like netbeans MDR and later EMf to provide a XMI mapping for us. But I think the problem is the weak UML specification. As a uml tool vendor you have to “interpret” the UML spec, which – as you said – every vendor interprests differently. So even if every tool would use the same XMI version (yes, there are a lot of different versions), each vendor still use his own interpretation of the UML spec! Thus even then no exchange between tools would be possible. And even if everyone would use the same inpretation: What about the diagram information?
I think eclipse UML2 is becoming more and more important and will allow exchange of model information via XMI. The OMG is actually collaborating with the eclipse foundation to get feedback about their standards (they had an OMG eclipse symposium this may). But even with eclipse UML2 we still are missing a XMI standard for diagram information. eclipse uses GMF that is loosely based on the UML DI standard, but there is no offical mapping for UML. And I’m not really sure if this will ever appear…

Best regards,
Matthias