Issue 17469: Scope of a measure should be made optional (smm-rtf) Source: Cordys (Mr. Henk de Man, hdman(at)cordys.com) Nature: Revision Severity: Summary: The following changes have been submitted and are pending with the SMM (Structured Metrics Metamodel) RTF. Scope of a measure should be made optional. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: July 13, 2012: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== ogle-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :x-gm-message-state; bh=JS22JZTBCD0GShkP7RtP0E26/JBM9wSh8FxaFDdlyIE=; b=YzS8svlvXoei2BF45PjRNt+c8FiIQm4tHinzN2ipAV8GzNzNDHZ4gpqfvi5bp5kyNy gNGtlMnJqmstf1LneJ8OUoSW9Ao5/JLXT2O+ob2Uf4QJ1niDiQxSa0uRvdhF6Kbxphrs F3/PUV+YU2AhPiPuM20P8vbuNkCGlFw+cb0ebCVPSPpGaezma6dnxU5/klgtbS+/XNRl TuuLM3gusA/yxv7pnoy3X7Wz60CWF0jcp5IBLLAyOpXOOX3qZmJ76j0B7V+RfdjYcRe/ FzqYdZY2UkkLd/ga26x2wsbHmcEOY6Oh9tiAGAGVfdVhFNvyLrxDTRiFzeo2iu+6Qrhj PHWg== Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 09:21:11 +0200 Subject: SMM RTF issues - mail 1 of 2 From: Henk de Man To: Juergen Boldt Cc: Henk de Man X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnD0OqBeFU0sEHyGFypipPsGHPUnJCyahoaVsy2anDFYI1RbFt3VxGWVUmy8IkD22PzEAMN Juergen, Hereby the first set of issues for SMM RTF. These are the requirements that VDML revised submission (from May this year) is imposing on SMM. I copy from the VDML submission here (the 7 bullets below represent 6 issues/requirements): 6.1 Changes to Adopted OMG Specifications The following changes have been submitted and are pending with the SMM (Structured Metrics Metamodel) RTF. Scope of a measure should be made optional. From: Larry Hines To: Juergen Boldt , "issues@omg.org" , "smm-rtf@omg.org" Subject: RE: issues 17469 - 17471 -- SMM RTF issues Thread-Topic: issues 17469 - 17471 -- SMM RTF issues Thread-Index: AQHNYQ97PbCntgGHlUuiKaSao/zVY5cqqruw Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 19:21:57 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.24.11.7] X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jul 2012 19:21:58.0955 (UTC) FILETIME=[1AAEC7B0:01CD62BF] With respect to #17469: A measure is not well defined without a scope. The scope of a measure identifies a set of objects as the domain of the measure. . SMM requires thaat the objects be instances of a single class. Basically, the scope indicates the class of the measurands of the measurements of this measure. Put more succinctly, the measure is applicable to instances of the scope.s class. With respect to #17470 and 17471: I don.t know what is being accomplish with the small metamodel package. SMM already specifies the class of the measurand. See Semantics subheading under Measurement Class section. Semantics Measurand must be in the scope of measure. Specifically, measurand must be an instance of the class named in measure.scope.class. If measure.scope.recognizers is given then the recognizer applied to the measurand must return true. From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 10:52 AM To: issues@omg.org; smm-rtf@omg.org Subject: issues 17469 - 17471 -- SMM RTF issues This is issue # 17469 From: Henk de Man Scope of a measure should be made optional. =============================================== This is issue # 17470 From: Henk de Man SMM metamodel contains class "MofElement". SMM metamodel contains class "MofElement". It's name is not precisely identifying the Element class in MOF (or CMOF), and the XMI file might not contain the precise reference either. SMM should create a small metamodel package "MOF" (or CMOF), containing at least "Element". And refer to it as measurand, from SMM, instead of having the MOF Element class in the SMM package itself. In addition to that, the XMI file should contain the correct reference (href) to Element ================================================ This is issue # 17471 From: Henk de Man The measurand of Measurement, which references Element (MOF), is owned by Measurement The measurand of Measurement, which references Element (MOF), is owned by Measurement. It should instead be owned by the association between Measurement and Element. This means that metamodels, such as VDML, extending SMM are able to create their own more specialized associations to restrict the measurand to be typed by metaclasses in their own metamodel. Otherwise they will need to specialize Measurement (SMM) itself . and, what is so awkward, specialize all the subclasses of Measurement (e.g. via multiple inheritance). By specializing only the association they can reuse the SMM Measurement class and all its SMM subclasses with no change. The root constraint underlying all the above is that MOF/UML requires any redefined property to be owned by a classifier that is a generalization of the one owning the redefining property. Note that both associations and classes are classifiers. More specifically, to be able to state that C1:p1 {redefines C2:p2} then C2 must be a supertype of C1 (directly or indirectly). This message has been scanned by MailController. 