Issue 11395: Section: 8.3.13 Goal (updm-ftf) Source: International Business Machines (Mr. Fred Mervine, fred(at)mervine.us) Nature: Revision Severity: Significant Summary: We need an Objective stereotype associated with Goal. The Objective will include timeboxed and quantitative attributes. Since Mission is associated with Vision and vision with Goal, then we can follow the association to Objective to obtain the objectives of the mission. (BMM). Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: September 13, 2007: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== me: Fred Mervine Company: IBM mailFrom: fmervine@us.ibm.com Notification: Yes Specification: UML Profile for the Department of Defense Architecture Framework and the Ministry of Defence Architecture Framework Section: 8.3.13 Goal FormalNumber: dtc/2007-08-02 Version: Beta 1 RevisionDate: 08/02/07 Page: 39 Nature: Revision Severity: Significant HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.6) Gecko/20070725 Firefox/2.0.0.6 Description We need an Objective stereotype associated with Goal. The Objective will include timeboxed and quantitative attributes. Since Mission is associated with Vision and vision with Goal, then we can follow the association to Objective to obtain the objectives of the mission. (BMM). Subject: New issue Re-11395 Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 13:58:46 -0500 X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: New issue Re-11395 Thread-Index: Acf2LzAOnhRqqhAzQ1u+913ZMzmxLhQLMTkg From: "Dandashi, Fatma" To: "Juergen Boldt" , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Dec 2007 18:58:47.0467 (UTC) FILETIME=[0380CFB0:01C8465F] there is currently no relationship between vision and StrategicMission that I can find as issue below indicates. suggest in addition to adding objective (as indicated below), we need to add assoc between goal and objective, and between StrategicMission and objective, and remove link between goal and operational capability (see attached), and rename operationalcapability to requiredCapability. name is misleading. it indicates something already operational whereas defn clearly states this is a requirement (not yet realized). further, definition needs to be changed to NOT use the word Use Case as this is also misleading, and UML use cases cannot be used to model/describe what CANNOT be done (requirements usually do specify what needs to be done as well as what cannot be done) Best Regards, Fatma Dandashi, Ph.D. Lead Software Systems Engineer 703-983-7914 Mitre Working in the Public Interest This is issue # 11395 Name: Fred Mervine Company: IBM mailFrom: fmervine@us.ibm.com Notification: Yes Specification: UML Profile for the Department of Defense Architecture Framework and the Ministry of Defence Architecture Framework Section: 8.3.13 Goal FormalNumber: dtc/2007-08-02 Version: Beta 1 RevisionDate: 08/02/07 Page: 39 Nature: Revision Severity: Significant HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.6) Gecko/20070725 Firefox/2.0.0.6 Description We need an Objective stereotype associated with Goal. The Objective will include timeboxed and quantitative attributes. Since Mission is associated with Vision and vision with Goal, then we can follow the association to Objective to obtain the objectives of the mission. (BMM). Subject: RE: Corrected Vision.doc Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:04:27 -0800 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Corrected Vision.doc Thread-Index: AchcUIRr/KbeY0oMQcOktkbZEfdO1gALGVQgAATUq7A= From: "Pete Rivett" To: "Dandashi, Fatma" , "Fred Mervine" , (These comments are on the ballot as a whole as opposed to Fatma.s specific changes). My biggest issue with this area is that, while the structure is very similar to BMM, there are needless inconsistencies with respect to naming of associations and ends: the names in BMM seem a lot more meaningful and helpful. The merge of Issue 11973 does not address what seems to be the main complaint (.The fact that the parameters are only strings furthermore makes one question whether it can actually be used to describe something of architectural value... In particular having objective as a String parameter is at variance with issue 11395 which properly models Objective and links it with Goal as in BMM. Issues such as 11428 (where it is withdrawn by the submitter) and 12098 should have a disposition of .Closed no Change. rather than .Resolved.. 11438 is a bit confusing as to which issue is making the changes. 11373: the ballot should not rely on Word comments since eventually the document will be rendered in other formats. The comment should be moved into proper text. Though it.s not added by this issue (so would need a new issue I guess) I don.t see why Vision is singled out to have .effectiveDates. and not any other stereotype. Generally it seems to me that date effectivity is an orthogonal aspect to the whole profile that would be added by something like MOF versioning. Also the text says that the .enterprise owns the vision. but there is no composition. Not sure why this association is missing from the new diagram. There is inconsistency . there are two 1..* properties yet one is plural and the other not. 12099 The use of 1..* is dodgy . can you really not have a Vision without at least one Goal? What if you have not as far as formulating one? And does each Goal really have to directly relate to a Vision? This verges on imposing a methodology on the users of the profile. 11969 (and others): this should have a disposition of Deferred if it intended to deal with it in an RTF. Otherwise say it.s too large a change needing a new RFP and Close No Change. If structural changes are to be made it.s far better to do it in an FTF while the spec is still in Beta as compared to an RTF. 11395: why is timebox a String and not a TimeInterval (or similar) as used elsewhere? Pete PS I found the seemingly random ordering of the issues made it hard to follow all the cross references and merges. Why not use numeric order? From: Dandashi, Fatma [mailto:dandashi@mitre.org] Sent: 21 January 2008 23:24 To: Fred Mervine; uPDM-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: Corrected Vision.doc my votes on the vision ballot are attached. I did some editing to both the issue doc (using marked changes) and to the spreadsheet to explain my vote. working on the rest of the ballots Best Regards, Fatma Dandashi, Ph.D. Lead Software Systems Engineer 703-983-7914 Mitre Working in the Public Interest -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fred Mervine [mailto:fmervine@us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 12:01 PM To: uPDM-ftf@omg.org Subject: Corrected Vision.doc As I was falling asleep last night, I realized that I had left off the constraints for the GoalObjective and the OrganizationalResourceGoal stereotypes. They reflect the constraints on the end types in the diagram. Please replace the VisionBallot.doc that I sent out last night with this one. _______________________________ Fred Mervine Executive IT Architect Federal CTO Strategic Technology Team IBM Software Group Federal Phone: 707-468-8460 Cell: 707-367-1541