Issue 17473: Add attribute “type” (String) to Observation (smm-rtf) Source: Cordys (Mr. Henk de Man, hdman(at)cordys.com) Nature: Revision Severity: Summary: Add attribute “type” (String) to Observation. Examples of observation type values are “estimated”, “actual”, "simulated", "benchmark". Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: July 13, 2012: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== s is issue # 17473 From: Henk de Man To: Juergen Boldt , "issues@omg.org" , "smm-rtf@omg.org" Subject: RE: issues 17472 - 17475 -- SMM RTF issues Thread-Topic: issues 17472 - 17475 -- SMM RTF issues Thread-Index: AQHNYRB5ZHhwo3QPgUiSoRbKmbLbHZcpGa+g Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 18:40:01 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.24.11.7] X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Jul 2012 18:40:02.0870 (UTC) FILETIME=[1490ED60:01CD61F0] With respect to #17472: These attributes seem better fit for Measure, the method of measurement. A measurement is a single data point obtained by applying a measure. The measure may have precision, confidence bounds and a distribution. With respect to #17473: Each of these types seem to be categories of measures. Perhaps SMM should include some built-in measure categories such as Estimators, Simulators and Benchmarks. With respect to #17474: Measures can be equated. If there are multiple, equally good direct measures for a given characteristic then they are be directly associated by the measure equivalence relationship. With respect to #17475: I.m good with this. From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 10:59 AM To: issues@omg.org; smm-rtf@omg.org Subject: issues 17472 - 17475 -- SMM RTF issues This is issue # 17472 From: Henk de Man To: Larry Hines Cc: Juergen Boldt , "issues@omg.org" , "smm-rtf@omg.org" , Henk de Man , Alain Picard , Pete Rivett , Arne Berre , "fred.a.cummins" X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQksqIh7GVwAF6Mewh9JrqjgeeMHdxauYBrS5eXbuTthMImmfhusrd7koZaMBsSx94Rdlj8F Larry, See below. On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Larry Hines wrote: With respect to #17472: These attributes seem better fit for Measure, the method of measurement. A measurement is a single data point obtained by applying a measure. The measure may have precision, confidence bounds and a distribution. [hdm] ÂWith respect to #17472: It is not correct to state that a measurement is a single data point. See e.g.ÂHubbard, Douglas W., How to Measure Anything, Finding the Value of âIntangiblesâ in Business, John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey, 2010. His main point is, that, in business measurements, just point measures aren't good measures. Often the point measure is not known or is not 100 % trustable. It is very important to be able to state measurement (so the result of measurement) as something that resides in a confidence interval, according to a certain level of confidence. ÂA measurement can be a point value. But it should also be possible to state a measurement as e.g. a confidence interval, with a confidence value. So-far about confidence interval and confidence. Now about distribution (stochastic distribution): A Monte Carlo measurement (i.e. outcome of Multi Carlo simulation or experiment) is typically expressed as a set of values that can be best described by a distribution curve. Stochastic enabling of measurement is important. But the distribution itself can not very well be defined as part of the measure, because the measure is re-usable in different contexts, and the distribution will often be specific to that context.   With respect to #17473: Each of these types seem to be categories of measures. Perhaps SMM should include some built-in measure categories such as Estimators, Simulators and Benchmarks. [hdm] ÂWith respect to #17473: It is not about the measure, but about the observation. It is about a specification the type of the observation. Note that the same measure can be used for for estimated measurement, as-is measurement, simulated measurement.  With respect to #17474: Measures can be equated. If there are multiple, equally good direct measures for a given characteristic then they are be directly associated by the measure equivalence relationship. [hdm]ÂWith respect to #17474.ÂThis is not about equivalence. ÂIt is like method overloading in Java ... When the same direct measure is applied in different contexts, slightly different or additional arguments (parameters) might be required in its operation. So, actually, more than one operation would be required. During discussions with Alain Picard this came out as the best solution.  With respect to #17475: Iâm good with this.   From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 10:59 AM To: issues@omg.org; smm-rtf@omg.org Subject: issues 17472 - 17475 -- SMM RTF issues  This is issue # 17472ÂÂÂFrom: Henk de Man To: Henk de Man CC: Juergen Boldt , "issues@omg.org" , "smm-rtf@omg.org" , Alain Picard , Pete Rivett , Arne Berre , "fred.a.cummins" Subject: RE: issues 17473 - 17474 -- SMM RTF issues Thread-Topic: issues 17473 - 17474 -- SMM RTF issues Thread-Index: AQHNZDR5Qw8fbBSHbEKqTXMfnaVbIA== Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:54:39 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.64.26.13] X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Jul 2012 15:54:41.0352 (UTC) FILETIME=[7A1EAC80:01CD6434] The proposal contained in 17473 and 17474 seems rather convoluted. First let me ask what are the semantics of the four observation types? What is an estimated observation, an actual observation, a simulated observation and a benchmark observation? I can imagine definitions for .actual. and even for .benchmark.. Actual would mean that the measure was actually applied. Benchmark would mean that the measure was actually applied for the purposes of obtaining a benchmark. Following this train of thought, I would guess that simulated is that the measure was simulated and not actually applied. Perhaps estimated means that the measure was estimated. This is why the examples you gave appear to me to be categories of measures. If asked about types of observations generally I would assert that observations could be typed as casual, natural, subjective, objective, direct, indirectly, controlled, uncontrolled, intrusive, nonintrusive, etc. Something that seems obvious to me is that the measure used in a subjective observation cannot be the same measure as one used in an objective measure. They may be or may not be assigned the same name, but they are different measures. The two measures would certainly have the same characteristic and the same domain. In 17474 especially you seem to be creating a relationship between measures. Why push the relationship into the definition of DirectMeasure? As a side note, I do think that observation is rather under specified. From: Henk de Man [mailto:hdman@cordys.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 8:01 AM To: Larry Hines Cc: Juergen Boldt; issues@omg.org; smm-rtf@omg.org; Henk de Man; Alain Picard; Pete Rivett; Arne Berre; fred.a.cummins Subject: Re: issues 17472 - 17475 -- SMM RTF issues Larry, See below. On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Larry Hines wrote: With respect to #17472: These attributes seem better fit for Measure, the method of measurement. A measurement is a single data point obtained by applying a measure. The measure may have precision, confidence bounds and a distribution. [hdm] With respect to #17472: It is not correct to state that a measurement is a single data point. See e.g. Hubbard, Douglas W., How to Measure Anything, Finding the Value of .Intangibles. in Business, John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey, 2010. His main point is, that, in business measurements, just point measures aren't good measures. Often the point measure is not known or is not 100 % trustable. It is very important to be able to state measurement (so the result of measurement) as something that resides in a confidence interval, according to a certain level of confidence. A measurement can be a point value. But it should also be possible to state a measurement as e.g. a confidence interval, with a confidence value. So-far about confidence interval and confidence. Now about distribution (stochastic distribution): A Monte Carlo measurement (i.e. outcome of Multi Carlo simulation or experiment) is typically expressed as a set of values that can be best described by a distribution curve. Stochastic enabling of measurement is important. But the distribution itself can not very well be defined as part of the measure, because the measure is re-usable in different contexts, and the distribution will often be specific to that context. With respect to #17473: Each of these types seem to be categories of measures. Perhaps SMM should include some built-in measure categories such as Estimators, Simulators and Benchmarks. [hdm] With respect to #17473: It is not about the measure, but about the observation. It is about a specification the type of the observation. Note that the same measure can be used for for estimated measurement, as-is measurement, simulated measurement. With respect to #17474: Measures can be equated. If there are multiple, equally good direct measures for a given characteristic then they are be directly associated by the measure equivalence relationship. [hdm] With respect to #17474. This is not about equivalence. It is like method overloading in Java ... When the same direct measure is applied in different contexts, slightly different or additional arguments (parameters) might be required in its operation. So, actually, more than one operation would be required. During discussions with Alain Picard this came out as the best solution. With respect to #17475: I.m good with this. From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 10:59 AM To: issues@omg.org; smm-rtf@omg.org Subject: issues 17472 - 17475 -- SMM RTF issues This is issue # 17472 From: Henk de Man To: Larry Hines Cc: Juergen Boldt , "issues@omg.org" , "smm-rtf@omg.org" , Alain Picard , Pete Rivett , Arne Berre , "fred.a.cummins" , Henk de Man X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmgCvkIoGt44DaI1yok9L88v3hDGMP9uDvvPPzFSn+StO344AXk79mlcH1mrtQcaHDKV2tb Larry, See below. In-lined comments. On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Larry Hines wrote: The proposal contained in 17473 and 17474 seems rather convoluted.  