Issue 11482: Section 8.6.43 (updm-ftf) Source: No Magic, Inc. (Mr. Andrius Strazdauskas, andriuss(at)nomagic.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: It will be hard to visualize SystemInterfaceImplementsNeedline because it is a dependency between relationships Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: September 18, 2007: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: Andrius Strazdauskas This is issue # 11482 Section 8.6.43 To: uPDM-ftf@omg.org Cc: selic@acm.org Subject: Re: Ballots 3 and 4 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 From: Fred Mervine Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:25:45 -0700 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM115/03/M/IBM(Release 8.0|August 02, 2007) at 01/15/2008 14:25:48 This doc contains the entries that Andrius noted with the discussion. The e-mail has just the discussion sections. ==================================================== Issue 11420: Extensions section should not be empty,ie section 8.2.2.1 (updm-ftf) I changed the proposed Resolution to add the estensions, but see discussion as to why I think we should vote NO. Bran, Pete - what is the correct convention here, or is there one? Discussion: Extensions section should not be empty I think this should be resolved as not an Issue because other UML documents do not include the extension if the stereotype specializes another stereotype. I changed the proposed Resolution to add the estensions, and I recommend we vote NO on this issue. Adding Extensions section to every element increases the readability of the spec. This is also easily done. I can do the changes, if needed. ============================================ Issue 11438: Section 8.3.24.3 (updm-ftf) OOPS - copy/paste error - the proposed solution should be to fix the diagrams and remove the association. =============================================================== Issue 11441: Section 8.4.8.3 (updm-ftf) I changed the proposed Resolution to remove the associations from the diagrams, but I think they should be kept. ANyone else have an opinion? Discussion: - Note an information flow has an association to the implementing connector that can be typed by an association, so a relationship to Needline or SysInterface would be redundant. . InformationExchange and DataExchange extend InfformationFlow. InformationFlow has an association . ReaalizingConnector. Given an InformationFlow, I can find the connectors that realize it. For an InformationExchange or DataExchange these connectors are constrained to be Needline or SystemInterface respectively. Connectors can be typed by Associations, so a connector that is a Needline should be typed by the corresponding Needline/Association that must exist between the two OperationalNodes that are the types of the parts connected by the Needline/Connector. Assuming that the modeler, or more desirably, the tooling, makes sure that these elements are correctly typed and related, one can start at an InformationExchnage and find the connectors and thus the Needlines along which the information flows. However, given a Needline (connector or association), one cannot necessarily fine the associated InformationFlows since the ..realizing.. assoociations are all one way, hence the need for the one way association between Needline/SystemInterface and the respective InformatijonExchange and DataExchange. (Same is true for DataExchange and SystemInterface). If UML metaproperties are reused, so diagram should be updated and associations removed. The uni-directional association still exists from Needline and SystemInterface to InformatonExchange and SystemInterface to DataExchange. The question here is should those uni-directional associations be shown on the InformationExchange and DataExchange. I think the associations should remain in the diagrams. =================================================== Issue 11482: Section 8.6.43 (updm-ftf) Discussion: - This may be a tooling issue. It is certainly implementable: - This is surely implementable in most of the tool, but that is not the point. The point is that it only can be visualized, if both Needline and System Interface are on the same diagram. Given that there will be many of those relations, the visualization is troublesome, since you will have to basically merge OV-2 and SV-1 in to single diagram, just to visualize it. - I don..t see how one could visualize the relationship if the aren..t both on the diagram. Does Andrius have some proposal to visualize this relationship when they aren..t both on the same diagram that we can vote on? If so we can make that the proposed solution, and vote on it. =================================================== Issue 11802. This is more of a question - why Asset was removed? I believe that it was used for depicting abstract entities. With removal of Asset, what is the proposed solution for doing something like OV-1? There is an issue to remove Asset and AssetMapping, and I thought we had voted on it in Ballot 1 or 2, but we haven't voted on it yet. I'll take this off this ballot and put them all together on another ballot. _______________________________ Fred Mervine Executive IT Architect Federal CTO Strategic Technology Team IBM Software Group Federal Phone: 707-468-8460 Cell: 707-367-1541 Andrius Strazdauskas 01/15/08 