In the ODMG Object Model, literal types include atomic, collection, and structured forms. Does the statement “the model does not support atomic literals, collection literals, and structured literals” apply?

Introduction / Context:
Literal types in ODMG provide building blocks for attribute values and for composing richer types. Understanding what the standard supports is key to modeling domains accurately without resorting to ad hoc encodings.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Atomic literals: fundamental scalar types (e.g., integer, boolean, string).
• Collection literals: sets, bags, lists, arrays that contain elements of a given type.
• Structured literals: records/structures that bundle named fields.

Concept / Approach:
ODMG recognizes all three forms. Attributes in ODL are literal-valued and may use atomic, collection, or structured literals, enabling expressive schemas that remain strongly typed. Relationships address object-to-object links; attributes store literal values.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Choose atomic literals for simple values (e.g., age: integer).Use collection literals to represent multi-valued attributes (e.g., phoneNumbers: set).Define structured literals for grouped fields (e.g., Money {amount, currency}).Assign attributes these types in ODL declarations.Leverage type checking to prevent invalid assignments.

Verification / Alternative check:
Review ODL type sections: each category of literal type is defined with syntax and semantics; many examples illustrate their use in attributes.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Claiming lack of support (option b) contradicts the model. Legacy-only, transient-only, or vendor-extension caveats (options c–e) are red herrings.

Common Pitfalls:
Using strings to encode structured data instead of true structured literals; forgetting cardinality constraints when choosing a collection type; confusing relationship multiplicity with collection-valued attributes.

Final Answer:
Does not apply — ODMG explicitly supports atomic, collection, and structured literal types