First let me ask what are the semantics of the four observation types? [hdm] The suggestion was not about four types, but just a string to allow any type. The four types were just examples. So, just something as simple as a string to enter the type of observation.  ÂÂWhat is an estimated observation [hdm] An observation which measurements have values that are just business analyst "guesstimates", or "values of planned or targeted performance". Note that we talk about measurements of characteristics of elements of business models / business systems. VDML applies SMM to the area of business design. , an actual observation [hdm] When parts of the business design have been implemented in real world, measurements can be created in the real world (actual performance), and these might be fed back to the model, per separate observation on the same thing.  , a simulated observation [hdm] Measures executed during a simulation game. They can be imported back into the model, per separate observation.  and a benchmark observation? [hdm] E.g. measurements that express industry benchmarks for similar situations, stored in the model per separate observation. ÂI can imagine definitions for âactualâ and even for âbenchmarkâ. Actual would mean that the measure was actually applied. Benchmark would mean that the measure was actually applied for the purposes of obtaining a benchmark. Following this train of thought, I would guess that simulated is that the measure was simulated and not actually applied. Perhaps estimated means that the measure was estimated. ÂThis is why the examples you gave appear to me to be categories of measures. [hdm] This is not about categories of measures. It is about measurements (to outcomes of measuring), Âstored per observation, but organized in a way that we can distinguish them (so per separate observation). Note that VDML integrates with SMM Observations. Btw: the VDML-SMM integration is quite significant.  If asked about types of observations generally I would assert that observations could be typed as casual, natural, subjective, objective, direct, indirectly, controlled, uncontrolled, intrusive, nonintrusive, etc.  [hdm] All good, but let's not try to fix a list in an enum, but rather something simple as a string (which was Alain Picards proposal). The same string can then be used for the "four" example types that I gave. Something that seems obvious to me is that the measure used in a subjective observation cannot be the same measure as one used in an objective measure.  [hdm] The measure is one, and a re-usable one in a library. The name is given, the characteristic (or trait) is given, the unit is given, and if defined, the operation or formula or functor or accumulator is given, etc. But different observations result in different measurements against the same measure. Here we hit on a triggering dilemma: In our business modeling context, there are very many dependencies between measures (thru aggregation thru binary or collective measures and/or thru re-scaling). So, if manual entry of guesstimates, querying of actuals, etc. would all require different measures, than this would lead to redundancy of almost complete libraries. Not just of direct measure, but also all aggregates that aggregate from them.. This would not be maintainable. What would be required is this: A direct measure has e.g. a query defined, which can be used for querying of actual performance (e.g. from a process instance database). The same measure can however be used, to just enter the value manually, as an estimate. But per different observation. So, in other words: dependent on the observation, the operation is used or not used. This is a special case of what was suggested per the other issue: allowing multiple operations on a direct measure. Note that any aggregated measure (rescaled, binary, collective) does not have this issue, but it just executes is formula or functor or accumulator. This will lead to a much better and maintainable situation: the aggregated measures can aggregate from underlying direct or aggregated measurements, regardless of how the leave measurements were created (estimates, or query result, etc.). Otherwise we would have to duplicate all these aggregated measures also.. !  ÂThey may be or may not be assigned the same name, but they are different measures. The two measures would certainly have the same characteristic and the same domain.  In 17474 especially you seem to be creating a relationship between measures. Why push the relationship into the definition of DirectMeasure? [hdm] 17474 is about allowing 0..* operations on a direct measure. For libraries of business measures to be maintainable, it is required to allow for this. Above I explained that we want to re-use the same measure for manual entry of guestimate as well as for actuals querying. Similar applies to variations of queries. E.g. exactly the same measure is applied in different parts of the business system. However, in one part of the business a different query service is used than in other part. We cannot duplicate the measure for this, because otherwise all rescaled, binary and collective measures, that are based on them, would have to be duplicated as well, which would kill the library approach, as the re-use would be gone.  As a side note, I do think that observation is rather under specified. [hdm] I am all in for building more on that, when we can keep the library pure and better re-usable.   From: Henk de Man [mailto:hdman@cordys.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 8:01 AM To: Larry Hines Cc: Juergen Boldt; issues@omg.org; smm-rtf@omg.org; Henk de Man; Alain Picard; Pete Rivett; Arne Berre; fred.a.cummins Subject: Re: issues 17472 - 17475 -- SMM RTF issues  Larry,  See below. On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Larry Hines wrote: With respect to #17472: These attributes seem better fit for Measure, the method of measurement. A measurement is a single data point obtained by applying a measure. The measure may have precision, confidence bounds and a distribution. [hdm] ÂWith respect to #17472: It is not correct to state that a measurement is a single data point. See e.g.ÂHubbard, Douglas W., How to Measure Anything, Finding the Value of âIntangiblesâ in Business, John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey, 2010. His main point is, that, in business measurements, just point measures aren't good measures. Often the point measure is not known or is not 100 % trustable. It is very important to be able to state measurement (so the result of measurement) as something that resides in a confidence interval, according to a certain level of confidence. ÂA measurement can be a point value. But it should also be possible to state a measurement as e.g. a confidence interval, with a confidence value. So-far about confidence interval and confidence. Now about distribution (stochastic distribution): A Monte Carlo measurement (i.e. outcome of Multi Carlo simulation or experiment) is typically expressed as a set of values that can be best described by a distribution curve. Stochastic enabling of measurement is important. But the distribution itself can not very well be defined as part of the measure, because the measure is re-usable in different contexts, and the distribution will often be specific to that context.   With respect to #17473: Each of these types seem to be categories of measures. Perhaps SMM should include some built-in measure categories such as Estimators, Simulators and Benchmarks. [hdm] ÂWith respect to #17473: It is not about the measure, but about the observation. It is about a specification the type of the observation. Note that the same measure can be used for for estimated measurement, as-is measurement, simulated measurement.  With respect to #17474: Measures can be equated. If there are multiple, equally good direct measures for a given characteristic then they are be directly associated by the measure equivalence relationship. [hdm]ÂWith respect to #17474.