Issue 17264: Need non-nomative profiles for NAF. DODAF and MODAF views and viewpoints (updm-2-0-rtf) Source: International Business Machines (Dr. Graham Bleakley, Ph.D., graham.bleakley(at)uk.ibm.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Views and viewpoint stereotypes do not exist in UPDM at the moment. We need to add them so that we can start to interchange sections of information formally and exchange diagrams when DDI for the specification of UML/SysML diagrams is defined. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: March 20, 2012: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== c: Matthew Hause Subject: Need non-nomative profiles for NAF. DODAF and MODAF views and viewpoints From: Graham Bleakley Hi Juergen Please can you raise this as an issue against UPDM 2.0 RTF Graham Bleakley, IBM, graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com Views and viewpoint stereotypes do not exist in UPDM at the moment. We need to add them so that we can start to interchange sections of information formally and exchange diagrams when DDI for the specification of UML/SysML diagrams is defined. All the best Graham Dr Graham Bleakley Solution Architect, Unleash the Labs Mobile +44 (0)7740 881280 E-mail graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com To request my assistance please use the ULL link below https://sma-cqwebvm01.ratl.swg.usma.ibm.com/CRT/NewRecord?recordType=request -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU X-Disclaimed: 6786 To: updm-rtf@omg.org Cc: Matthew Hause , Sanford Friedenthal , Daniel Brookshier Subject: Fw: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue X-KeepSent: 4461BAC9:9751808B-802579D1:0032F38F; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.1 September 28, 2009 From: Graham Bleakley Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:17:44 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D06ML008/06/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF12|September 28, 2011) at 30/03/2012 10:17:46, Serialize complete at 30/03/2012 10:17:46 x-cbid: 12033009-5024-0000-0000-00000220CC6A HI Matthew, Sandy I am not using the terms view and viewpoint in the way that SysML defines them. I am using them in the sense that MODAF and DoDAF uses, i.e. the viewpoints are collections of views (i.e. operational views, systems views) and the views (variously called products, views or models depending upon which documentation you read) are the diagrams (i.e. OV-1 High Level Operational Concept, SV-6c Systems Event Trace) used to create and display the information. It would help if we were all using a standard set of names for these elements when diagram interchange does become a reality. All the best Graham Dr Graham Bleakley Solution Architect, Unleash the Labs Mobile +44 (0)7740 881280 E-mail graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com To request my assistance please use the ULL link below https://sma-cqwebvm01.ratl.swg.usma.ibm.com/CRT/NewRecord?recordType=request From: Matthew Hause To: Sanford Friedenthal , Graham Bleakley/UK/IBM@IBMGB Date: 29/03/2012 22:41 Subject: RE: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I thought so as well, but didnât want to say.. From: Sanford Friedenthal [mailto:safriedenthal@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 2:39 PM To: 'Graham Bleakley' Cc: updm-2-0-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue Graham Doesnât UPDM get view and viewpoint from SysML? Sandy From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 12:10 PM To: issues@omg.org; updm-2-0-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue X-Disclaimed: 39178 To: issues@omg.org Cc: Matthew Hause , Daniel Brookshier Subject: Need non-nomative profiles for NAF. DODAF and MODAF views and viewpoints X-KeepSent: 5769429A:B01E4088-852579C7:004717D4; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.1 September 28, 2009 From: Graham Bleakley Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 08:01:25 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D06ML008/06/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF12|September 28, 2011) at 20/03/2012 13:01:26, Serialize complete at 20/03/2012 13:01:26 x-cbid: 12032013-3548-0000-0000-000001640267 Hi Juergen Please can you raise this as an issue against UPDM 2.0 RTF Graham Bleakley, IBM, graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com Views and viewpoint stereotypes do not exist in UPDM at the moment. We need to add them so that we can start to interchange sections of information formally and exchange diagrams when DDI for the specification of UML/SysML diagrams is defined. All the best Graham Dr Graham Bleakley Solution Architect, Unleash the Labs Mobile +44 (0)7740 881280 E-mail graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com To request my assistance please use the ULL link below https://sma-cqwebvm01.ratl.swg.usma.ibm.com/CRT/NewRecord?recordType=request -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services 140 Kendrick Street, Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA Tel: 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: 781 444 0320 www.omg.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU Subject: Re: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue From: Ron C Williamson Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 12:54:50 -0400 To: "Graham Bleakley" , "updm-rtf" Cc: "Matthew Hause" , "Sanford Friedenthal" , "Daniel Brookshier" X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ES2-MSG03/SRV/Raytheon(Release 8.5.2FP2|March 22, 2011) at 03/30/2012 09:54:52, Serialize complete at 03/30/2012 09:54:52 In the beginning....we had several sessions on Views/Viewpoints, Views/Products, etc and came to a consensus (at least the original team did) on the first go around on UPDM 1.0 for definitions of views and viewpoints to reconcile the various ISO/IEEE, SysML, DoDAF and MODAF usages. As I recall, Viewpoint was the specification of Views and was mapped to Class and View was the collection of model elements (and associated diagrams) and was mapped to Package. A key issue was the UML constraints on Package overlapping membership by model elements. Has this now changed in UPDM 2.0 and/or follow on efforts? This seems like a pretty fundamental set concepts to still be thrashing on definitions. Ron Williamson Raytheon Ron Williamson (wireless) ron_c_williamson@raytheon.com 714.331.9354 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graham Bleakley [graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com] Sent: 03/30/2012 10:17 AM CET To: updm-rtf@omg.org Cc: Matthew Hause ; Sanford Friedenthal ; Daniel Brookshier Subject: Fw: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue HI Matthew, Sandy I am not using the terms view and viewpoint in the way that SysML defines them. I am using them in the sense that MODAF and DoDAF uses, i.e. the viewpoints are collections of views (i.e. operational views, systems views) and the views (variously called products, views or models depending upon which documentation you read) are the diagrams (i.e. OV-1 High Level Operational Concept, SV-6c Systems Event Trace) used to create and display the information. It would help if we were all using a standard set of names for these elements when diagram interchange does become a reality. All the best Graham Dr Graham Bleakley Solution Architect, Unleash the Labs Mobile +44 (0)7740 881280 E-mail graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com To request my assistance please use the ULL link below https://sma-cqwebvm01.ratl.swg.usma.ibm.com/CRT/NewRecord?recordType=request From: Matthew Hause To: Sanford Friedenthal , Graham Bleakley/UK/IBM@IBMGB Date: 29/03/2012 22:41 Subject: RE: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I thought so as well, but didnât want to say.. From: Sanford Friedenthal [mailto:safriedenthal@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 2:39 PM To: 'Graham Bleakley' Cc: updm-2-0-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue Graham Doesnât UPDM get view and viewpoint from SysML? Sandy From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 