Issue 11893: UPDM compliance level 1 (updm-ftf) Source: INCOSE (Mr. Sanford A. Friedenthal, safriedenthal(at)gmail.com) Nature: Enhancement Severity: Critical Summary: resolve how vision, requirements, and view/viewpoint are extended in the UPDM compliance level 1 (SysML) Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: December 26, 2007: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 26 Dec 2007 13:25:40 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Sanford Friedenthal Company: Lockheed Martin mailFrom: sanford.friedenthal@lmco.com Notification: Yes Specification: UPDM Section: 10 FormalNumber: dtc/07-08-02 ( Version: beta1 RevisionDate: 08/31/07 Page: 270 Nature: Enhancement Severity: Critical HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; InfoPath.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) Description resolve how vision, requirements, and view/viewpoint are extended in the UPDM compliance level 1 (SysML) To: Ron C Williamson Cc: updm-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: UPDM FTF: Compliance Level 1 (Section10) Ballot and Resolution X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 From: Fred Mervine Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:17:21 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM115/03/M/IBM(Release 8.0|August 02, 2007) at 02/20/2008 10:17:25, Serialize complete at 02/20/2008 10:17:25 In the text, table and diagram, the UPDM::Viewpoint is called UPDM::ArchitectureViewpoint. There is no such stereotype,ArchitectureViewpoint., in UPDM. Text: This solution explicitly maps the UPDM::Conform, UPDM::ArchitectureView and UPDM::ArchitectureViewpoint to the SysML defined stereotypes (with no change from SysML definitions). The UPDM::Requirement is explicitly included as being derived from the SysML definition for Requirement. Issue 11893: View/Viewpoint are included in Table 10-1 and Figure 10-2 referencing SysML Stereotypes directly. Apparent;ly, this statement means that a L1 implementation will use the SysML stereotypes for Viewpoint,.View, Conform and Reqirement. But one can't call those UPDM stereotypes, since that is not how UPDM defines those stereotypes. This is statement is contradicted by the diagram and the table that shows in L1 that UPDM::Viewpoint (although it is called by the name 'ArchitectureViewpoint') , UPDM::View, UPDM::Conform and UPDM::Requirement as being specializations of those corresponding SysML stereotypes. This implies an L1 implementation is using the UPDM stereotypes and inheriting the SysML properties - quite a bit different from what I read the statement above to mean - (with no change from SysML). This seems to be a pretty drastic re-design It is also inconsistent with the L1 Compliance requirements as set out in 2.1.2 2.1.2 Level 1: UPDM based on UML 2.1 and SysML 1 UPDM Compliance Level 1 will reference the UML4SysML subset and import the SysML profile. It further extends Compliance Level 0 with additional SysML extensions. Compliance Level 1 is based on UPDM Level 0 and SysML 1, (unrestricted mode). Any part of UML and SysML may be used. Level 1 UPDM includes Level 0 stereotype definitions. A subset of these definitions also specialize SysML stereotypes (see Section 10). A Level 1 compliant implementation must be able to import and export Level 0 UPDM models with 100% fidelity (i.e., no loss or transforms). A Level 1 compliant implementation must be able to import and export Level 1 UPDM models with 100% fidelity (i.e., no loss or transforms). The UML models from Level 0 will be preserved. The SysML models from Level 1 will be preserved. Note: Using SysML in restricted mode is not defined and may produce non-standard UPDM. See the supplementary documents for representations of the XMI for Level 0 and Level 1 models. An L1 user could simply use only the SysML stereotypes, and an implmentor not provide access to the UPDM stereotypes to create the UPDM stereotypes. However, importing a UPDM L0 model would still have to provide access to those elements. If the statement This solution explicitly maps the UPDM::Conform, UPDM::ArchitectureView and UPDM::ArchitectureViewpoint to the SysML defined stereotypes (with no change from SysML definitions). The UPDM::Requirement is explicitly included as being derived from the SysML definition for Requirement. is removed and the "ArchitectureViewpoint" misnomer corrected, these resolutions would be acceptable However, in its current form, given the re-design the inconsistancies with 2.1.2 misleading entries in the table and the diagram IBM has no choice but to veto the resolution to these issues. _______________________________ Fred Mervine Executive IT Architect Federal CTO Strategic Technology Team IBM Software Group Federal Phone: 707-468-8460 Cell: 707-816-6218 Ron C Williamson 02/19/08 05:07 PM To updm-ftf@omg.org cc Subject UPDM FTF: Compliance Level 1 (Section10) Ballot and Resolution All, I've attached