ÂThis is not about equivalence. ÂIt is like method overloading in Java ... When the same direct measure is applied in different contexts, slightly different or additional arguments (parameters) might be required in its operation. So, actually, more than one operation would be required. During discussions with Alain Picard this came out as the best solution.  With respect to #17475: Iâm good with this.   From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 10:59 AM To: issues@omg.org; smm-rtf@omg.org Subject: issues 17472 - 17475 -- SMM RTF issues  This is issue # 17472ÂÂÂFrom: Henk de Man To: Larry Hines Cc: Juergen Boldt , "issues@omg.org" , "smm-rtf@omg.org" , Alain Picard , Pete Rivett , Arne Berre , "fred.a.cummins" , Henk de Man X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmgCvkIoGt44DaI1yok9L88v3hDGMP9uDvvPPzFSn+StO344AXk79mlcH1mrtQcaHDKV2tb Larry, See below. In-lined comments. On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Larry Hines wrote: The proposal contained in 17473 and 17474 seems rather convoluted.  First let me ask what are the semantics of the four observation types? [hdm] The suggestion was not about four types, but just a string to allow any type. The four types were just examples. So, just something as simple as a string to enter the type of observation.  ÂÂWhat is an estimated observation [hdm] An observation which measurements have values that are just business analyst "guesstimates", or "values of planned or targeted performance". Note that we talk about measurements of characteristics of elements of business models / business systems. VDML applies SMM to the area of business design. , an actual observation [hdm] When parts of the business design have been implemented in real world, measurements can be created in the real world (actual performance), and these might be fed back to the model, per separate observation on the same thing.  , a simulated observation [hdm] Measures executed during a simulation game. They can be imported back into the model, per separate observation.  and a benchmark observation? [hdm] E.g. measurements that express industry benchmarks for similar situations, stored in the model per separate observation. ÂI can imagine definitions for âactualâ and even for âbenchmarkâ. Actual would mean that the measure was actually applied. Benchmark would mean that the measure was actually applied for the purposes of obtaining a benchmark. Following this train of thought, I would guess that simulated is that the measure was simulated and not actually applied. Perhaps estimated means that the measure was estimated. ÂThis is why the examples you gave appear to me to be categories of measures. [hdm] This is not about categories of measures. It is about measurements (to outcomes of measuring), Âstored per observation, but organized in a way that we can distinguish them (so per separate observation). Note that VDML integrates with SMM Observations. Btw: the VDML-SMM integration is quite significant.  If asked about types of observations generally I would assert that observations could be typed as casual, natural, subjective, objective, direct, indirectly, controlled, uncontrolled, intrusive, nonintrusive, etc.  [hdm] All good, but let's not try to fix a list in an enum, but rather something simple as a string (which was Alain Picards proposal). The same string can then be used for the "four" example types that I gave. Something that seems obvious to me is that the measure used in a subjective observation cannot be the same measure as one used in an objective measure.  [hdm] The measure is one, and a re-usable one in a library. The name is given, the characteristic (or trait) is given, the unit is given, and if defined, the operation or formula or functor or accumulator is given, etc. But different observations result in different measurements against the same measure. Here we hit on a triggering dilemma: In our business modeling context, there are very many dependencies between measures (thru aggregation thru binary or collective measures and/or thru re-scaling). So, if manual entry of guesstimates, querying of actuals, etc. would all require different measures, than this would lead to redundancy of almost complete libraries. Not just of direct measure, but also all aggregates that aggregate from them.. This would not be maintainable. What would be required is this: A direct measure has e.g. a query defined, which can be used for querying of actual performance (e.g. from a process instance database). The same measure can however be used, to just enter the value manually, as an estimate. But per different observation. So, in other words: dependent on the observation, the operation is used or not used. This is a special case of what was suggested per the other issue: allowing multiple operations on a direct measure. Note that any aggregated measure (rescaled, binary, collective) does not have this issue, but it just executes is formula or functor or accumulator. This will lead to a much better and maintainable situation: the aggregated measures can aggregate from underlying direct or aggregated measurements, regardless of how the leave measurements were created (estimates, or query result, etc.). Otherwise we would have to duplicate all these aggregated measures also.. !  ÂThey may be or may not be assigned the same name, but they are different measures. The two measures would certainly have the same characteristic and the same domain.  In 17474 especially you seem to be creating a relationship between measures. Why push the relationship into the definition of DirectMeasure? [hdm] 17474 is about allowing 0..* operations on a direct measure. For libraries of business measures to be maintainable, it is required to allow for this. Above I explained that we want to re-use the same measure for manual entry of guestimate as well as for actuals querying. Similar applies to variations of queries. E.g. exactly the same measure is applied in different parts of the business system. However, in one part of the business a different query service is used than in other part. We cannot duplicate the measure for this, because otherwise all rescaled, binary and collective measures, that are based on them, would have to be duplicated as well, which would kill the library approach, as the re-use would be gone.  As a side note, I do think that observation is rather under specified. [hdm] I am all in for building more on that, when we can keep the library pure and better re-usable.   From: Henk de Man [mailto:hdman@cordys.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 8:01 AM To: Larry Hines Cc: Juergen Boldt; issues@omg.org; smm-rtf@omg.org; Henk de Man; Alain Picard; Pete Rivett; Arne Berre; fred.a.cummins Subject: Re: issues 17472 - 17475 -- SMM RTF issues  Larry,  See below. On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Larry Hines wrote: With respect to #17472: These attributes seem better fit for Measure, the method of measurement. A measurement is a single data point obtained by applying a measure. The measure may have precision, confidence bounds and a distribution. [hdm] ÂWith respect to #17472: It is not correct to state that a measurement is a single data point. See e.g.ÂHubbard, Douglas W., How to Measure Anything, Finding the Value of âIntangiblesâ in Business, John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey, 2010. His main point is, that, in business measurements, just point measures aren't good measures. Often the point measure is not known or is not 100 % trustable. It is very important to be able to state measurement (so the result of measurement) as something that resides in a confidence interval, according to a certain level of confidence. ÂA measurement can be a point value. But it should also be possible to state a measurement as e.g. a confidence interval, with a confidence value. So-far about confidence interval and confidence. Now about distribution (stochastic distribution): A Monte Carlo measurement (i.e. outcome of Multi Carlo simulation or experiment) is typically expressed as a set of values that can be best described by a distribution curve. Stochastic enabling of measurement is important. But the distribution itself can not very well be defined as part of the measure, because the measure is re-usable in different contexts, and the distribution will often be specific to that context.   With respect to #17473: Each of these types seem to be categories of measures. Perhaps SMM should include some built-in measure categories such as Estimators, Simulators and Benchmarks. [hdm] ÂWith respect to #17473: It is not about the measure, but about the observation. It is about a specification the type of the observation. Note that the same measure can be used for for estimated measurement, as-is measurement, simulated measurement.  With respect to #17474: Measures can be equated. If there are multiple, equally good direct measures for a given characteristic then they are be directly associated by the measure equivalence relationship. [hdm]ÂWith respect to #17474.ÂThis is not about equivalence. ÂIt is like method overloading in Java ... When the same direct measure is applied in different contexts, slightly different or additional arguments (parameters) might be required in its operation. So, actually, more than one operation would be required. During discussions with Alain Picard this came out as the best solution.  With respect to #17475: Iâm good with this.   