12:10 PM To: issues@omg.org; updm-2-0-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue X-Disclaimed: 39178 To: issues@omg.org Cc: Matthew Hause , Daniel Brookshier Subject: Need non-nomative profiles for NAF. DODAF and MODAF views and viewpoints X-KeepSent: 5769429A:B01E4088-852579C7:004717D4; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.1 September 28, 2009 From: Graham Bleakley Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 08:01:25 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D06ML008/06/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF12|September 28, 2011) at 20/03/2012 13:01:26, Serialize complete at 20/03/2012 13:01:26 x-cbid: 12032013-3548-0000-0000-000001640267 Hi Juergen Please can you raise this as an issue against UPDM 2.0 RTF Graham Bleakley, IBM, graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com Views and viewpoint stereotypes do not exist in UPDM at the moment. We need to add them so that we can start to interchange sections of information formally and exchange diagrams when DDI for the specification of UML/SysML diagrams is defined. All the best Graham Dr Graham Bleakley Solution Architect, Unleash the Labs Mobile +44 (0)7740 881280 E-mail graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com To request my assistance please use the ULL link below https://sma-cqwebvm01.ratl.swg.usma.ibm.com/CRT/NewRecord?recordType=request -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services 140 Kendrick Street, Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA Tel: 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: 781 444 0320 www.omg.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU X-Disclaimed: 41410 To: "Sanford Friedenthal" Cc: "'Matthew Hause'" , updm-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue X-KeepSent: 183FD275:EF880D4C-802579D1:005B02C4; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.1 September 28, 2009 From: Graham Bleakley Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 18:18:39 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D06ML008/06/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF12|September 28, 2011) at 30/03/2012 18:18:41, Serialize complete at 30/03/2012 18:18:41 x-cbid: 12033017-8372-0000-0000-000002247458 HI Sandy I understand the IEEE 1471 definitions for View and Viewpoint but this is not what i am trying to capture. So please for the moment forget about the original title of the issue and i will redefine the problem as The need for a consistent set of stereotypes to capture types of packages and types of diagrams to enable the creation of UPDM architectures in a standard way. I think you need something to structure the architectures and diagrams consistently, and you need something to provide IEEE 1471 views on the architecture. These are subtlety different issues. I am coming to the conclusion that what i considered to be a simple problem/solution is in fact quite complex and it leads to some interesting possibilities. Graham Dr Graham Bleakley Solution Architect, Unleash the Labs Mobile +44 (0)7740 881280 E-mail graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com To request my assistance please use the ULL link below https://sma-cqwebvm01.ratl.swg.usma.ibm.com/CRT/NewRecord?recordType=request From: "Sanford Friedenthal" To: Graham Bleakley/UK/IBM@IBMGB, "'Matthew Hause'" Date: 30/03/2012 11:24 Subject: RE: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Graham The terms that SysML has been using are originally based on IEEE 1471 which has gotten a lot of traction. It was then fast tracked through ISO and then as ISO 42010. I have not checked the latest definitions, but perhaps we should investigate those definitions and see if they meet our needs, and then we can synchronize with those definitions. What do you think? Sandy From: Graham Bleakley [mailto:graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 5:05 AM To: Matthew Hause Cc: Sanford Friedenthal Subject: RE: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue HI Matthew, Sandy I am not using the terms view and viewpoint in the way that SysML defines them. I am using them in the sense that MODAF and DoDAF uses, i.e. the viewpoints are collections of views (i.e. operational views, systems views) and the views (variously called products, views or models depending upon which documentation you read) are the diagrams (i.e. OV-1 High Level Operational Concept, SV-6c Systems Event Trace) used to create and display the information. It would help if we were all using a standard set of names for these elements when diagram interchange does become a reality. All the best Graham Dr Graham Bleakley Solution Architect, Unleash the Labs Mobile +44 (0)7740 881280 E-mail graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com To request my assistance please use the ULL link below https://sma-cqwebvm01.ratl.swg.usma.ibm.com/CRT/NewRecord?recordType=request From: Matthew Hause To: Sanford Friedenthal , Graham Bleakley/UK/IBM@IBMGB Date: 29/03/2012 22:41 Subject: RE: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I thought so as well, but didnât want to say.. From: Sanford Friedenthal [mailto:safriedenthal@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 2:39 PM To: 'Graham Bleakley' Cc: updm-2-0-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue Graham Doesnât UPDM get view and viewpoint from SysML? Sandy From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 12:10 PM To: issues@omg.org; updm-2-0-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue X-Disclaimed: 39178 To: issues@omg.org Cc: Matthew Hause , Daniel Brookshier Subject: Need non-nomative profiles for NAF. DODAF and MODAF views and viewpoints X-KeepSent: 5769429A:B01E4088-852579C7:004717D4; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.1 September 28, 2009 From: Graham Bleakley Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 08:01:25 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D06ML008/06/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF12|September 28, 2011) at 20/03/2012 13:01:26, Serialize complete at 20/03/2012 13:01:26 x-cbid: 12032013-3548-0000-0000-000001640267 Hi Juergen Please can you raise this as an issue against UPDM 2.0 RTF Graham Bleakley, IBM, graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com Views and viewpoint stereotypes do not exist in UPDM at the moment. We need to add them so that we can start to interchange sections of information formally and exchange diagrams when DDI for the specification of UML/SysML diagrams is defined. All the best Graham Dr Graham Bleakley Solution Architect, Unleash the Labs Mobile +44 (0)7740 881280 E-mail graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com To request my assistance please use the ULL link below https://sma-cqwebvm01.ratl.swg.usma.ibm.com/CRT/NewRecord?recordType=request -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services 140 Kendrick Street, Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA Tel: 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: 781 444 0320 www.omg.