08:27 AM To uPDM-ftf cc Subject Ballots 3 and 4 Fred and all, I've reviewed the resolutions. Here are some comments. Ballot 4 is OK, with exception to the Issue 12019, are we sure that MOD thinks that this is not an issue? Ballot 3 comments: Issue 11420. Adding Extensions section to every element increases the readability of the spec. This is also easily done. I can do the changes, if needed. Issue 11438. So what is the purpose of Enterprise being a Package? Anyway, the diagram for the Enterprise should be updated. Issue 11441, Issue 11462. If UML metaproperties are reused, so diagram should be updated and associations removed. Issue 11482. This is surely implementable in most of the tool, but that is not the point. The point is that it only can be visualized, if both Needline and System Interface are on the same diagram. Give that there will be many of those relations, the visualization is troublesome, since you will have to basicall merge OV-2 and SV-1 in to single diagram, just to visualize it. Issue 11802. This is more of a question - why Asset was removed? I believe that it was used for depicting abstract entities. With removal of Asset, what is the proposed solution for doing something like OV-1? Everything else looks OK. Andrius -- -- Andrius Strazdauskas Product Research and Development Manager No Magic Lithuanian Development Center Savanoriu pr. 363, LT 49425 Kaunas Phone: +370 37 705889 Fax: +370 37 320670 E-mail: andriuss@nomagic.com WWW: http://www.magicdraw.com -- MagicDraw - Architecture Made Simple To: Fred Mervine Cc: uPDM-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: Ballots X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0.2 September 26, 2006 From: Ron C Williamson Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 15:20:25 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ES2-MSG03/SRV/Raytheon(Release 7.0.2FP1HF96 | March 1, 2007) at 01/15/2008 15:20:30, Serialize complete at 01/15/2008 15:20:30 Fred, A few comments/questions on the latest ballots. Ballot 4 1) 11428: Conform conflict between SysML and UPDM....I assume this is addressed by the change of referencing the SysML View/Viewpoint/Conform elements. However, the Resolution states this is not an issue....where is the View/Viewpoint change reflected in these ballots? In our telcon discussions, I believe we agreed on changing the L0 text to reference the SysML definitions for View/Viewpoint? 2) 11431: Same comment for the Requirement resolution...I was under the impression we were referencing the SysML spec's Requirements Package...where is this resolution reflected in these ballots? Same resolution as above...reference the SysML definitions in the L0 text? 3) 11482: The implications of the visualizatio of the mapping of SystemInterface to Needline are that as an end user I'd have to either include both in the same diagram (mixing logical and physical visually) or have the tool include a mapping table (with SystemInterfaces on one axis and Needlines on the other and select the dependency). Is that the implication here? 4) 11802: Does Asset correspond to the MODAF "PhysicalAsset"? Does UPDM L0 include an equivalent concept to "PhysicalAsset" such that removing Asset does not result in a null mapping to M3 for this concept? Ballot "5" 5) The ballot number appears to be off...we've completed three ballots and the current two should be #4 and #5...MS Word document heading references ballot 4 for both ballot documents and the zipped file names indicate ballot 4 and 3 resolutions. Unless you intend this to be just one ballot #4?? 6) I don't see any apparent problems with the recommended resolutions in this one...good to go. Cheers, Ron Ron C Williamson, Ph.D. Engineering Fellow NCS California Engineering FU / 675 / Y343 714.446.4932 (office) 714.331.9354 (cell) 714.446.3230 fax ron_c_williamson@raytheon.com Raytheon Certified Architect TOGAFTM Certified Fred Mervine 01/15/2008 05:19 AM To uPDM-ftf@omg.org cc Subject Ballots I posted the first 3 ballots and results on the team room. \I also posted 2 new draft ballots for comment and discussion. Some of the team can't access the team room so I am sending them out in a zip file with the extensions set to .piz so it gets by the zip filters on some mail sites. If you can't get into the team room, let me know. Francis and Pete had trouble, and I'm trying to fix that. _______________________________ Fred Mervine Executive IT Architect Federal CTO Strategic Technology Team IBM Software Group Federal Phone: 707-468-8460 Cell: 707-367-1541[attachment "Ballot4 - MaterielResolution.piz" deleted by Ron C Williamson/US/Raytheon] To: Ron C Williamson Cc: uPDM-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: Ballots X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 From: Fred Mervine Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 15:58:19 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM115/03/M/IBM(Release 8.0|August 02, 2007) at 01/15/2008 16:58:23, Serialize complete at 01/15/2008 16:58:23 1) 11428: Conform conflict between SysML and UPDM....I assume this is addressed by the change of referencing the SysML View/Viewpoint/Conform elements. However, the Resolution states this is not an issue....where is the View/Viewpoint change reflected in these ballots? In our telcon discussions, I believe we agreed on changing the L0 text to reference the SysML definitions for View/Viewpoint? 