the Ballot and Resolution document (MS Word Document) for our Compliance Level 1 Section 10 update. I believe according to Fred's ballot schedule the last ballot date is this coming Sunday Feb 24...so I assume that is the due date for this ballot also. I hope five days is enough time for the FTF to review the attached 18 page document and cast your votes by this Sunday. If not, please raise any issues via email or at this Thursday's FTF telcon. The attached Section 10 update was developed with the support of the L1 Section 10 working group including (Sandy Friedenthal (LMCO), Fatma Dandashi (Mitre), Andrius Strazdauskas (NoMagic), Fancis Thom (Artisan Software), Lou Varveris (Telelogic) and myself (for Raytheon) ) Key updates were included in Table 10-1 (L1 Extensions table), Figure 10-2 (L1 Extensions graphic) and the remaining usage example figures and introduction. I've scoured the section for any remaining typos...but if I missed any please point them out and I belive we can correct any minor typos on the final edit. 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 [attachment "Section10.Ballot.2.xls" deleted by Fred Mervine/San Jose/IBM] [attachment "Section 10 Ballot 2.Final.doc" deleted by Fred Mervine/San Jose/IBM] Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:38:14 +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: UPDM FTF: Compliance Level 1 (Section10) Ballot and Resolution Fred, comments inline (blue). -- 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: In the text, table and diagram, the UPDM::Viewpoint is called UPDM::ArchitectureViewpoint. There is no such stereotype,ArchitectureViewpoint., in UPDM. Indeed. This can be considered as typo. Text: This solution explicitly maps the UPDM::Conform, UPDM::ArchitectureView and UPDM::ArchitectureViewpoint to the SysML defined stereotypes (with no change from SysML definitions). The UPDM::Requirement is explicitly included as being derived from the SysML definition for Requirement. Issue 11893: View/Viewpoint are included in Table 10-1 and Figure 10-2 referencing SysML Stereotypes directly. Apparent;ly, this statement means that a L1 implementation will use the SysML stereotypes for Viewpoint,.View, Conform and Reqirement. I have an understanding, we are voting for the exact issue text. Not for its compliance with abstract. But one can't call those UPDM stereotypes, since that is not how UPDM defines those stereotypes. SysML is imported in UPMD in L1, so those stereotypes are UPDM stereotypes, at least they existing withing the UPDM namespace. This is statement is contradicted by the diagram and the table that shows in L1 that UPDM::Viewpoint (although it is called by the name 'ArchitectureViewpoint') , UPDM::View, UPDM::Conform and UPDM::Requirement as being specializations of those corresponding SysML stereotypes. This implies an L1 implementation is using the UPDM stereotypes and inheriting the SysML properties - quite a bit different from what I read the statement above to mean - (with no change from SysML). Again, this contradicts only abstract. The resolution text is solid. This seems to be a pretty drastic re-design Could you point out exactly what is redesign here. I don't see any. Originally, we have agreed, that certain UPDM stereotypes will specialize certain SysML stereotypes. So, no redesign. It is also inconsistent with the L1 Compliance requirements as set out in 2.1.2 2.1.2 Level 1: UPDM based on UML 2.1 and SysML 1 UPDM Compliance Level 1 will reference the UML4SysML subset and import the SysML profile. It further extends Compliance Level 0 with additional SysML extensions. Compliance Level 1 is based on UPDM Level 0 and SysML 1, (unrestricted mode). Any part of UML and SysML may be used. Level 1 UPDM includes Level 0 stereotype definitions. A subset of these definitions also specialize SysML stereotypes (see Section 10). A Level 1 compliant implementation must be able to import and export Level 0 UPDM models with 100% fidelity (i.e., no loss or transforms). A Level 1 compliant implementation must be able to import and export Level 1 UPDM models with 100% fidelity (i.e., no loss or transforms). The UML models from Level 0 will be preserved. The SysML models from Level 1 will be preserved. Note: Using SysML in restricted mode is not defined and may produce non-standard UPDM. See the supplementary documents for representations of the XMI for Level 0 and Level 1 models. Note: Using non-UPDM parts of UML (like plain UseCases) will create non-standard UPDM. Not an issue. An L1 user could simply use only the SysML stereotypes, and an implmentor not provide access to the UPDM stereotypes to create the UPDM stereotypes. However, importing a UPDM L0 model would still have to provide access to those elements. Sorry, I cannot understand this statement. If the statement This solution explicitly maps the UPDM::Conform, UPDM::ArchitectureView and UPDM::ArchitectureViewpoint to