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU X-Disclaimed: 9518 To: Ron C Williamson Cc: "Daniel Brookshier" , "Matthew Hause" , "Sanford Friedenthal" , "updm-rtf" Subject: Re: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue X-KeepSent: 7D3232D9:FCECD7E0-802579D1:005F340F; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.1 September 28, 2009 From: Graham Bleakley Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 18:41:36 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D06ML008/06/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF12|September 28, 2011) at 30/03/2012 18:41:38, Serialize complete at 30/03/2012 18:41:38 x-cbid: 12033017-0542-0000-0000-0000016B64BE Hi Ron We did use views and viewpoints in that way but we did not define any stereotypes based upon them We do not have any notion of an "Operational View", for instance, in UPDM. The stereotype does not exist. See my last e-mail re the need for structure as well. Views do not own anything directly everything is via "import" if I remember rightly. And I am not sure if you can define a viewpoint based upon "types" or if it has to work on explicit elements. I think all the examples in the SysML spec are based upon importing explicit elements into a View based upon the textual string contained in the methods section of Viewpoint. I do not think anyone would use this method to structure their models. All the best Graham Dr Graham Bleakley Solution Architect, Unleash the Labs Mobile +44 (0)7740 881280 E-mail graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com To request my assistance please use the ULL link below https://sma-cqwebvm01.ratl.swg.usma.ibm.com/CRT/NewRecord?recordType=request From: Ron C Williamson To: Graham Bleakley/UK/IBM@IBMGB, "updm-rtf" Cc: "Matthew Hause" , "Sanford Friedenthal" , "Daniel Brookshier" Date: 30/03/2012 17:57 Subject: Re: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the beginning....we had several sessions on Views/Viewpoints, Views/Products, etc and came to a consensus (at least the original team did) on the first go around on UPDM 1.0 for definitions of views and viewpoints to reconcile the various ISO/IEEE, SysML, DoDAF and MODAF usages. As I recall, Viewpoint was the specification of Views and was mapped to Class and View was the collection of model elements (and associated diagrams) and was mapped to Package. A key issue was the UML constraints on Package overlapping membership by model elements. Has this now changed in UPDM 2.0 and/or follow on efforts? This seems like a pretty fundamental set concepts to still be thrashing on definitions. Ron Williamson Raytheon Ron Williamson (wireless) ron_c_williamson@raytheon.com 714.331.9354 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graham Bleakley [graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com] Sent: 03/30/2012 10:17 AM CET To: updm-rtf@omg.org Cc: Matthew Hause ; Sanford Friedenthal ; Daniel Brookshier Subject: Fw: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue HI Matthew, Sandy I am not using the terms view and viewpoint in the way that SysML defines them. I am using them in the sense that MODAF and DoDAF uses, i.e. the viewpoints are collections of views (i.e. operational views, systems views) and the views (variously called products, views or models depending upon which documentation you read) are the diagrams (i.e. OV-1 High Level Operational Concept, SV-6c Systems Event Trace) used to create and display the information. It would help if we were all using a standard set of names for these elements when diagram interchange does become a reality. All the best Graham Dr Graham Bleakley Solution Architect, Unleash the Labs Mobile +44 (0)7740 881280 E-mail graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com To request my assistance please use the ULL link below https://sma-cqwebvm01.ratl.swg.usma.ibm.com/CRT/NewRecord?recordType=request From: Matthew Hause To: Sanford Friedenthal , Graham Bleakley/UK/IBM@IBMGB Date: 29/03/2012 22:41 Subject: RE: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I thought so as well, but didnât want to say.. < From: Sanford Friedenthal [mailto:safriedenthal@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 2:39 PM To: 'Graham Bleakley' Cc: updm-2-0-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue Graham Doesnât UPDM get view and viewpoint from SysML? Sandy From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 12:10 PM To: issues@omg.org; updm-2-0-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue X-Disclaimed: 39178 To: issues@omg.org Cc: Matthew Hause , Daniel Brookshier Subject: Need non-nomative profiles for NAF. DODAF and MODAF views and viewpoints X-KeepSent: 5769429A:B01E4088-852579C7:004717D4; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.1 September 28, 2009 From: Graham Bleakley Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 08:01:25 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D06ML008/06/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF12|September 28, 2011) at 20/03/2012 13:01:26, Serialize complete at 20/03/2012 13:01:26 x-cbid: 12032013-3548-0000-0000-000001640267 Hi Juergen Please can you raise this as an issue against UPDM 2.0 RTF Graham Bleakley, IBM, graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com Views and viewpoint stereotypes do not exist in UPDM at the moment. We need to add them so that we can start to interchange sections of information formally and exchange diagrams when DDI for the specification of UML/SysML diagrams is defined. All the best Graham Dr Graham Bleakley Solution Architect, Unleash the Labs Mobile +44 (0)7740 881280 E-mail graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com To request my assistance please use the ULL link below https://sma-cqwebvm01.ratl.swg.usma.ibm.com/CRT/NewRecord?recordType=request -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services 140 Kendrick Street, Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA Tel: 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: 781 444 0320 www.omg.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU Subject: Re: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue X-KeepSent: FDF205A3:9DD021CA-882579D1:0061823D; type=4; name=$KeepSent To: Graham Bleakley Cc: "Daniel Brookshier" , "Matthew Hause" , "Sanford Friedenthal" , "updm-rtf" X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.2FP1 SHF163 March 17, 2011 From: Ron C Williamson Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 11:30:28 -0700 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ES2-MSG03/SRV/Raytheon(Release 8.5.2FP2|March 22, 2011) at 03/30/2012 11:30:30 Hi Graham, Thanks for the follow up emails. Not having the time over the past year or so to be fully involved in the excellent UPDM 2.0 results you and the team have accomplished (and I applaud your efforts), I'm a bit out of date on the latest spec. Just received the spec review URL and will try to catch up. My perspective, as you know, is what we tried to do in the very beginning with UPDM 1.0, and I vividly remember the debates regarding Viewpoint/View and how to reconcile the difference in terminology and usage across the standards, the existing profiles, the AFs, and the various tool implementations. I left that phase with the understanding that Viewpoint and View would indeed have stereotype representations in the profile. My understanding was that the DoDAF 2.x community (not familiar enough with the UK MOD MODEM goals as yet) through the DM2 and IDEAS Group would help with the underlying semantics of (among other "things") View/Viewpoint, model element collections/sets, visual frameworks (such as diagrams), etc. so that we wouldn't be still debating these core term definitions. I was understood, I believe, that the original DoDAF 1.x definitions of View and Product were not in line with the IEEE (now ISO) definitions and that the DM2 was going to "fix" the issue. I'd expect, then, that the OMG UPDM team would continue to translate these definitions into "MOF/UML speak" so that we as "end users" of the profiles have a stable base to build the models of our solutions for our customers...whether it be in " pure" UML, SysML, UPDM, BPMN, etc. or a combination of each. Organizing, sharing, configuring sets of model elements has been a critical need from the beginning on UPDM (and I'm sure other profiles as well). View and Viewpoint were seen as a mechanism to help us organize our models. So...I'm curious why View and Viewpoint stereotypes do not yet exist in the specification as you indicated, given the years of debate, research and recommended solutions on the topic? What "de-railed" the original consensus? Cheers, Ron Ron C Williamson, PhD Sr Engineering Fellow Raytheon Certified Architect The Open Group Certified Master IT Architect Network Centric Systems Raytheon Company +1 714-446-4932 (office) +1 714-331-9354 (cell) 789-4932 (tie line) Ron_C_Williamson@raytheon.com 1801 Hughes Drive Fullerton, Ca. 92834 USA www.raytheon.com Follow Raytheon On This message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive mail for the addressee), you should not use, copy or