From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 10:59 AM To: issues@omg.org; smm-rtf@omg.org Subject: issues 17472 - 17475 -- SMM RTF issues  This is issue # 17472ÂÂÂFrom: Henk de Man To: Henk de Man CC: Juergen Boldt , "issues@omg.org" , "smm-rtf@omg.org" , Alain Picard , Pete Rivett , Arne Berre , "fred.a.cummins" Subject: RE: issues 17473 - 17474 -- SMM RTF issues Thread-Topic: issues 17473 - 17474 -- SMM RTF issues Thread-Index: AQHNZDR5Qw8fbBSHbEKqTXMfnaVbIJcvbxOA///FyEA= Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 19:56:18 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.64.26.13] X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jul 2012 19:56:18.0742 (UTC) FILETIME=[65A69560:01CD651F] A measure is an evaluation process that assigns a comparable numeric or symbolic value to an entity in order to characterize a selected quantity or trait of the entity. Guesstimate is one evaluation process for determining small distances. Using a micrometer is a different measure. They characterize the same trait and can have the same unit, but the evaluation processes are not the same. You seem to be want an AbstractMeasure where the evaluation process is not specified and to which we can associate concrete measures that share characteristics, units and scope (or domain). Even though it would look very much like NamedMeasure, an AbstractMeasure would not have any measurements associated with it. From: Henk de Man [mailto:hdman@cordys.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 10:30 AM To: Larry Hines Cc: Juergen Boldt; issues@omg.org; smm-rtf@omg.org; Alain Picard; Pete Rivett; Arne Berre; fred.a.cummins; Henk de Man Subject: Re: issues 17473 - 17474 -- SMM RTF issues Larry, See below. In-lined comments. On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Larry Hines wrote: The proposal contained in 17473 and 17474 seems rather convoluted. First let me ask what are the semantics of the four observation types? [hdm] The suggestion was not about four types, but just a string to allow any type. The four types were just examples. So, just something as simple as a string to enter the type of observation. What is an estimated observation [hdm] An observation which measurements have values that are just business analyst "guesstimates", or "values of planned or targeted performance". Note that we talk about measurements of characteristics of elements of business models / business systems. VDML applies SMM to the area of business design. , an actual observation [hdm] When parts of the business design have been implemented in real world, measurements can be created in the real world (actual performance), and these might be fed back to the model, per separate observation on the same thing. , a simulated observation [hdm] Measures executed during a simulation game. They can be imported back into the model, per separate observation. and a benchmark observation? [hdm] E.g. measurements that express industry benchmarks for similar situations, stored in the model per separate observation. I can imagine definitions for .actual. and even for .benchmark.. Actual would mean that the measure was actually applied. Benchmark would mean that the measure was actually applied for the purposes of obtaining a benchmark. Following this train of thought, I would guess that simulated is that the measure was simulated and not actually applied. Perhaps estimated means that the measure was estimated. This is why the examples you gave appear to me to be categories of measures. [hdm] This is not about categories of measures. It is about measurements (to outcomes of measuring), stored per observation, but organized in a way that we can distinguish them (so per separate observation). Note that VDML integrates with SMM Observations. Btw: the VDML-SMM integration is quite significant. If asked about types of observations generally I would assert that observations could be typed as casual, natural, subjective, objective, direct, indirectly, controlled, uncontrolled, intrusive, nonintrusive, etc. [hdm] All good, but let's not try to fix a list in an enum, but rather something simple as a string (which was Alain Picards proposal). The same string can then be used for the "four" example types that I gave. Something that seems obvious to me is that the measure used in a subjective observation cannot be the same measure as one used in an objective measure. [hdm] The measure is one, and a re-usable one in a library. The name is given, the characteristic (or trait) is given, the unit is given, and if defined, the operation or formula or functor or accumulator is given, etc. But different observations result in different measurements against the same measure. Here we hit on a triggering dilemma: In our business modeling context, there are very many dependencies between measures (thru aggregation thru binary or collective measures and/or thru re-scaling). So, if manual entry of guesstimates, querying of actuals, etc. would all require different measures, than this would lead to redundancy of almost complete libraries. Not just of direct measure, but also all aggregates that aggregate from them.. This would not be maintainable. What would be required is this: A direct measure has e.g. a query defined, which can be used for querying of actual performance (e.g. from a process instance database). The same measure can however be used, to just enter the value manually, as an estimate. But per different observation. So, in other words: dependent on the observation, the operation is used or not used. This is a special case of what was suggested per the other issue: allowing multiple operations on a direct measure. Note that any aggregated measure (rescaled, binary, collective) does not have this issue, but it just executes is formula or functor or accumulator. This will lead to a much better and maintainable situation: the aggregated measures can aggregate from underlying direct or aggregated measurements, regardless of how the leave measurements were created (estimates, or query result, etc.). Otherwise we would have to duplicate all these aggregated measures also.. ! They may be or may not be assigned the same name, but they are different measures. The two measures would certainly have the same characteristic and the same domain. In 17474 especially you seem to be creating a relationship between measures. Why push the relationship into the definition of DirectMeasure? [hdm] 17474 is about allowing 0..* operations on a direct measure. For libraries of business measures to be maintainable, it is required to allow for this. Above I explained that we want to re-use the same measure for manual entry of guestimate as well as for actuals querying. Similar applies to variations of queries. E.g. exactly the same measure is applied in different parts of the business system. However, in one part of the business a different query service is used than in other part. We cannot duplicate the measure for this, because otherwise all rescaled, binary and collective measures, that are based on them, would have to be duplicated as well, which would kill the library approach, as the re-use would be gone. As a side note, I do think that observation is rather under specified. [hdm] I am all in for building more on that, when we can keep the library pure and better re-usable. From: Henk de Man [mailto:hdman@cordys.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 8:01 AM To: Larry Hines Cc: Juergen Boldt; issues@omg.org; smm-rtf@omg.org; Henk de Man; Alain Picard; Pete Rivett; Arne Berre; fred.a.cummins Subject: Re: issues 17472 - 17475 -- SMM RTF issues Larry, See below. On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Larry Hines wrote: With respect to #17472: These attributes seem better fit for Measure, the method of measurement. A measurement is a single data point obtained by applying a measure. The measure may have precision, confidence bounds and a distribution. [hdm] With respect to #17472: It is not correct to state that a measurement is a single data point. See e.g. Hubbard, Douglas W., How to Measure Anything, Finding the Value of .Intangibles. in Business, John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey, 2010. His main point is, that, in business measurements, just point measures aren't good measures. Often the point measure is not known or is not 100 % trustable. It is very important to be able to state measurement (so the result of measurement) as something that resides in a confidence interval, according to a certain level of confidence. A measurement can be a point value. But it should also be possible to state a measurement as e.g. a confidence interval, with a confidence value. So-far about confidence interval and confidence. Now about distribution (stochastic distribution): A Monte Carlo measurement (i.e. outcome of Multi Carlo simulation or experiment) is typically expressed as a set of values that can be best described by a distribution curve. Stochastic enabling of measurement is important. But the distribution itself can not very well be defined as part of the measure, because the measure is re-usable in different contexts, and the distribution will often be specific to that context. With respect to #17473: Each of these types seem to be categories of measures. Perhaps SMM should include some built-in measure