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 X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=FVUwGIJ+AHGmpAukOVA79rdDUMY5ehHUnUvVlIid+VI=; b=Rr8TqPy5E5xdX+pct5H36pSu4svQUrDVND9CyJ02rzok0GgbWiYYD21y/wickV9pHc Avs9oc39AyJ/Iv307cHJjBZxhBbD4WmpNHJPJxtUdwmrJd83koK/GitmzpAKjp4xWwPP WAHMNx6s0z6eIJ4+VTwztrE51LAWgsxKDEr2FynORKrkD8GkQyMt2M9ztYcSX6GO3z1A eWpe4AeXycowuUkGHvm5rMdp+BVQMei3RQxZihgRVbk67Yccy6QuzUBPrQcU81wUSw4V DS0WirjapsFBpUjR40cJRL0C/iUqWeOhM9tVBf4SVHmSJi1J4Xlfm19mOwlDYo6gifDq WtTw== Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 14:03:07 +0200 Subject: Re: issues 17469 - 17471 -- SMM RTF issues From: Henk de Man To: Larry Hines Cc: Juergen Boldt , "issues@omg.org" , "smm-rtf@omg.org" , Alain Picard , Pete Rivett , "fred.a.cummins" , Arne Berre , Henk de Man X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmTvfJBbmU6ZplVbRfgK8bjSTXbuqoixxiZfTbF8VYlItA1dHpjJ7S6R3zo5TXJgmOoo3+/ Larry, see below, for my comments. On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Larry Hines wrote: With respect to #17469: A measure is not well defined without a scope.  The scope of a measure identifies a set of objects as the domain of the measure. . SMM requires that the objects be instances of a sinngle class.  Basically, the scope indicates the class of the measurands of the measurements of this measure. Put more succinctly, the measure is applicable to instances of the scopeâs class. [hdm] RegardingÂissue # 17469:ÂFrom VDML perspective (integrating SMM), Measure Scope, as defined in SMM is redundant. It is also unwanted. From a business analyst perspective it is not useful to specify scope as a meta-model class. Looking to the various metric libraries that are common in Industry, there's not such a scope definition. It must be made optional so that applications that want to use it, can use it, but applications that cannnot use it, aren't hindered. Alain Picard has acknowledged that it is better indeed to make Measure Scope optional, and that this has been asked for by others as well. ÂThe VDML submission, in its section 6.1 imposes this as requirement on SMM.  With respect to #17470 and 17471: I donât know what is being accomplish with the small metamodel package. SMM already specifies the class of the measurand. See Semantics subheading under Measurement Class section.  Semantics Measurand must be in the scope of measure. Specifically, measurand must be an instance of the class named in measure.scope.class. If measure.scope.recognizers is given then the recognizer applied to the measurand must return true. [hdm] RegardingÂÂissue # 17470: "MofElement" is an imprecise and, in fact, wrong identification of the class Element (from CMOF). Alain Picard has ackknowledged that this should be corrected.ÂÂThe VDML submission, in its section 6.1 imposes this as requirement on SMM.  [hdm] Regarding issueÂissue # 17471: This is necessary to enable better integration of SMM with other specifications, such as VDML. In VDML context, and with Alain Picard, this has been discussed extensively. The text as provided in the issue has been carefully designed by Pete Rivett, and is precise and complete.ÂThe VDML submission, in its section 6.1 imposes this as requirement on SMM.  From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 10:52 AM To: issues@omg.org; smm-rtf@omg.org Subject: issues 17469 - 17471 -- SMM RTF issues  This is issue # 17469ÂÂÂFrom: Henk de Man Scope of a measure should be made optional. =============================================== This is issue # 17470ÂÂÂFrom: Henk de Man SMM metamodel contains class "MofElement". SMM metamodel contains class "MofElement". It's name is not precisely identifying the Element class in MOF (or CMOF), and the XMI file might not contain the precise reference either. SMM should create a small metamodel package "MOF" (or CMOF), containing at least "Element". And refer to it as measurand, from SMM, instead of having the MOF Element class in the SMM package itself. In addition to that, the XMI file should contain the correct reference (href) to Element ================================================ This is issue # 17471ÂÂÂFrom: Henk de Man The measurand of Measurement, which references Element (MOF), is owned by Measurement The measurand of Measurement, which references Element (MOF), is owned by Measurement. It should instead be owned by the association between Measurement and Element. This means that metamodels, such as VDML, extending SMM are able to create their own more specialized associations to restrict the measurand to be typed by metaclasses in their own metamodel. Otherwise they will need to specialize Measurement (SMM) itself � and, what is so awkward, specialize all the subclasses of Measurement (e.g. via multiple inheritance). By specializing only the association they can reuse the SMM Measurement class and all its SMM subclasses with no change. The root constraint underlying all the above is that MOF/UML requires any redefined property to be owned by a classifier that is a generalization of the one owning the redefining property. Note that both associations and classes are classifiers. More specifically, to be able to state that C1:p1 {redefines C2:p2} then C2 must be a supertype of C1 (directly or indirectly). This message has been scanned by MailController.   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  -- Henk de Man Research Director hdman@cordys.com www.cordys.com T +31 (0)341 37 5541 . M +31 (0)6 51 43 09 45 CORDYS . Improving Busiiness Operations