disclose to anyone this message or any information contained in this message. If you have received this message in error, please so advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation. Graham Bleakley ---03/30/2012 10:42:36 AM---Hi Ron We did use views and viewpoints in that way but we did not define any From: Graham Bleakley To: Ron C Williamson Cc: "Daniel Brookshier" , "Matthew Hause" , "Sanford Friedenthal" , "updm-rtf" Date: 03/30/2012 10:42 AM Subject: Re: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Ron We did use views and viewpoints in that way but we did not define any stereotypes based upon them We do not have any notion of an "Operational View", for instance, in UPDM. The stereotype does not exist. See my last e-mail re the need for structure as well. Views do not own anything directly everything is via "import" if I remember rightly. And I am not sure if you can define a viewpoint based upon "types" or if it has to work on explicit elements. I think all the examples in the SysML spec are based upon importing explicit elements into a View based upon the textual string contained in the methods section of Viewpoint. I do not think anyone would use this method to structure their models. All the best Graham Dr Graham Bleakley Solution Architect, Unleash the Labs Mobile +44 (0)7740 881280 E-mail graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com To request my assistance please use the ULL link below https://sma-cqwebvm01.ratl.swg.usma.ibm.com/CRT/NewRecord?recordType=request From: Ron C Williamson To: Graham Bleakley/UK/IBM@IBMGB, "updm-rtf" Cc: "Matthew Hause" , "Sanford Friedenthal" , "Daniel Brookshier" Date: 30/03/2012 17:57 Subject: Re: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the beginning....we had several sessions on Views/Viewpoints, Views/Products, etc and came to a consensus (at least the original team did) on the first go around on UPDM 1.0 for definitions of views and viewpoints to reconcile the various ISO/IEEE, SysML, DoDAF and MODAF usages. As I recall, Viewpoint was the specification of Views and was mapped to Class and View was the collection of model elements (and associated diagrams) and was mapped to Package. A key issue was the UML constraints on Package overlapping membership by model elements. Has this now changed in UPDM 2.0 and/or follow on efforts? This seems like a pretty fundamental set concepts to still be thrashing on definitions. Ron Williamson Raytheon Ron Williamson (wireless) ron_c_williamson@raytheon.com 714.331.9354 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graham Bleakley [graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com] Sent: 03/30/2012 10:17 AM CET To: updm-rtf@omg.org Cc: Matthew Hause ; Sanford Friedenthal ; Daniel Brookshier Subject: Fw: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue HI Matthew, Sandy I am not using the terms view and viewpoint in the way that SysML defines them. I am using them in the sense that MODAF and DoDAF uses, i.e. the viewpoints are collections of views (i.e. operational views, systems views) and the views (variously called products, views or models depending upon which documentation you read) are the diagrams (i.e. OV-1 High Level Operational Concept, SV-6c Systems Event Trace) used to create and display the information. It would help if we were all using a standard set of names for these elements when diagram interchange does become a reality. All the best Graham Dr Graham Bleakley Solution Architect, Unleash the Labs Mobile +44 (0)7740 881280 E-mail graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com To request my assistance please use the ULL link below https://sma-cqwebvm01.ratl.swg.usma.ibm.com/CRT/NewRecord?recordType=request From: Matthew Hause To: Sanford Friedenthal , Graham Bleakley/UK/IBM@IBMGB Date: 29/03/2012 22:41 Subject: RE: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I thought so as well, but didnât want to say.. < From: Sanford Friedenthal [mailto:safriedenthal@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 2:39 PM To: 'Graham Bleakley' Cc: updm-2-0-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue Graham Doesnât UPDM get view and viewpoint from SysML? Sandy From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 12:10 PM To: issues@omg.org; updm-2-0-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue X-Disclaimed: 39178 To: issues@omg.org Cc: Matthew Hause , Daniel Brookshier Subject: Need non-nomative profiles for NAF. DODAF and MODAF views and viewpoints X-KeepSent: 5769429A:B01E4088-852579C7:004717D4; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.1 September 28, 2009 From: Graham Bleakley Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 08:01:25 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D06ML008/06/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF12|September 28, 2011) at 20/03/2012 13:01:26, Serialize complete at 20/03/2012 13:01:26 x-cbid: 12032013-3548-0000-0000-000001640267 Hi Juergen Please can you raise this as an issue against UPDM 2.0 RTF Graham Bleakley, IBM, graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com Views and viewpoint stereotypes do not exist in UPDM at the moment. We need to add them so that we can start to interchange sections of information formally and exchange diagrams when DDI for the specification of UML/SysML diagrams is defined. All the best Graham Dr Graham Bleakley Solution Architect, Unleash the Labs Mobile +44 (0)7740 881280 E-mail graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com To request my assistance please use the ULL link below https://sma-cqwebvm01.ratl.swg.usma.ibm.com/CRT/NewRecord?recordType=request -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services 140 Kendrick Street, Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA Tel: 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: 781 444 0320 www.omg.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU X-Disclaimed: 4906 To: Ron C Williamson Cc: "Daniel Brookshier" , "Matthew Hause" , "Sanford Friedenthal" , updm-2-0-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue X-KeepSent: DF02290A:3724F0EA-802579D1:0067882E; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.1 September 28, 2009 From: Graham Bleakley Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 19:58:42 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D06ML008/06/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF12|September 28, 2011) at 30/03/2012 19:58:44, Serialize complete at 30/03/2012 19:58:44 x-cbid: 12033018-6892-0000-0000-000001712D0C HI Ron I think the simple answer is that we got so caught up in the profile itself and lack of time that we forgot to add the view and viewpoint stereotypes. To be honest view and viewpoint as specified in SysML really do not cut the mustard for what we need to do. They are not formal enough and they work on explicit elements, not types of elements. The nearest DM2 gets to views and viewpoint is i think in the "models" that PES describes. A model in PES speak is the nearest you get to a viewpoint and the instances of PES models are the views. All the best Graham Dr Graham Bleakley Solution Architect, Unleash the Labs Mobile +44 (0)7740 881280 E-mail graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com To request my assistance please use the ULL link below https://sma-cqwebvm01.ratl.swg.usma.ibm.com/CRT/NewRecord?recordType=request From: Ron C Williamson To: Graham Bleakley/UK/IBM@IBMGB Cc: "Daniel Brookshier" , "Matthew Hause" , "Sanford Friedenthal" , "updm-rtf" Date: 30/03/2012 19:34 Subject: Re: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Graham, Thanks for the follow up emails. Not having the time over the past year or so to be fully involved in the excellent UPDM 2.0 results you and the team have accomplished (and I applaud your efforts), I'm a bit out of date on the latest spec. Just received the spec review URL and will try to catch up. My perspective, as you know, is what we tried to do in the very beginning with UPDM 1.0, and I vividly remember the debates regarding Viewpoint/View and how to reconcile the difference in