categories such as Estimators, Simulators and Benchmarks. [hdm] With respect to #17473: It is not about the measure, but about the observation. It is about a specification the type of the observation. Note that the same measure can be used for for estimated measurement, as-is measurement, simulated measurement. With respect to #17474: Measures can be equated. If there are multiple, equally good direct measures for a given characteristic then they are be directly associated by the measure equivalence relationship. [hdm] With respect to #17474. This is not about equivalence. It is like method overloading in Java ... When the same direct measure is applied in different contexts, slightly different or additional arguments (parameters) might be required in its operation. So, actually, more than one operation would be required. During discussions with Alain Picard this came out as the best solution. With respect to #17475: I.m good with this. From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 10:59 AM To: issues@omg.org; smm-rtf@omg.org Subject: issues 17472 - 17475 -- SMM RTF issues This is issue # 17472 From: Henk de Man To: Larry Hines Cc: Juergen Boldt , "issues@omg.org" , "smm-rtf@omg.org" , Alain Picard , Pete Rivett , Arne Berre , "fred.a.cummins" , Henk de Man X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmF6XKOm6evOzd7BhYvR43Gqn+7HJrOSDwD3OzIOi1Yb+xc72VbLATGgD47t/cDJHDxsNYW Larry, See below. On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Larry Hines wrote: A measure is an evaluation process that assigns a comparable numeric or symbolic value to an entity in order to characterize a selected quantity or trait of the entity. [hdm] We want to extend this a little bit. It should not only be possible to assign a single numeric or symbolic value, but it should, optionally and additionally, also be possible to 1) specify a confidence, saying e.g. "the measurement value lays, with confidence of 90% between the values x and y". 2) specify the outcome of measurement in terms of a distribution of values (so that we can have 1 measurement object instead of 10.000 in our model..). This is by no means conflicting with what you have, and if these things are optional extensions, they are not in the way for everybody, and they enables VDML to make the use of SMM we need.  Guesstimate is one evaluation process for determining small distances. Using a micrometer is a different measure. ÂÂÂThey characterize the same trait and can have the same unit, but the evaluation processes are not the same. [hdm] I did another attempt to explain the need. See attachment.  You seem to be want an AbstractMeasure where the evaluation process is not specified and to which we can associate concrete measures that share characteristics, units and scope (or domain). Even though it would look very much like NamedMeasure, an AbstractMeasure would not have any measurements associated with it. [hdm] No, we fully comply to and apply the core logic of SMM: applying measures, in observations, to create measurements, against the measures. We do not want measures without measurements. We really apply 100 % of SMM, intensively, in VDML. We only want a few refinements or relaxations, if you wish.   From: Henk de Man [mailto:hdman@cordys.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 10:30 AM To: Larry Hines Cc: Juergen Boldt; issues@omg.org; smm-rtf@omg.org; Alain Picard; Pete Rivett; Arne Berre; fred.a.cummins; Henk de Man Subject: Re: issues 17473 - 17474 -- SMM RTF issues  Larry,  See below. In-lined comments. On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Larry Hines wrote: The proposal contained in 17473 and 17474 seems rather convoluted.  First let me ask what are the semantics of the four observation types? [hdm] The suggestion was not about four types, but just a string to allow any type. The four types were just examples. So, just something as simple as a string to enter the type of observation.  ÂÂWhat is an estimated observation [hdm] An observation which measurements have values that are just business analyst "guesstimates", or "values of planned or targeted performance". Note that we talk about measurements of characteristics of elements of business models / business systems. VDML applies SMM to the area of business design. , an actual observation [hdm] When parts of the business design have been implemented in real world, measurements can be created in the real world (actual performance), and these might be fed back to the model, per separate observation on the same thing.  , a simulated observation [hdm] Measures executed during a simulation game. They can be imported back into the model, per separate observation.  and a benchmark observation? [hdm] E.g. measurements that express industry benchmarks for similar situations, stored in the model per separate observation. ÂI can imagine definitions for âactualâ and even for âbenchmarkâ. Actual would mean that the measure was actually applied. Benchmark would mean that the measure was actually applied for the purposes of obtaining a benchmark. Following this train of thought, I would guess that simulated is that the measure was simulated and not actually applied. Perhaps estimated means that the measure was estimated. ÂThis is why the examples you gave appear to me to be categories of measures. [hdm] This is not about categories of measures. It is about measurements (to outcomes of measuring), Âstored per observation, but organized in a way that we can distinguish them (so per separate observation). Note that VDML integrates with SMM Observations. Btw: the VDML-SMM integration is quite significant.  If asked about types of observations generally I would assert that observations could be typed as casual, natural, subjective, objective, direct, indirectly, controlled, uncontrolled, intrusive, nonintrusive, etc.  [hdm] All good, but let's not try to fix a list in an enum, but rather something simple as a string (which was Alain Picards proposal). The same string can then be used for the "four" example types that I gave.  Something that seems obvious to me is that the measure used in a subjective observation cannot be the same measure as one used in an objective measure.  [hdm] The measure is one, and a re-usable one in a library. The name is given, the characteristic (or trait) is given, the unit is given, and if defined, the operation or formula or functor or accumulator is given, etc. But different observations result in different measurements against the same measure. Here we hit on a triggering dilemma: In our business modeling context, there are very many dependencies between measures (thru aggregation thru binary or collective measures and/or thru re-scaling). So, if manual entry of guesstimates, querying of actuals, etc. would all require different measures, than this would lead to redundancy of almost complete libraries. Not just of direct measure, but also all aggregates that aggregate from them.. This would not be maintainable. What would be required is this: A direct measure has e.g. a query defined, which can be used for querying of actual performance (e.g. from a process instance database). The same measure can however be used, to just enter the value manually, as an estimate. But per different observation. So, in other words: dependent on the observation, the operation is used or not used. This is a special case of what was suggested per the other issue: allowing multiple operations on a direct measure. Note that any aggregated measure (rescaled, binary, collective) does not have this issue, but it just executes is formula or functor or accumulator. This will lead to a much better and maintainable situation: the aggregated measures can aggregate from underlying direct or aggregated measurements, regardless of how the leave measurements were created (estimates, or query result, etc.). Otherwise we would have to duplicate all these aggregated measures also.. !  ÂThey may be or may not be assigned the same name, but they are different measures. The two measures would certainly have the same characteristic and the same domain.  In 17474 especially you seem to be creating a relationship between measures. Why push the relationship into the definition of DirectMeasure? [hdm] 17474 is about allowing 0..* operations on a direct measure. For libraries of business measures to be maintainable, it is required to allow for this. Above I explained that we want to re-use the same measure for manual entry of guestimate as well as for actuals querying. Similar applies to variations of queries. E.g. exactly the same measure is applied in different parts of the business system. However, in one part of the business a different query service is used than in other part. We cannot duplicate the measure for this, because otherwise all rescaled, binary and collective measures, that are based on them, would have to be duplicated as well, which would kill the library approach, as the re-use would be gone.  As a side note, I do think that observation is rather under specified. [hdm] I am all in for building more on that, when we can keep the library pure and better re-usable.   From: Henk de Man [mailto:hdman@cordys.