Issue 12231: expressing requirements (marte-ftf) Source: Thematix Partners LLC (Mr. Lonnie VanZandt, lonniev(at)gmail.com) Nature: Enhancement Severity: Minor Summary: When expressing requirements that implementations of the MARTE Profile MUST satisfy, the specification SHALL use Requirements Engineering statements which are de facto best current practices. For example, the phrase in the fourth paragraph, of 16.3.1, reads: BEGINQUOTE An "SaEnd2EndFlow" will make reference implicitly to one ore [sic] more GQAM "GaWorkloadEvent" and to one "GaScenario" commonly by means of a containment relationship (owned elements) or allocation stereotypes. ENDQUOTE This is expressing a Business (or Domain) Rule (as expressed in Figure 16.3) which implementations of the Profile must enforce. However, the sentence is too passive and is not sufficiently imperative to communicate this requirement. The recommendation is to replace such ambiguous and passive phrasing with the de facto standard SHOULD, MUST, SHALL phrasing now employed in RFCs and in Requirements Specifications. For example, replace the wording above with: BEGINQUOTE Every implementation of the MARTE Profile SHALL enforce that each 'SaEndToEndFlow' MUST refer to one or more GQAM_Workload::WorkloadEvent(s) and MUST refer to one and one only GQAM_Workload::BehaviorScenario. These references SHALL be achieved directly via Composition or indirectly via the <<allocation>> association. ENDQUOTE While this issue is written specifically for the cited text, the recommendation SHOULD be applied throughout the entire specification whereever the specification is expressing how the Profile MUST be implemented. There is no need for this formalism in the sections of the specification that provide rationale and explanation--that is, within the Domain Modeling sections. The rationales for this formalism are: it greatly reduces ambiguity, profiles are more than collections of individual decorations, domain rules "cut across" sets of domain elements, and a subset of tools extant can enforce such domain rules if those rules are known, expressed, and consistent. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: February 15, 2008: received issue October 16, 2009: closed issue Discussion: Even if the resolution of this issue would be interesting for improving the clarity of the specification; it seems not possible to handle it in the context of the FTF. Indeed, it requires for going trough the whole text of the specification and to modify where appropriate the text. It will then not possible due to lack of time and the amount of work needed for doing that rewriting to deal with this issue here. We think that this issue should be introduced as a requirement in a future RFP for a new major version MARTE. For these reasons, we propose to close it with no change. Disposition: Closed, no change End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 15 Feb 2008 22:30:22 -0500 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Lonnie VanZandt Company: ARTiSAN Software mailFrom: lonnievz@artisansw.com Notification: Yes Specification: MARTE Section: 16 FormalNumber: ptc/07-08-04 Version: beta 1 RevisionDate: 08/04/07 Page: 294 Nature: Enhancement Severity: Minor HTTP User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; InfoPath.2; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 3.0.590) Description When expressing requirements that implementations of the MARTE Profile MUST satisfy, the specification SHALL use Requirements Engineering statements which are de facto best current practices. For example, the phrase in the fourth paragraph, of 16.3.1, reads: BEGINQUOTE An "SaEnd2EndFlow" will make reference implicitly to one ore [sic] more GQAM "GaWorkloadEvent" and to one "GaScenario" commonly by means of a containment relationship (owned elements) or allocation stereotypes. ENDQUOTE This is expressing a Business (or Domain) Rule (as expressed in Figure 16.3) which implementations of the Profile must enforce. However, the sentence is too passive and is not sufficiently imperative to communicate this requirement. The recommendation is to replace such ambiguous and passive phrasing with the de facto standard SHOULD, MUST, SHALL phrasing now employed in RFCs and in Requirements Specifications. For example, replace the wording above with: BEGINQUOTE Every implementation of the MARTE Profile SHALL enforce that each 'SaEndToEndFlow' MUST refer to one or more GQAM_Workload::WorkloadEvent(s) and MUST refer to one and one only GQAM_Workload::BehaviorScenario. These references SHALL be achieved directly via Composition or indirectly via the <> association. ENDQUOTE While this issue is written specifically for the cited text, the recommendation SHOULD be applied throughout the entire specification whereever the specification is expressing how the Profile MUST be implemented. There is no need for this formalism in the sections of the specification that provide rationale and explanation--that is, within the Domain Modeling sections. The rationales for this formalism are: it greatly reduces ambiguity, profiles are more than collections of individual decorations, domain rules "cut across" sets of domain elements, and a subset of tools extant can enforce such domain rules if those rules are known, expressed, and consistent. Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:40:24 +0200 From: Julio Medina User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: "VanZandt, Lonnie" Cc: marte-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: Close NoChange recommendation for General WG Issue 12231--> MARTE-FTFprefix in subject X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jul 2008 12:41:04.0390 (UTC) FILETIME=[B222B260:01C8F30A] X-imss-version: 2.051 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scanInfo: M:P L:E SM:0 X-imss-tmaseResult: TT:0 TS:0.0000 TC:00 TRN:0 TV:5.5.1026(16064.007) X-imss-scores: Clean:99.90000 C:2 M:3 S:5 R:5 X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:2 S:2 R:2 (0.0000 0.0000) X-SpamInfo: FortiGuard - AntiSpam url, black url www.ArtisanSoftwareTools.com Hi Lonnie, First of all I would like to comment on the necessity of having MARTE-FTF in the subject of all related messages, other way many may get lost... About the issue 12231 I'd prefer not to close it so that it allows us to refine the text. About the voting mechanism you have inserted to deal with pre official voting discussions using the wiki I think it is good and may help to write the resolutions if not by consensus at least with a closer view of what the ballot will say. Cheers, Julio VanZandt, Lonnie wrote: http://www.omgwiki.org/marte-ftf2/doku.php?id=general_wg:forum_12231 Please visit the link, review the issue, record any commentary you like, and vote accordingly. Also, as one of your chairpersons, I encourage you to begin discussion on the issues triaged to your respective WGs; September is fast approaching and we don't want to have to request FTF Three... Lonnie VanZandt Principal Engineer T: 303 482-2943 M: 720 201-1349 Lonnie.VanZandt@ArtisanSoftwareTools.com www.ArtisanSoftwareTools.com CONFIDENTIAL: The information in this message is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee(s). Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately contact the sender if you have received this message in error. Thank you Subject: RE: Close NoChange recommendation for General WG Issue 12231--> MARTE-FTFprefix in subject Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:19:24 +0100 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Close NoChange recommendation for General WG Issue 12231--> MARTE-FTFprefix in subject Thread-Index: AcjzCvXy5dgU01OsSkuJEkFiIYoaEgACuQjN From: "VanZandt, Lonnie" To: "Julio Medina" Cc: X-SpamInfo: FortiGuard - AntiSpam url, black url www.ArtisanSoftwareTools.com Julio, I'll try to remember to put MARTE-FTF in the Subject: lines -- but I know, over the months, I'll forget now and then. The poll is very unscientific--but it can give some sense of consensus. As for the particular issue, I think it is too general and too extensive. But, let us see what our team thinks. If we really do want to take on the implied work then we can. Lonnie VanZandt Principal Engineer T: 303 482-2943 M: 720 201-1349 Lonnie.VanZandt@ArtisanSoftwareTools.com www.ArtisanSoftwareTools.com CONFIDENTIAL: The information in this message is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee(s). Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately contact the sender if you have received this message in error. Thank you -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Julio Medina [mailto:julio.medina@unican.es] Sent: Thu 7/31/2008 6:40 AM To: VanZandt, Lonnie Cc: marte-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: Close NoChange recommendation for General WG Issue 12231--> MARTE-FTFprefix in subject Hi Lonnie, First of all I would like to comment on the necessity of having MARTE-FTF in the subject of all related messages, other way many may get lost... About the issue 12231 I'd prefer not to close it so that it allows us to refine the text. About the voting mechanism you have inserted to deal with pre official voting discussions using the wiki I think it is good and may help to write the resolutions if not by consensus at least with a closer view of what the ballot will say. Cheers, Julio VanZandt, Lonnie wrote: > http://www.omgwiki.org/marte-ftf2/doku.php?id=general_wg:forum_12231 > > Please visit the link, review the issue, record any commentary you