terminology and usage across the standards, the existing profiles, the AFs, and the various tool implementations. I left that phase with the understanding that Viewpoint and View would indeed have stereotype representations in the profile. My understanding was that the DoDAF 2.x community (not familiar enough with the UK MOD MODEM goals as yet) through the DM2 and IDEAS Group would help with the underlying semantics of (among other "things") View/Viewpoint, model element collections/sets, visual frameworks (such as diagrams), etc. so that we wouldn't be still debating these core term definitions. I was understood, I believe, that the original DoDAF 1.x definitions of View and Product were not in line with the IEEE (now ISO) definitions and that the DM2 was going to "fix" the issue. I'd expect, then, that the OMG UPDM team would continue to translate these definitions into "MOF/UML speak" so that we as "end users" of the profiles have a stable base to build the models of our solutions for our customers...whether it be in " pure" UML, SysML, UPDM, BPMN, etc. or a combination of each. Organizing, sharing, configuring sets of model elements has been a critical need from the beginning on UPDM (and I'm sure other profiles as well). View and Viewpoint were seen as a mechanism to help us organize our models. So...I'm curious why View and Viewpoint stereotypes do not yet exist in the specification as you indicated, given the years of debate, research and recommended solutions on the topic? What "de-railed" the original consensus? Cheers, Ron Ron C Williamson, PhD Sr Engineering Fellow Raytheon Certified Architect The Open Group Certified Master IT Architect Network Centric Systems Raytheon Company +1 714-446-4932 (office) +1 714-331-9354 (cell) 789-4932 (tie line) Ron_C_Williamson@raytheon.com 1801 Hughes Drive Fullerton, Ca. 92834 USA www.raytheon.com Follow Raytheon On This message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive mail for the addressee), you should not use, copy or disclose to anyone this message or any information contained in this message. If you have received this message in error, please so advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation. Graham Bleakley ---03/30/2012 10:42:36 AM---Hi Ron We did use views and viewpoints in that way but we did not define any From: Graham Bleakley To: Ron C Williamson Cc: "Daniel Brookshier" , "Matthew Hause" , "Sanford Friedenthal" , "updm-rtf" Date: 03/30/2012 10:42 AM Subject: Re: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Ron We did use views and viewpoints in that way but we did not define any stereotypes based upon them We do not have any notion of an "Operational View", for instance, in UPDM. The stereotype does not exist. See my last e-mail re the need for structure as well. Views do not own anything directly everything is via "import" if I remember rightly. And I am not sure if you can define a viewpoint based upon "types" or if it has to work on explicit elements. I think all the examples in the SysML spec are based upon importing explicit elements into a View based upon the textual string contained in the methods section of Viewpoint. I do not think anyone would use this method to structure their models. All the best Graham Dr Graham Bleakley Solution Architect, Unleash the Labs Mobile +44 (0)7740 881280 E-mail graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com To request my assistance please use the ULL link below https://sma-cqwebvm01.ratl.swg.usma.ibm.com/CRT/NewRecord?recordType=request From: Ron C Williamson To: Graham Bleakley/UK/IBM@IBMGB, "updm-rtf" Cc: "Matthew Hause" , "Sanford Friedenthal" , "Daniel Brookshier" Date: 30/03/2012 17:57 Subject: Re: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the beginning....we had several sessions on Views/Viewpoints, Views/Products, etc and came to a consensus (at least the original team did) on the first go around on UPDM 1.0 for definitions of views and viewpoints to reconcile the various ISO/IEEE, SysML, DoDAF and MODAF usages. As I recall, Viewpoint was the specification of Views and was mapped to Class and View was the collection of model elements (and associated diagrams) and was mapped to Package. A key issue was the UML constraints on Package overlapping membership by model elements. Has this now changed in UPDM 2.0 and/or follow on efforts? This seems like a pretty fundamental set concepts to still be thrashing on definitions. Ron Williamson Raytheon Ron Williamson (wireless) ron_c_williamson@raytheon.com 714.331.9354 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graham Bleakley [graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com] Sent: 03/30/2012 10:17 AM CET To: updm-rtf@omg.org Cc: Matthew Hause ; Sanford Friedenthal ; Daniel Brookshier Subject: Fw: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue HI Matthew, Sandy I am not using the terms view and viewpoint in the way that SysML defines them. I am using them in the sense that MODAF and DoDAF uses, i.e. the viewpoints are collections of views (i.e. operational views, systems views) and the views (variously called products, views or models depending upon which documentation you read) are the diagrams (i.e. OV-1 High Level Operational Concept, SV-6c Systems Event Trace) used to create and display the information. It would help if we were all using a standard set of names for these elements when diagram interchange does become a reality. All the best Graham Dr Graham Bleakley Solution Architect, Unleash the Labs Mobile +44 (0)7740 881280 E-mail graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com To request my assistance please use the ULL link below https://sma-cqwebvm01.ratl.swg.usma.ibm.com/CRT/NewRecord?recordType=request From: Matthew Hause To: Sanford Friedenthal , Graham Bleakley/UK/IBM@IBMGB Date: 29/03/2012 22:41 Subject: RE: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I thought so as well, but didnât want to say.. From: Sanford Friedenthal [mailto:safriedenthal@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 2:39 PM To: 'Graham Bleakley' Cc: updm-2-0-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue Graham Doesnât UPDM get view and viewpoint from SysML? Sandy From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 12:10 PM To: issues@omg.org; updm-2-0-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue X-Disclaimed: 39178 To: issues@omg.org Cc: Matthew Hause , Daniel Brookshier Subject: Need non-nomative profiles for NAF. DODAF and MODAF views and viewpoints X-KeepSent: 5769429A:B01E4088-852579C7:004717D4; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.1 September 28, 2009 From: Graham Bleakley Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 08:01:25 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D06ML008/06/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF12|September 28, 2011) at 20/03/2012 13:01:26, Serialize complete at 20/03/2012 13:01:26 x-cbid: 12032013-3548-0000-0000-000001640267 Hi Juergen Please can you raise this as an issue against UPDM 2.0 RTF Graham Bleakley, IBM, graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com Views and viewpoint stereotypes do not exist in UPDM at the moment. We need to add them so that we can start to interchange sections of information formally and exchange diagrams when DDI for the specification of UML/SysML diagrams is defined. All the best Graham Dr Graham Bleakley Solution Architect, Unleash the Labs Mobile +44 (0)7740 881280 E-mail graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com To request my assistance please use the ULL link below https://sma-cqwebvm01.ratl.swg.usma.ibm.com/CRT/NewRecord?recordType=request -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services 140 Kendrick Street, Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA Tel: 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: 781 444 0320 www.omg.