Issue 11636: View/Viewpoint should be imported from SysML, not redefined (updm-ftf) Source: No Magic, Inc. (Mr. Andrius Strazdauskas, andriuss(at)nomagic.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: View/Viewpoint should be imported from SysML, not redefined Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: October 30, 2007: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== s is issue # 11636 View/Viewpoint should be imported from SysML, not redefined ======================================================= Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:31:30 +0200 From: Andrius Strazdauskas User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) To: Fred Mervine Cc: Ron C Williamson , uPDM-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: Ballots Fred, Ron, comments below. -- 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 Fred Mervine wrote: 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. [Andrius] Indeed, name conflicts are not an issue. The issue still is how the Viewpoints and Requirement are included in the spec. There is still Issue 11636 that talks about it. However, it is marked as resolved , but I do not remember that there was a vote on it. Andrius 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]