Issue 17360: some properties are wrongly marked as mandatory (updm-2-0-rtf) Source: Atego (Mr. Simon Moore, simon.moore(at)atego.com) Nature: Revision Severity: Significant Summary: This is raised on behalf of the OMG Model Interchange Working Group as it affects validation of XMI files which use UPDM. --- I noticed that the MIWG's current reference xmi for UPDM testing fails some checks on the NIST validator because mandatory string properties are not specified. For example, in the UPDM 2.0 spec ArchitecturalDescription's 'recommendations' is defined as: • recommendations : String[1] - States the recommendations that have been developed based on the architecture effort. Examples include recommended system implementations, and opportunities for technology insertion. Whereas in UPDM 1.1 it was: • recommendations : String[*] - States the recommendations that have been developed based on the architecture effort. Examples include recommended system implementations, and opportunities for technology insertion. It is not marked with change bars in the UPDM 2.0 spec, which might indicate that this change was not intended, and the example above certainly doesn't have an obvious need to be mandatory. As far as I know, UML and SysML have avoided making properties like this mandatory. So, was this and others like it an intended change? Were the ones already in UPDM 1.1 intended to be mandatory? Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: May 8, 2012: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 08 May 2012 06:31:19 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report ******************************************************************************* Name: Simon Moore Employer: Atego mailFrom: simon.moore@atego.com Terms_Agreement: I agree Specification: Unified Profile for DoDAF and MODAF (UPDM) Section: 8.3 FormalNumber: 2012-01-03 Version: 2.0 Doc_Year: Year Doc_Month: Month Doc_Day: Day Page: 63 Title: some properties are wrongly marked as mandatory Nature: Revision Severity: Significant CODE: 3TMw8 B1: Report Issue Description: This is raised on behalf of the OMG Model Interchange Working Group as it affects validation of XMI files which use UPDM. --- I noticed that the MIWG's current reference xmi for UPDM testing fails some checks on the NIST validator because mandatory string properties are not specified. For example, in the UPDM 2.0 spec ArchitecturalDescription's 'recommendations' is defined as: . recommendations : String[1] - States the recommendations that have been developed based on the architecture effort. Examples include recommended system implementations, and opportunities for technology insertion. Whereas in UPDM 1.1 it was: . recommendations : String[*] - States the recommendations that have been developed based on the architecture effort. Examples include recommended system implementations, and opportunities for technology insertion. It is not marked with change bars in the UPDM 2.0 spec, which might indicate that this change was not intended, and the example above certainly doesn't have an obvious need to be mandatory. As far as I know, UML and SysML have avoided making properties like this mandatory. So, was this and others like it an intended change? Were the ones already in UPDM 1.1 intended to be mandatory? Subject: RE: issue 17360 -- UPDM 2 RTF issue Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 07:36:58 -0700 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: issue 17360 -- UPDM 2 RTF issue Thread-Index: Ac0tI3V2U7yCh/+vSGKv+QBgZK8wqAABF+rQ From: "Pete Rivett" To: It.s not only been made mandatory but single-valued . which seems to contradict the ddescription which refers to .recommendations. (plural). Pete From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 7:04 AM To: issues@omg.org; updm-2-0-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 17360 -- UPDM 2 RTF issue From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 08 May 2012 06:31:19 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report ******************************************************************************* Name: Simon Moore Employer: Atego mailFrom: simon.moore@atego.com Terms_Agreement: I agree Specification: Unified Profile for DoDAF and MODAF (UPDM) Section: 8.3 FormalNumber: 2012-01-03 Version: 2.0 Doc_Year: Year Doc_Month: Month Doc_Day: Day Page: 63 Title: some properties are wrongly marked as mandatory Nature: Revision Severity: Significant CODE: 3TMw8 B1: Report Issue Description: This is raised on behalf of the OMG Model Interchange Working Group as it affects validation of XMI files which use UPDM. --- I noticed that the MIWG's current reference xmi for UPDM testing fails some checks on the NIST validator because mandatory string properties are not specified. For example, in the UPDM 2.0 spec ArchitecturalDescription's 'recommendations' is defined as: recommendations : String[1] - States the recommendations that have been developed based on the architecture effort. Examples include recommended system implementations, and opportunities for technology insertion. Whereas in UPDM 1.1 it was: recommendations : String[*] - States the recommendations that have been developed based on the architecture effort. Examples include recommended system implementations, and opportunities for technology insertion. It is not marked with change bars in the UPDM 2.0 spec, which might indicate that this change was not intended, and the example above certainly doesn't have an obvious need to be mandatory. As far as I know, UML and SysML have avoided making properties like this mandatory. So, was this and others like it an intended change? Were the ones already in UPDM 1.1 intended to be mandatory? 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 Subject: RE: issue 17360 -- UPDM 2 RTF issue Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 11:01:26 -0400 X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: issue 17360 -- UPDM 2 RTF issue Thread-Index: Ac0tI3V2U7yCh/+vSGKv+QBgZK8wqAABF+rQAACtTDA= From: "Levine, Leonard F CIV DISA EE" To: "Pete Rivett" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 May 2012 15:01:27.0495 (UTC) FILETIME=[71844570:01CD2D2B] Please note that the data model was changed dramatically from OMG UPDM Version 1.* (1.0 or 1.1) to OMG Version 2.0. to reflect similarly dramatic DoDAF 2.02 changes from DoDAF 1.5. As inconsistencies come up, I appreciate that they should be examined on a case-by-case basis. Len -----Original Message----- From: Pete Rivett [mailto:pete.rivett@adaptive.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 10:37 AM To: updm-2-0-rtf@omg.org Subject: RE: issue 17360 -- UPDM 2 RTF issue Itâs not only been made mandatory but single-valued ­ which seems to contradict the description which refers to ârecommendationsâ (plural). Pete From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 7:04 AM To: issues@omg.org; updm-2-0-rtf@omg.org Subject: issue 17360 -- UPDM 2 RTF issue From: webmaster@omg.org Date: 08 May 2012 06:31:19 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report ******************************************************************************* Name: Simon Moore Employer: Atego mailFrom: simon.moore@atego.com Terms_Agreement: I agree Specification: Unified Profile for DoDAF and MODAF (UPDM) Section: 8.3 FormalNumber: 2012-01-03 Version: 2.0 Doc_Year: Year Doc_Month: Month Doc_Day: Day Page: 63 Title: some properties are wrongly marked as mandatory Nature: Revision Severity: Significant CODE: 3TMw8 B1: Report Issue Description: This is raised on behalf of the OMG Model Interchange Working Group as it affects validation of XMI files which use UPDM. --- I noticed that the MIWG's current reference xmi for UPDM testing fails some checks on the NIST validator because mandatory string properties are not specified. For example, in the UPDM 2.0 spec ArchitecturalDescription's 'recommendations' is defined as: recommendations : String[1] - States the recommendations that have been developed based on the architecture effort. Examples include recommended system implementations, and opportunities for technology insertion. Whereas in UPDM 1.1 it was: recommendations : String[*] - States the recommendations that have been developed based on the architecture effort. Examples include recommended system implementations, and opportunities for technology insertion. It is not marked with change bars in the UPDM 2.0 spec, which might indicate that this change was not intended, and the example above certainly doesn't have an obvious need to be mandatory. As far as I know, UML and SysML have avoided making properties like this mandatory. So, was this and others like it an intended change? Were the ones already in UPDM 1.1 intended to be mandatory? 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 [] smime.p7s