the SysML defined stereotypes (with no change from SysML definitions). The UPDM::Requirement is explicitly included as being derived from the SysML definition for Requirement. is removed and the "ArchitectureViewpoint" misnomer corrected, these resolutions would be acceptable This text is not part of the resolution, this is just abstract. ArchitectureViewpoint has to be fixed. Andrius However, in its current form, given the re-design the inconsistancies with 2.1.2 misleading entries in the table and the diagram IBM has no choice but to veto the resolution to these issues. _______________________________ Fred Mervine Executive IT Architect Federal CTO Strategic Technology Team IBM Software Group Federal Phone: 707-468-8460 Cell: 707-816-6218 Ron C Williamson 02/19/08 05:07 PM To updm-ftf@omg.org cc Subject UPDM FTF: Compliance Level 1 (Section10) Ballot and Resolution All, I've attached the Ballot and Resolution document (MS Word Document) for our Compliance Level 1 Section 10 update. I believe according to Fred's ballot schedule the last ballot date is this coming Sunday Feb 24...so I assume that is the due date for this ballot also. I hope five days is enough time for the FTF to review the attached 18 page document and cast your votes by this Sunday. If not, please raise any issues via email or at this Thursday's FTF telcon. The attached Section 10 update was developed with the support of the L1 Section 10 working group including (Sandy Friedenthal (LMCO), Fatma Dandashi (Mitre), Andrius Strazdauskas (NoMagic), Fancis Thom (Artisan Software), Lou Varveris (Telelogic) and myself (for Raytheon) ) Key updates were included in Table 10-1 (L1 Extensions table), Figure 10-2 (L1 Extensions graphic) and the remaining usage example figures and introduction. I've scoured the section for any remaining typos...but if I missed any please point them out and I belive we can correct any minor typos on the final edit. 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 [attachment "Section10.Ballot.2.xls" deleted by Fred Mervine/San Jose/IBM] [attachment "Section 10 Ballot 2.Final.doc" deleted by Fred Mervine/San Jose/IBM] To: Andrius Strazdauskas Cc: uPDM-ftf , Peter Bahrs Subject: Re: Ballot on section 10 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 From: Fred Mervine Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:06:24 -0700 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM115/03/M/IBM(Release 8.0|August 02, 2007) at 02/24/2008 19:02:59 I have 2 significant Issus with this solution, but I don't believe they are very difficult to resolve. Issue 11893: View/Viewpoint are included in Table 10-1 and Figure 10-2 referencing SysML Stereotypes directly. What does "referencing SysML Stereotypes directly" mean? The diagram and table represent Viewpoint, View and Conform the same way they do all of the others, but this statement seems to draw out these as if there is something meant that is different form all the others. If not, then why have this statement, if so, please explain what the difference is - i.e., what this statement means? Section 10.3 Section 10 is Normative, but this example in Section 10.3 cannot be Normative. It is drawn with a vendor specific tool. It uses stereotypes, or what appear to be stereotypes, that are not included in UPDM, and I don't think are part of SysML. Figure 10.4 <> Figure 10-5 <> Fig 10-6 <> Fig. 10-12 <>, <>, <> Fig 10-14 <> The following statement: 10.3.1 The following usage examples provide a graphical description of the intended usage of the L1 stereotype definitions. We can't put the phrase "intended usage" in an example. Move the Example to Annex A - section A8 and renumber the rest of the section. Then it doesn't matter if it is done with a vendor specific tool. Replace the first sentence of the overview - see suggestion below. A8 L1 Usage Examples A8.1 Overview The following examle illustrates some ways that L1 stereotypes can be combined with SysML. Custom stereotypes are used in several of the illustrations that are not part of UPDM. Attached is an edited version of the document. Please review, and if this is satisfactory, I will change my vote to yes. You could change the diagrams to NOT use the custome stereotypes and then get rid of the Custom stereotype... sentence. _______________________________ Fred Mervine Executive IT Architect Federal CTO Strategic Technology Team IBM Software Group Federal Phone: 707-468-8460 Cell: 707-816-6218 Andrius Strazdauskas 02/21/08 01:24 AM To uPDM-ftf cc Subject Ballot on section 10 All, I have updated Ballot 10. I've also fixed couple additional mistakes that were missed. Fred, please reconsider your vote and include this into the FTF report. I would also like to remind you, that you have updated ballots couple of times, after ballot was started, so I treat such update as common procedure. 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 Section 10 Ballot 2.Final-Andrius.doc