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 8:01 AM To: Larry Hines Cc: Juergen Boldt; issues@omg.org; smm-rtf@omg.org; Henk de Man; Alain Picard; Pete Rivett; Arne Berre; fred.a.cummins Subject: Re: issues 17472 - 17475 -- SMM RTF issues  Larry,  See below. On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Larry Hines wrote: With respect to #17472: These attributes seem better fit for Measure, the method of measurement. A measurement is a single data point obtained by applying a measure. The measure may have precision, confidence bounds and a distribution. [hdm] ÂWith respect to #17472: It is not correct to state that a measurement is a single data point. See e.g.ÂHubbard, Douglas W., How to Measure Anything, Finding the Value of âIntangiblesâ in Business, John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey, 2010. His main point is, that, in business measurements, just point measures aren't good measures. Often the point measure is not known or is not 100 % trustable. It is very important to be able to state measurement (so the result of measurement) as something that resides in a confidence interval, according to a certain level of confidence. ÂA measurement can be a point value. But it should also be possible to state a measurement as e.g. a confidence interval, with a confidence value. So-far about confidence interval and confidence. Now about distribution (stochastic distribution): A Monte Carlo measurement (i.e. outcome of Multi Carlo simulation or experiment) is typically expressed as a set of values that can be best described by a distribution curve. Stochastic enabling of measurement is important. But the distribution itself can not very well be defined as part of the measure, because the measure is re-usable in different contexts, and the distribution will often be specific to that context.   With respect to #17473: Each of these types seem to be categories of measures. Perhaps SMM should include some built-in measure categories such as Estimators, Simulators and Benchmarks. [hdm] ÂWith respect to #17473: It is not about the measure, but about the observation. It is about a specification the type of the observation. Note that the same measure can be used for for estimated measurement, as-is measurement, simulated measurement.  With respect to #17474: Measures can be equated. If there are multiple, equally good direct measures for a given characteristic then they are be directly associated by the measure equivalence relationship. [hdm]ÂWith respect to #17474.ÂThis is not about equivalence. ÂIt is like method overloading in Java ... When the same direct measure is applied in different contexts, slightly different or additional arguments (parameters) might be required in its operation. So, actually, more than one operation would be required. During discussions with Alain Picard this came out as the best solution.  With respect to #17475: Iâm good with this.   From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 10:59 AM To: issues@omg.org; smm-rtf@omg.org Subject: issues 17472 - 17475 -- SMM RTF issues  This is issue # 17472ÂÂÂFrom: Henk de Man From: Larry Hines To: Henk de Man CC: Juergen Boldt , "issues@omg.org" , "smm-rtf@omg.org" , Alain Picard , Pete Rivett , Arne Berre , "fred.a.cummins" Subject: RE: issues 17473 - 17474 -- SMM RTF issues Thread-Topic: issues 17473 - 17474 -- SMM RTF issues Thread-Index: AQHNZDR5Qw8fbBSHbEKqTXMfnaVbIJcvbxOA///FyECAAbwiAP//vgVA Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 15:23:43 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.64.26.13] X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jul 2012 15:23:43.0739 (UTC) FILETIME=[7BB8ECB0:01CD65C2] Henrk, Currently in SMM there are only two types of measurements, grades and dimensional. Dimensional can be used as base measurements for the collective measurements. Your interval measurements do not add, subtract, multiply, divide or accumulate in any simple algebraic manner. That is, an interval measurement cannot be a dimensional measurement available for use as a base measurement. There are even problems when we accumulate regular dimensional measurements (single data point) which have levels of confidence. How do the levels of confidence accumulate? In general, one might say that adding two base measurements with 90% confidence provides a measurement with 81% confidence. But different scenarios might achieve different confidence accumulation. Can we say we don.t define the accumulation of interval measurements or levels of confidence? That is, we extend SMM to include the extra information (in some manner), but we do not imply that the extra information accumulates in a SMM specified manner. There are still some headaches, but we don.t use any fundamental soundness. [I.m swamped today and will look at the attachment and your other notes tomorrow.] Larry From: Henk de Man [mailto:hdman@cordys.com] Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 9:31 AM To: Larry Hines Cc: Juergen Boldt; issues@omg.org; smm-rtf@omg.org; Alain Picard; Pete Rivett; Arne Berre; fred.a.cummins; Henk de Man Subject: Re: issues 17473 - 17474 -- SMM RTF issues Larry, See below. On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Larry Hines wrote: A measure is an evaluation process that assigns a comparable numeric or symbolic value to an entity in order to characterize a selected quantity or trait of the entity. [hdm] We want to extend this a little bit. It should not only be possible to assign a single numeric or symbolic value, but it should, optionally and additionally, also be possible to 1) specify a confidence, saying e.g. "the measurement value lays, with confidence of 90% between the values x and y". 2) specify the outcome of measurement in terms of a distribution of values (so that we can have 1 measurement object instead of 10.000 in our model..). This is by no means conflicting with what you have, and if these things are optional extensions, they are not in the way for everybody, and they enables VDML to make the use of SMM we need. Guesstimate is one evaluation process for determining small distances. Using a micrometer is a different measure. They characterize the same trait and can have the same unit, but the evaluation processes are not the same. [hdm] I did another attempt to explain the need. See attachment. You seem to be want an AbstractMeasure where the evaluation process is not specified and to which we can associate concrete measures that share characteristics, units and scope (or domain). Even though it would look very much like NamedMeasure, an AbstractMeasure would not have any measurements associated with it. [hdm] No, we fully comply to and apply the core logic of SMM: applying measures, in observations, to create measurements, against the measures. We do not want measures without measurements. We really apply 100 % of SMM, intensively, in VDML. We only want a few refinements or relaxations, if you wish. From: Henk de Man [mailto:hdman@cordys.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 10:30 AM To: Larry Hines Cc: Juergen Boldt; issues@omg.org; smm-rtf@omg.org; Alain Picard; Pete Rivett; Arne Berre; fred.a.cummins; Henk de Man Subject: Re: issues 17473 - 17474 -- SMM RTF issues Larry, See below. In-lined comments. On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Larry Hines wrote: The proposal contained in 17473 and 17474 seems rather convoluted. First let me ask what are the semantics of the four observation types? [hdm] The suggestion was not about four types, but just a string to allow any type. The four types were just examples. So, just something as simple as a string to enter the type of observation. What is an estimated observation [hdm] An observation which measurements have values that are just business analyst "guesstimates", or "values of planned or targeted performance". Note that we talk about measurements of characteristics of elements of business models / business systems. VDML applies SMM to the area of business design. , an actual observation [hdm] When parts of the business design have been implemented in real world, measurements can be created in the real world (actual performance), and these might be fed back to the model, per separate observation on the same thing. , a simulated observation [hdm] Measures executed during a simulation game. They can be imported back into the model, per separate observation. and a benchmark observation? [hdm] E.g. measurements that express industry benchmarks for similar situations, stored in the model per separate observation. I can imagine definitions for .actual. and even for .benchmark.. Actual would mean that the measure was actually applied. Benchmark would mean that the measure was actually applied for the purposes of obtaining a benchmark. Following this train of thought, I would guess that simulated is that the measure was simulated and not actually applied. Perhaps estimated means that the measure was estimated. This is why the examples you gave appear to me to be categories of measures. [hdm] This is not about categories of measures. It is about measurements (to outcomes of measuring), stored per observation, but organized in a way that we can distinguish them (so per separate observation). Note that VDML integrates with SMM Observations. Btw: the VDML-SMM integration is quite significant. If asked about types of observations generally I would assert that observations could be typed as