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:x-mailer:thread-index:content-language; bh=iqfxRsiL7p4DkcdW+nQ+4g73Zz6feRSddpqBXRrq1v0=; b=p0cC2o5vNaAMQBxVgLZNOlEEW326Oj4Y9ydaK7l4kNyTGxIVejc4W8Dbi5EyIqe2I9 SVEIhk0bkzgWsK1kxOgMBTG5AD3SSsalhOwagFwW96Poq2ROdB9iOrIr4KTd+BejQSYb XGKalIWsH8hNfdA8t2qvc0RdG7RJHqPZtNulntKz+ZiiZDqve+Sk1dU4t7O5iCjW03B5 0EYrH608kI/s7nLbccynMto0MLpQHr/UFh4GQ8eWQK0B1dq4UWWrierXC1nTXQ1THBWx qNz05yjmJ/qHw34Z+sqa9ySQ8UYq8IzBq94TU/A7WXupkm6wnl0nOLswYv2psLXjSeOj RYOw== From: "Sanford Friedenthal" To: "'LONJON Antoine'" , , Cc: , , Subject: RE: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 16:01:16 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Ac0Op0+DO2nbUtD3RsOu9xICVjyy/wAB+Gm2AAAQUyA= If we need to update the concepts, perhaps we can consider a change in SysML and then use them consistently. There are two separate considerations. 1) Using 1471 and now 42010 as the basis for our definition of view and viewpoint concepts 2) How we implement them in our profiles I recommend we stay with the IEEE and ISO standards unless we really feel they are deficient. BTW, I believe the updated OMG MDA Foundation Model uses these definitions as well, but I would need to double check. Then use SysML view and viewpoint as a point of departure for their implementation, and let.s raise an issue against them that we can discuss and resolve through the RTF process. Sandy From: LONJON Antoine [mailto:antoine.lonjon@mega.com] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 3:56 PM To: 'graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com'; 'Ron_C_Williamson@raytheon.com' Cc: 'danielb@nomagic.com'; 'Matthew.Hause@atego.com'; 'safriedenthal@gmail.com'; 'updm-2-0-ftf@omg.org' Subject: Re: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue Hi Graham, Views and viewpoints are indeed missing in UPDM and the sysml concept of view, extending package isn't a very good candidate for views as instances. We also need to have architectural descriptions in the loop. However, aren't these concerns orthogonal to DI. Diagrams aren't views for say. Antoine From: Graham Bleakley [mailto:graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 08:58 PM To: Ron C Williamson Cc: Daniel Brookshier ; Matthew Hause ; Sanford Friedenthal ; updm-2-0-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue HI Ron I think the simple answer is that we got so caught up in the profile itself and lack of time that we forgot to add the view and viewpoint stereotypes. To be honest view and viewpoint as specified in SysML really do not cut the mustard for what we need to do. They are not formal enough and they work on explicit elements, not types of elements. The nearest DM2 gets to views and viewpoint is i think in the "models" that PES describes. A model in PES speak is the nearest you get to a viewpoint and the instances of PES models are the views. All the best Graham Dr Graham Bleakley Solution Architect, Unleash the Labs Mobile +44 (0)7740 881280 E-mail graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com To request my assistance please use the ULL link below https://sma-cqwebvm01.ratl.swg.usma.ibm.com/CRT/NewRecord?recordType=request From: Ron C Williamson To: Graham Bleakley/UK/IBM@IBMGB Cc: "Daniel Brookshier" , "Matthew Hause" , "Sanford Friedenthal" , "updm-rtf" Date: 30/03/2012 19:34 Subject: Re: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Graham, Thanks for the follow up emails. Not having the time over the past year or so to be fully involved in the excellent UPDM 2.0 results you and the team have accomplished (and I applaud your efforts), I'm a bit out of date on the latest spec. Just received the spec review URL and will try to catch up. My perspective, as you know, is what we tried to do in the very beginning with UPDM 1.0, and I vividly remember the debates regarding Viewpoint/View and how to reconcile the difference in terminology and usage across the standards, the existing profiles, the AFs, and the various tool implementations. I left that phase with the understanding that Viewpoint and View would indeed have stereotype representations in the profile. My understanding was that the DoDAF 2.x community (not familiar enough with the UK MOD MODEM goals as yet) through the DM2 and IDEAS Group would help with the underlying semantics of (among other "things") View/Viewpoint, model element collections/sets, visual frameworks (such as diagrams), etc. so that we wouldn't be still debating these core term definitions. I was understood, I believe, that the original DoDAF 1.x definitions of View and Product were not in line with the IEEE (now ISO) definitions and that the DM2 was going to "fix" the issue. I'd expect, then, that the OMG UPDM team would continue to translate these definitions into "MOF/UML speak" so that we as "end users" of the profiles have a stable base to build the models of our solutions for our customers...whether it be in " pure" UML, SysML, UPDM, BPMN, etc. or a combination of each. Organizing, sharing, configuring sets of model elements has been a critical need from the beginning on UPDM (and I'm sure other profiles as well). View and Viewpoint were seen as a mechanism to help us organize our models. So...I'm curious why View and Viewpoint stereotypes do not yet exist in the specification as you indicated, given the years of debate, research and recommended solutions on the topic? What "de-railed" the original consensus? Cheers, Ron Ron C Williamson, PhD Sr Engineering Fellow Raytheon Certified Architect The Open Group Certified Master IT Architect Network Centric Systems Raytheon Company +1 714-446-4932 (office) +1 714-331-9354 (cell) 789-4932 (tie line) Ron_C_Williamson@raytheon.com 1801 Hughes Drive Fullerton, Ca. 92834 USA www.raytheon.com Follow Raytheon On This message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive mail for the addressee), you should not use, copy or disclose to anyone this message or any information contained in this message. If you have received this message in error, please so advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation. Graham Bleakley ---03/30/2012 10:42:36 AM---Hi Ron We did use views and viewpoints in that way but we did not define any From: Graham Bleakley To: Ron C Williamson Cc: "Daniel Brookshier" , "Matthew Hause" , "Sanford Friedenthal" , "updm-rtf" Date: 03/30/2012 10:42 AM Subject: Re: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Ron We did use views and viewpoints in that way but we did not define any stereotypes based upon them We do not have any notion of an "Operational View", for instance, in UPDM. The stereotype does not exist. See my last e-mail re the need for structure as well. Views do not own anything directly everything is via "import" if I remember rightly. And I am not sure if you can define a viewpoint based upon "types" or if it has to work on explicit elements. I think all the examples in the SysML spec are based upon importing explicit elements into a View based upon the textual string contained in the methods section of Viewpoint. I do not think anyone would use this method to structure their models. All the best Graham Dr Graham Bleakley Solution Architect, Unleash the Labs Mobile +44 (0)7740 881280 E-mail graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com To request my assistance please use the ULL link below https://sma-cqwebvm01.ratl.swg.usma.ibm.com/CRT/NewRecord?recordType=request From: Ron C Williamson To: Graham Bleakley/UK/IBM@IBMGB, "updm-rtf" Cc: "Matthew Hause" , "Sanford Friedenthal" , "Daniel Brookshier" Date: 30/03/2012 17:57 Subject: Re: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the beginning....we had several sessions on Views/Viewpoints, Views/Products, etc and came to a consensus (at least the original team did) on the first go around on UPDM 1.0 for definitions of views and viewpoints to reconcile the various ISO/IEEE, SysML, DoDAF and MODAF usages. As I recall, Viewpoint was the specification of Views and was mapped to Class and View was the collection of model elements (and associated diagrams) and was mapped to Package. A key issue was the UML constraints on Package overlapping membership by model elements. Has this now changed in UPDM 2.0 and/or follow on efforts? This seems like a pretty fundamental set concepts to still be thrashing on definitions. Ron Williamson Raytheon Ron