2) 11431: Same comment for the Requirement resolution...I was under the impression we were referencing the SysML spec's Requirements Package...where is this resolution reflected in these ballots? Same resolution as above...reference the SysML definitions in the L0 text? Andrius submitted these issues and later stated that they were not an issue. 3) 11482: The implications of the visualizatio of the mapping of SystemInterface to Needline are that as an end user I'd have to either include both in the same diagram (mixing logical and physical visually) or have the tool include a mapping table (with SystemInterfaces on one axis and Needlines on the other and select the dependency). Is that the implication here? The implications of the visualization of the mapping of SystemInterface to Needline are that as an end user I'd have to either include both in the same diagram (mixing logical and physical visually) or have the tool include a mapping table (with SystemInterfaces on one axis and Needlines on the other and select the dependency). Is that the implication here? The DoDAF requirement is t omodel the relationship of which Needline(s) is implemented by a SystemInterface . this is exactly what the point of the mapping is to relate the logical to the physical. The spec simply specifies the existence of the mapping, it is up to the tool vendors to implement it, including its visualization. What is the issue we are to vote on? 4) 11802: Does Asset correspond to the MODAF "PhysicalAsset"? Does UPDM L0 include an equivalent concept to "PhysicalAsset" such that removing Asset does not result in a null mapping to M3 for this concept? No, Asset does not correspond to PhysicalAsset. SystemsNode is the UPDM equivalent of MODAF PhysicalAsset. As far as I know, it doesn't correspond to anything in DoDAF either. And the MODAF people also entered an issue questioning Asset and AssetMapping. 5) The ballot number appears to be off...we've completed three ballots and the current two should be #4 and #5...MS Word document heading references ballot 4 for both ballot documents and the zipped file names indicate ballot 4 and 3 resolutions. Unless you intend this to be just one ballot #4?? I started out with Ballot 4, then realized that we called Ballot 3 as "Section 10". So I changed the numbering but not the titles. These are ballots 3 & 4. I'll fix the numbering before I make the final ballot. _______________________________ Fred Mervine Executive IT Architect Federal CTO Strategic Technology Team IBM Software Group Federal Phone: 707-468-8460 Cell: 707-367-1541 Ron C Williamson 01/15/08 03:20 PM To Fred Mervine/San Jose/IBM@IBMUS cc uPDM-ftf@omg.org Subject Re: Ballots Fred, A few comments/questions on the latest ballots. Ballot 4 1) 11428: Conform conflict between SysML and UPDM....I assume this is addressed by the change of referencing the SysML View/Viewpoint/Conform elements. However, the Resolution states this is not an issue....where is the View/Viewpoint change reflected in these ballots? In our telcon discussions, I believe we agreed on changing the L0 text to reference the SysML definitions for View/Viewpoint? 2) 11431: Same comment for the Requirement resolution...I was under the impression we were referencing the SysML spec's Requirements Package...where is this resolution reflected in these ballots? Same resolution as above...reference the SysML definitions in the L0 text? 3) 11482: The implications of the visualizatio of the mapping of SystemInterface to Needline are that as an end user I'd have to either include both in the same diagram (mixing logical and physical visually) or have the tool include a mapping table (with SystemInterfaces on one axis and Needlines on the other and select the dependency). Is that the implication here? Ballot "5" 5) The ballot number appears to be off...we've completed three ballots and the current two should be #4 and #5...MS Word document heading references ballot 4 for both ballot documents and the zipped file names indicate ballot 4 and 3 resolutions. Unless you intend this to be just one ballot #4?? 6) I don't see any apparent problems with the recommended resolutions in this one...good to go. Cheers, Ron Ron C Williamson, Ph.D. Engineering Fellow NCS California Engineering FU / 675 / Y343 714.446.4932 (office) 714.331.9354 (cell) 714.446.3230 fax ron_c_williamson@raytheon.com Raytheon Certified Architect TOGAFTM Certified Fred Mervine 01/15/2008 05:19 AM To uPDM-ftf@omg.org cc Subject Ballots I posted the first 3 ballots and results on the team room. \I also posted 2 new draft ballots for comment and discussion. Some of the team can't access the team room so I am sending them out in a zip file with the extensions set to .piz so it gets by the zip filters on some mail sites. If you can't get into the team room, let me know. Francis and Pete had trouble, and I'm trying to fix that. _______________________________ Fred Mervine Executive IT Architect Federal CTO Strategic Technology Team IBM Software Group Federal Phone: 707-468-8460 Cell: 707-367-1541[attachment "Ballot4 - MaterielResolution.piz" deleted by Ron C Williamson/US/Raytheon] It will be hard to visualize SystemInterfaceImplementsNeedline because it is a dependency between relationships