casual, natural, subjective, objective, direct, indirectly, controlled, uncontrolled, intrusive, nonintrusive, etc. [hdm] All good, but let's not try to fix a list in an enum, but rather something simple as a string (which was Alain Picards proposal). The same string can then be used for the "four" example types that I gave. Something that seems obvious to me is that the measure used in a subjective observation cannot be the same measure as one used in an objective measure. [hdm] The measure is one, and a re-usable one in a library. The name is given, the characteristic (or trait) is given, the unit is given, and if defined, the operation or formula or functor or accumulator is given, etc. But different observations result in different measurements against the same measure. Here we hit on a triggering dilemma: In our business modeling context, there are very many dependencies between measures (thru aggregation thru binary or collective measures and/or thru re-scaling). So, if manual entry of guesstimates, querying of actuals, etc. would all require different measures, than this would lead to redundancy of almost complete libraries. Not just of direct measure, but also all aggregates that aggregate from them.. This would not be maintainable. What would be required is this: A direct measure has e.g. a query defined, which can be used for querying of actual performance (e.g. from a process instance database). The same measure can however be used, to just enter the value manually, as an estimate. But per different observation. So, in other words: dependent on the observation, the operation is used or not used. This is a special case of what was suggested per the other issue: allowing multiple operations on a direct measure. Note that any aggregated measure (rescaled, binary, collective) does not have this issue, but it just executes is formula or functor or accumulator. This will lead to a much better and maintainable situation: the aggregated measures can aggregate from underlying direct or aggregated measurements, regardless of how the leave measurements were created (estimates, or query result, etc.). Otherwise we would have to duplicate all these aggregated measures also.. ! They may be or may not be assigned the same name, but they are different measures. The two measures would certainly have the same characteristic and the same domain. In 17474 especially you seem to be creating a relationship between measures. Why push the relationship into the definition of DirectMeasure? [hdm] 17474 is about allowing 0..* operations on a direct measure. For libraries of business measures to be maintainable, it is required to allow for this. Above I explained that we want to re-use the same measure for manual entry of guestimate as well as for actuals querying. Similar applies to variations of queries. E.g. exactly the same measure is applied in different parts of the business system. However, in one part of the business a different query service is used than in other part. We cannot duplicate the measure for this, because otherwise all rescaled, binary and collective measures, that are based on them, would have to be duplicated as well, which would kill the library approach, as the re-use would be gone. As a side note, I do think that observation is rather under specified. [hdm] I am all in for building more on that, when we can keep the library pure and better re-usable. From: Henk de Man [mailto:hdman@cordys.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 8:01 AM To: Larry Hines Cc: Juergen Boldt; issues@omg.org; smm-rtf@omg.org; Henk de Man; Alain Picard; Pete Rivett; Arne Berre; fred.a.cummins Subject: Re: issues 17472 - 17475 -- SMM RTF issues Larry, See below. On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Larry Hines wrote: With respect to #17472: These attributes seem better fit for Measure, the method of measurement. A measurement is a single data point obtained by applying a measure. The measure may have precision, confidence bounds and a distribution. [hdm] With respect to #17472: It is not correct to state that a measurement is a single data point. See e.g. Hubbard, Douglas W., How to Measure Anything, Finding the Value of .Intangibles. in Business, John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey, 2010. His main point is, that, in business measurements, just point measures aren't good measures. Often the point measure is not known or is not 100 % trustable. It is very important to be able to state measurement (so the result of measurement) as something that resides in a confidence interval, according to a certain level of confidence. A measurement can be a point value. But it should also be possible to state a measurement as e.g. a confidence interval, with a confidence value. So-far about confidence interval and confidence. Now about distribution (stochastic distribution): A Monte Carlo measurement (i.e. outcome of Multi Carlo simulation or experiment) is typically expressed as a set of values that can be best described by a distribution curve. Stochastic enabling of measurement is important. But the distribution itself can not very well be defined as part of the measure, because the measure is re-usable in different contexts, and the distribution will often be specific to that context. With respect to #17473: Each of these types seem to be categories of measures. Perhaps SMM should include some built-in measure categories such as Estimators, Simulators and Benchmarks. [hdm] With respect to #17473: It is not about the measure, but about the observation. It is about a specification the type of the observation. Note that the same measure can be used for for estimated measurement, as-is measurement, simulated measurement. With respect to #17474: Measures can be equated. If there are multiple, equally good direct measures for a given characteristic then they are be directly associated by the measure equivalence relationship. [hdm] With respect to #17474. This is not about equivalence. It is like method overloading in Java ... When the same direct measure is applied in different contexts, slightly different or additional arguments (parameters) might be required in its operation. So, actually, more than one operation would be required. During discussions with Alain Picard this came out as the best solution. With respect to #17475: I.m good with this. From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 10:59 AM To: issues@omg.org; smm-rtf@omg.org Subject: issues 17472 - 17475 -- SMM RTF issues This is issue # 17472 From: Henk de Man To: Larry Hines Cc: Juergen Boldt , "issues@omg.org" , "smm-rtf@omg.org" , Alain Picard , Pete Rivett , Arne Berre , "fred.a.cummins" , Henk de Man X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlwog8R2yUZ27if2xlwd4oGZefOLnfIfbUZnmO4GWGjHhsXNytq1xkB+q2RUx5yr1OhAUqy Larry, In this e-mail we relate to two main-discussions: 1) can more flex wrt operation of a direct measure (in particular 0..* operations on a direct measure), which directly relates to a big library maintenance issue (see first attachment again). 2) the second item is about stochastic aspects of measurements, which is crucial in business design. When a busines architect would come to management with the statement that "this" is the point savings figure, he would be blown away immediately.." Good business measures have to say something about how good the measures are. This is a must. I came a lot into your direction on associated measurements, but there's still a pending issue that you might help resolving so that we can go that way. See my discussion of that in the second attachment (that's also in another e-mail). Meanwhile, we might be keen, in next iterations, on which discussion item relates to which issue number. Looking forward to your further responses (on all that need further discussion). But note: we can take our time for this. We will be good if we have consensus reached by the next OMG meeting in Jacksonville. So, let's carefully discuss further until then, hoping that we have consensus on all of them by then. Regards, Henk de Man On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Larry Hines wrote: Henrk,  Currently in SMM there are only two types of measurements, grades and dimensional. Dimensional can be used as base measurements for the collective measurements. Your interval measurements do not add, subtract, multiply, divide or accumulate in any simple algebraic manner. That is, an interval measurement cannot be a dimensional measurement available for use as a base measurement.  There are even problems when we accumulate regular dimensional measurements (single data point) which have levels of confidence. ÂHow do the levels of confidence accumulate? In general, one might say that adding two base measurements with 90% confidence provides a measurement with 81% confidence. But different scenarios might achieve different confidence accumulation.  Can we say we donât define the accumulation of interval measurements or levels of confidence? That is, we extend SMM to include the extra information (in some manner), but we do not imply that the extra information accumulates in a SMM specified manner. There are still some headaches, but we donât use any fundamental soundness.  [Iâm swamped today and will look at the attachment and your other notes tomorrow.]  