Williamson (wireless) ron_c_williamson@raytheon.com 714.331.9354 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graham Bleakley [graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com] Sent: 03/30/2012 10:17 AM CET To: updm-rtf@omg.org Cc: Matthew Hause ; Sanford Friedenthal ; Daniel Brookshier Subject: Fw: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue HI Matthew, Sandy I am not using the terms view and viewpoint in the way that SysML defines them. I am using them in the sense that MODAF and DoDAF uses, i.e. the viewpoints are collections of views (i.e. operational views, systems views) and the views (variously called products, views or models depending upon which documentation you read) are the diagrams (i.e. OV-1 High Level Operational Concept, SV-6c Systems Event Trace) used to create and display the information. It would help if we were all using a standard set of names for these elements when diagram interchange does become a reality. All the best Graham Dr Graham Bleakley Solution Architect, Unleash the Labs Mobile +44 (0)7740 881280 E-mail graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com To request my assistance please use the ULL link below https://sma-cqwebvm01.ratl.swg.usma.ibm.com/CRT/NewRecord?recordType=request From: Matthew Hause To: Sanford Friedenthal , Graham Bleakley/UK/IBM@IBMGB Date: 29/03/2012 22:41 Subject: RE: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I thought so as well, but didn.t want to say.. From: Sanford Friedenthal [mailto:safriedenthal@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 2:39 PM To: 'Graham Bleakley' Cc: updm-2-0-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue Graham Doesn.t UPDM get view and viewpoint from SysML? Sandy From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 12:10 PM To: issues@omg.org; updm-2-0-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue X-Disclaimed: 39178 To: issues@omg.org Cc: Matthew Hause , Daniel Brookshier Subject: Need non-nomative profiles for NAF. DODAF and MODAF views and viewpoints X-KeepSent: 5769429A:B01E4088-852579C7:004717D4; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.1 September 28, 2009 From: Graham Bleakley Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 08:01:25 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D06ML008/06/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF12|September 28, 2011) at 20/03/2012 13:01:26, Serialize complete at 20/03/2012 13:01:26 x-cbid: 12032013-3548-0000-0000-000001640267 Hi Juergen Please can you raise this as an issue against UPDM 2.0 RTF Graham Bleakley, IBM, graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com Views and viewpoint stereotypes do not exist in UPDM at the moment. We need to add them so that we can start to interchange sections of information formally and exchange diagrams when DDI for the specification of UML/SysML diagrams is defined. All the best Graham Dr Graham Bleakley Solution Architect, Unleash the Labs Mobile +44 (0)7740 881280 E-mail graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com To request my assistance please use the ULL link below https://sma-cqwebvm01.ratl.swg.usma.ibm.com/CRT/NewRecord?recordType=request -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services 140 Kendrick Street, Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA Tel: 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: 781 444 0320 www.omg.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail, including attachments, is confidential. It is intended solely for the addressees. If you are not a recipient, any use, copy or diffusion, even in part of this message is prohibited. Please delete it and notify the sender immediately. Since the integrity of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet, MEGA cannot be considered liable for its content. Subject: Re: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue X-KeepSent: A78C4354:015A2873-882579D1:006FAEA4; type=4; name=$KeepSent To: LONJON Antoine Cc: "'danielb@nomagic.com'" , "'graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com'" , "'Matthew.Hause@atego.com'" , "'safriedenthal@gmail.com'" , "'updm-2-0-ftf@omg.org'" X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.2FP1 SHF163 March 17, 2011 From: Ron C Williamson Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 13:34:21 -0700 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ES2-MSG03/SRV/Raytheon(Release 8.5.2FP2|March 22, 2011) at 03/30/2012 13:34:23 Antoine, Agree that Diagrams aren't Views (as represented as Packages), but as an end user I want to be able to "bundle" the model elements and any associated diagrams (or other visual artifacts) within the View as a practical matter. Having a mechanism to generate View structured, model based reports, or import/export Views, or version control Views, or collaboratively share Views that include the model elements (types and or instances) and associated Diagrams/Tables/Report templates has been very useful. I don't really care how this is done "under the hood/bonnet" but would want it to be interchangeable across tools. Many tools already accommodate this "bundling", and as a personal preference I'd like to see this continued in a standardized (interchangeable) way in our use of the UPDM profiles. If Viewpoint/View is the mechanism, great. If not, I leave it to the MOF/UML/Tool experts to help us find a better approach. Ron LONJON Antoine ---03/30/2012 12:57:18 PM---Hi Graham, Views and viewpoints are indeed missing in UPDM and the sysml concept of view, extending From: LONJON Antoine To: "'graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com'" , "'Ron_C_Williamson@raytheon.com'" Cc: "'danielb@nomagic.com'" , "'Matthew.Hause@atego.com'" , "'safriedenthal@gmail.com'" , "'updm-2-0-ftf@omg.org'" Date: 03/30/2012 12:57 PM Subject: Re: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Graham, Views and viewpoints are indeed missing in UPDM and the sysml concept of view, extending package isn't a very good candidate for views as instances. We also need to have architectural descriptions in the loop. However, aren't these concerns orthogonal to DI. Diagrams aren't views for say. Antoine From: Graham Bleakley [mailto:graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 08:58 PM To: Ron C Williamson Cc: Daniel Brookshier ; Matthew Hause ; Sanford Friedenthal ; updm-2-0-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue HI Ron I think the simple answer is that we got so caught up in the profile itself and lack of time that we forgot to add the view and viewpoint stereotypes. To be honest view and viewpoint as specified in SysML really do not cut the mustard for what we need to do. They are not formal enough and they work on explicit elements, not types of elements. The nearest DM2 gets to views and viewpoint is i think in the "models" that PES describes. A model in PES speak is the nearest you get to a viewpoint and the instances of PES models are the views. All the best Graham Dr Graham Bleakley Solution Architect, Unleash the Labs Mobile +44 (0)7740 881280 E-mail graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com To request my assistance please use the ULL link below https://sma-cqwebvm01.ratl.swg.usma.ibm.com/CRT/NewRecord?recordType=request From: Ron C Williamson To: Graham Bleakley/UK/IBM@IBMGB Cc: "Daniel Brookshier" , "Matthew Hause" , "Sanford Friedenthal" , "updm-rtf" Date: 30/03/2012 19:34 Subject: Re: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Graham, Thanks for the follow up emails. Not having the time over the past year or so to be fully involved in the excellent UPDM 2.0 results you and the team have accomplished (and I applaud your efforts), I'm a bit out of date on the latest spec. Just received the spec review URL and will try to catch up. My perspective, as you know, is what we tried to do in the very beginning with UPDM 1.0, and I vividly remember the debates regarding Viewpoint/View and how to reconcile the difference in terminology and usage across the standards, the existing profiles, the AFs, and the various tool implementations. I left that phase with the