like, > and vote accordingly. > > Also, as one of your chairpersons, I encourage you to begin discussion > on the issues triaged to your respective WGs; September is fast > approaching and we don't want to have to request FTF Three... > > Lonnie VanZandt > Principal Engineer > T: 303 482-2943 M: 720 201-1349 > Lonnie.VanZandt@ArtisanSoftwareTools.com > > www.ArtisanSoftwareTools.com > > CONFIDENTIAL: The information in this message is confidential and may > be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee(s). > Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not > the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the > message, or any action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is > prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately contact the sender > if you have received this message in error. Thank you Subject: RE: Close NoChange recommendation for General WG Issue 12231 Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 17:37:10 +0200 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Close NoChange recommendation for General WG Issue 12231 Thread-Index: AcjylkIRFqZL8m15Q7uD+tyxanv1hQOsPP+g From: "GERARD Sebastien 166342" To: "VanZandt, Lonnie" Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Aug 2008 15:37:10.0764 (UTC) FILETIME=[479EEAC0:01C90148] X-SpamInfo: FortiGuard - AntiSpam url, black url www.ArtisanSoftwareTools.com Hi Lonnie, I do agree with you. The only issue I see with your proposal is for writing the resolution itself. Indeed, when the resolution has to be written, it has to be fully described and it cannot be only something like replace everywhere x by y. It has to be: "In page x, line y, replace "xx" by "yy" " and so on for EVERY required modification. I want to remain you (and BTW to every body, that the resolution has to contain the clear description of the required modification of the text of the specification! So when you propose "While this issue is written specifically for the cited text, the recommendation SHOULD be applied throughout the entire specification whereever the specification is expressing how the Profile MUST be implemented.", are you ready to go throughout the entire specification and provide in the resolution the complete list of detailed modifications (as the one provided in your example) the editor of the final document (i.e., my self will be able to use to modify easily the document? In other case, if you cannot, or if anyone else cannot do it, I am not sure the resolution maybe voted. Cheers, Sébastien. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : VanZandt, Lonnie [mailto:lonnie.vanzandt@artisansoftwaretools.com] Envoyé : jeudi 31 juillet 2008 00:48 À : marte-ftf@omg.org Objet : Close NoChange recommendation for General WG Issue 12231 http://www.omgwiki.org/marte-ftf2/doku.php?id=general_wg:forum_12231 Please visit the link, review the issue, record any commentary you like, and vote accordingly. Also, as one of your chairpersons, I encourage you to begin discussion on the issues triaged to your respective WGs; September is fast approaching and we don't want to have to request FTF Three... Lonnie VanZandt Principal Engineer T: 303 482-2943 M: 720 201-1349 Lonnie.VanZandt@ArtisanSoftwareTools.com www.ArtisanSoftwareTools.com CONFIDENTIAL: The information in this message is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee(s). Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately contact the sender if you have received this message in error. Thank you Subject: MARTE: issue 12231 Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 13:52:47 +0100 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: MARTE: issue 12231 Thread-Index: AcmFNSXNKsDSABVoRHGcbTF+9NRsUA== From: "GERARD Sebastien 166342" To: "Lonnie VanZandt" Cc: "marte-ftf" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Feb 2009 12:52:47.0643 (UTC) FILETIME=[262416B0:01C98535] Hi Lonnie, I proposed a resolution for the issue 12231 you have raised. The resolution consists in closing with no change because, even if it would be very interesting for the specification, its proper and complete resolution will require a lot of time. So tell me if you agree, and if not, tell me if you agree to provide the full resolution, that need to identity all the places where you proposal apply. See resolution draft here: http://www.omgwiki.org/marte-ftf2/doku.php?id=general_wg:start Cheers. Sébastien. Dr. Sébastien Gérard Head of MDD for DRES research project CEA LIST/LISE Boîte courrier 65, GIF SUR YVETTE CEDEX, F-91191 France Phone/fax : +33 1 69 08 58 24 / 83 95 Leader of the Eclipse Component Papyrus (The UML2 Graphical Modeler): www.papyrusuml.org http://www.eclipse.org/modeling/mdt/?project=papyrus Before printing, think about the environment