understanding that Viewpoint and View would indeed have stereotype representations in the profile. My understanding was that the DoDAF 2.x community (not familiar enough with the UK MOD MODEM goals as yet) through the DM2 and IDEAS Group would help with the underlying semantics of (among other "things") View/Viewpoint, model element collections/sets, visual frameworks (such as diagrams), etc. so that we wouldn't be still debating these core term definitions. I was understood, I believe, that the original DoDAF 1.x definitions of View and Product were not in line with the IEEE (now ISO) definitions and that the DM2 was going to "fix" the issue. I'd expect, then, that the OMG UPDM team would continue to translate these definitions into "MOF/UML speak" so that we as "end users" of the profiles have a stable base to build the models of our solutions for our customers...whether it be in " pure" UML, SysML, UPDM, BPMN, etc. or a combination of each. Organizing, sharing, configuring sets of model elements has been a critical need from the beginning on UPDM (and I'm sure other profiles as well). View and Viewpoint were seen as a mechanism to help us organize our models. So...I'm curious why View and Viewpoint stereotypes do not yet exist in the specification as you indicated, given the years of debate, research and recommended solutions on the topic? What "de-railed" the original consensus? Cheers, Ron Ron C Williamson, PhD Sr Engineering Fellow Raytheon Certified Architect The Open Group Certified Master IT Architect Network Centric Systems Raytheon Company +1 714-446-4932 (office) +1 714-331-9354 (cell) 789-4932 (tie line) Ron_C_Williamson@raytheon.com 1801 Hughes Drive Fullerton, Ca. 92834 USA www.raytheon.com Follow Raytheon On This message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive mail for the addressee), you should not use, copy or disclose to anyone this message or any information contained in this message. If you have received this message in error, please so advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation. Graham Bleakley ---03/30/2012 10:42:36 AM---Hi Ron We did use views and viewpoints in that way but we did not define any From: Graham Bleakley To: Ron C Williamson Cc: "Daniel Brookshier" , "Matthew Hause" , "Sanford Friedenthal" , "updm-rtf" Date: 03/30/2012 10:42 AM Subject: Re: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Ron We did use views and viewpoints in that way but we did not define any stereotypes based upon them We do not have any notion of an "Operational View", for instance, in UPDM. The stereotype does not exist. See my last e-mail re the need for structure as well. Views do not own anything directly everything is via "import" if I remember rightly. And I am not sure if you can define a viewpoint based upon "types" or if it has to work on explicit elements. I think all the examples in the SysML spec are based upon importing explicit elements into a View based upon the textual string contained in the methods section of Viewpoint. I do not think anyone would use this method to structure their models. All the best Graham Dr Graham Bleakley Solution Architect, Unleash the Labs Mobile +44 (0)7740 881280 E-mail graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com To request my assistance please use the ULL link below https://sma-cqwebvm01.ratl.swg.usma.ibm.com/CRT/NewRecord?recordType=request From: Ron C Williamson To: Graham Bleakley/UK/IBM@IBMGB, "updm-rtf" Cc: "Matthew Hause" , "Sanford Friedenthal" , "Daniel Brookshier" Date: 30/03/2012 17:57 Subject: Re: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the beginning....we had several sessions on Views/Viewpoints, Views/Products, etc and came to a consensus (at least the original team did) on the first go around on UPDM 1.0 for definitions of views and viewpoints to reconcile the various ISO/IEEE, SysML, DoDAF and MODAF usages. As I recall, Viewpoint was the specification of Views and was mapped to Class and View was the collection of model elements (and associated diagrams) and was mapped to Package. A key issue was the UML constraints on Package overlapping membership by model elements. Has this now changed in UPDM 2.0 and/or follow on efforts? This seems like a pretty fundamental set concepts to still be thrashing on definitions. Ron Williamson Raytheon Ron Williamson (wireless) ron_c_williamson@raytheon.com 714.331.9354 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graham Bleakley [graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com] Sent: 03/30/2012 10:17 AM CET To: updm-rtf@omg.org Cc: Matthew Hause ; Sanford Friedenthal ; Daniel Brookshier Subject: Fw: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue HI Matthew, Sandy I am not using the terms view and viewpoint in the way that SysML defines them. I am using them in the sense that MODAF and DoDAF uses, i.e. the viewpoints are collections of views (i.e. operational views, systems views) and the views (variously called products, views or models depending upon which documentation you read) are the diagrams (i.e. OV-1 High Level Operational Concept, SV-6c Systems Event Trace) used to create and display the information. It would help if we were all using a standard set of names for these elements when diagram interchange does become a reality. All the best Graham Dr Graham Bleakley Solution Architect, Unleash the Labs Mobile +44 (0)7740 881280 E-mail graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com To request my assistance please use the ULL link below https://sma-cqwebvm01.ratl.swg.usma.ibm.com/CRT/NewRecord?recordType=request From: Matthew Hause To: Sanford Friedenthal , Graham Bleakley/UK/IBM@IBMGB Date: 29/03/2012 22:41 Subject: RE: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I thought so as well, but didnât want to say.. From: Sanford Friedenthal [mailto:safriedenthal@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 2:39 PM To: 'Graham Bleakley' Cc: updm-2-0-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue Graham Doesnât UPDM get view and viewpoint from SysML? Sandy From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 12:10 PM To: issues@omg.org; updm-2-0-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 17264 -- UPDM 2.0 RTF issue X-Disclaimed: 39178 To: issues@omg.org Cc: Matthew Hause , Daniel Brookshier Subject: Need non-nomative profiles for NAF. DODAF and MODAF views and viewpoints X-KeepSent: 5769429A:B01E4088-852579C7:004717D4; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.1 September 28, 2009 From: Graham Bleakley Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 08:01:25 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D06ML008/06/M/IBM(Release 8.5.2FP1 ZX852FP1HF12|September 28, 2011) at 20/03/2012 13:01:26, Serialize complete at 20/03/2012 13:01:26 x-cbid: 12032013-3548-0000-0000-000001640267 Hi Juergen Please can you raise this as an issue against UPDM 2.0 RTF Graham Bleakley, IBM, graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com Views and viewpoint stereotypes do not exist in UPDM at the moment. We need to add them so that we can start to interchange sections of information formally and exchange diagrams when DDI for the specification of UML/SysML diagrams is defined. All the best Graham Dr Graham Bleakley Solution Architect, Unleash the Labs Mobile +44 (0)7740 881280 E-mail graham.bleakley@uk.ibm.com To request my assistance please use the ULL link below https://sma-cqwebvm01.ratl.swg.usma.ibm.com/CRT/NewRecord?recordType=request -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU Juergen Boldt Director, Member Services 140 Kendrick Street, Building A Suite 300 Needham, MA 02494 USA Tel: 781 444 0404 x 132 fax: 781 444 0320 www.omg.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail, including attachments, is confidential. It is intended solely for the addressees. If you are not a recipient, any use, copy or diffusion, even in part of this message is prohibited. Please delete it and notify the sender immediately. Since the integrity of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet, MEGA cannot be considered liable for its content.