Larry  From: Henk de Man [mailto:hdman@cordys.com] Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 9:31 AM To: Larry Hines Cc: Juergen Boldt; issues@omg.org; smm-rtf@omg.org; Alain Picard; Pete Rivett; Arne Berre; fred.a.cummins; Henk de Man Subject: Re: issues 17473 - 17474 -- SMM RTF issues  Larry,  See below. On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Larry Hines wrote: A measure is an evaluation process that assigns a comparable numeric or symbolic value to an entity in order to characterize a selected quantity or trait of the entity. [hdm] We want to extend this a little bit. It should not only be possible to assign a single numeric or symbolic value, but it should, optionally and additionally, also be possible to 1) specify a confidence, saying e.g. "the measurement value lays, with confidence of 90% between the values x and y". 2) specify the outcome of measurement in terms of a distribution of values (so that we can have 1 measurement object instead of 10.000 in our model..). This is by no means conflicting with what you have, and if these things are optional extensions, they are not in the way for everybody, and they enables VDML to make the use of SMM we need.  Guesstimate is one evaluation process for determining small distances. Using a micrometer is a different measure. ÂÂÂThey characterize the same trait and can have the same unit, but the evaluation processes are not the same. [hdm] I did another attempt to explain the need. See attachment.  You seem to be want an AbstractMeasure where the evaluation process is not specified and to which we can associate concrete measures that share characteristics, units and scope (or domain). Even though it would look very much like NamedMeasure, an AbstractMeasure would not have any measurements associated with it. [hdm] No, we fully comply to and apply the core logic of SMM: applying measures, in observations, to create measurements, against the measures. We do not want measures without measurements. We really apply 100 % of SMM, intensively, in VDML. We only want a few refinements or relaxations, if you wish.   From: Henk de Man [mailto:hdman@cordys.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 10:30 AM To: Larry Hines Cc: Juergen Boldt; issues@omg.org; smm-rtf@omg.org; Alain Picard; Pete Rivett; Arne Berre; fred.a.cummins; Henk de Man Subject: Re: issues 17473 - 17474 -- SMM RTF issues  Larry,  See below. In-lined comments. On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Larry Hines wrote: The proposal contained in 17473 and 17474 seems rather convoluted.  First let me ask what are the semantics of the four observation types? [hdm] The suggestion was not about four types, but just a string to allow any type. The four types were just examples. So, just something as simple as a string to enter the type of observation.  ÂÂWhat is an estimated observation [hdm] An observation which measurements have values that are just business analyst "guesstimates", or "values of planned or targeted performance". Note that we talk about measurements of characteristics of elements of business models / business systems. VDML applies SMM to the area of business design. , an actual observation [hdm] When parts of the business design have been implemented in real world, measurements can be created in the real world (actual performance), and these might be fed back to the model, per separate observation on the same thing.  , a simulated observation [hdm] Measures executed during a simulation game. They can be imported back into the model, per separate observation.  and a benchmark observation? [hdm] E.g. measurements that express industry benchmarks for similar situations, stored in the model per separate observation. ÂI can imagine definitions for âactualâ and even for âbenchmarkâ. Actual would mean that the measure was actually applied. Benchmark would mean that the measure was actually applied for the purposes of obtaining a benchmark. Following this train of thought, I would guess that simulated is that the measure was simulated and not actually applied. Perhaps estimated means that the measure was estimated. ÂThis is why the examples you gave appear to me to be categories of measures. [hdm] This is not about categories of measures. It is about measurements (to outcomes of measuring), Âstored per observation, but organized in a way that we can distinguish them (so per separate observation). Note that VDML integrates with SMM Observations. Btw: the VDML-SMM integration is quite significant.  If asked about types of observations generally I would assert that observations could be typed as casual, natural, subjective, objective, direct, indirectly, controlled, uncontrolled, intrusive, nonintrusive, etc.  [hdm] All good, but let's not try to fix a list in an enum, but rather something simple as a string (which was Alain Picards proposal). The same string can then be used for the "four" example types that I gave.  Something that seems obvious to me is that the measure used in a subjective observation cannot be the same measure as one used in an objective measure.  [hdm] The measure is one, and a re-usable one in a library. The name is given, the characteristic (or trait) is given, the unit is given, and if defined, the operation or formula or functor or accumulator is given, etc. But different observations result in different measurements against the same measure. Here we hit on a triggering dilemma: In our business modeling context, there are very many dependencies between measures (thru aggregation thru binary or collective measures and/or thru re-scaling). So, if manual entry of guesstimates, querying of actuals, etc. would all require different measures, than this would lead to redundancy of almost complete libraries. Not just of direct measure, but also all aggregates that aggregate from them.. This would not be maintainable. What would be required is this: A direct measure has e.g. a query defined, which can be used for querying of actual performance (e.g. from a process instance database). The same measure can however be used, to just enter the value manually, as an estimate. But per different observation. So, in other words: dependent on the observation, the operation is used or not used. This is a special case of what was suggested per the other issue: allowing multiple operations on a direct measure. Note that any aggregated measure (rescaled, binary, collective) does not have this issue, but it just executes is formula or functor or accumulator. This will lead to a much better and maintainable situation: the aggregated measures can aggregate from underlying direct or aggregated measurements, regardless of how the leave measurements were created (estimates, or query result, etc.). Otherwise we would have to duplicate all these aggregated measures also.. !  ÂThey may be or may not be assigned the same name, but they are different measures. The two measures would certainly have the same characteristic and the same domain.  In 17474 especially you seem to be creating a relationship between measures. Why push the relationship into the definition of DirectMeasure? [hdm] 17474 is about allowing 0..* operations on a direct measure. For libraries of business measures to be maintainable, it is required to allow for this. Above I explained that we want to re-use the same measure for manual entry of guestimate as well as for actuals querying. Similar applies to variations of queries. E.g. exactly the same measure is applied in different parts of the business system. However, in one part of the business a different query service is used than in other part. We cannot duplicate the measure for this, because otherwise all rescaled, binary and collective measures, that are based on them, would have to be duplicated as well, which would kill the library approach, as the re-use would be gone.  As a side note, I do think that observation is rather under specified. [hdm] I am all in for building more on that, when we can keep the library pure and better re-usable.   From: Henk de Man [mailto:hdman@cordys.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 8:01 AM To: Larry Hines Cc: Juergen Boldt; issues@omg.org; smm-rtf@omg.org; Henk de Man; Alain Picard; Pete Rivett; Arne Berre; fred.a.cummins Subject: Re: issues 17472 - 17475 -- SMM RTF issues  Larry,  See below. On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Larry Hines wrote: With respect to #17472: These attributes seem better fit for Measure, the method of measurement. A measurement is a single data point obtained by applying a measure. The measure may have precision, confidence bounds and a distribution. [hdm] ÂWith respect to #17472: It is not correct to state that a measurement is a single data point. See e.g.ÂHubbard, Douglas W., How to Measure Anything, Finding the Value of âIntangiblesâ in Business, John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey, 2010. His main point is, that, in business measurements, just point measures aren't good measures. Often the point measure is not known or is not 100 % trustable. It is very important to be able to state measurement (so the result of measurement) as something that resides in a confidence interval, according to a certain level of confidence. ÂA measurement can be a point value. But it should also be possible to state a measurement as e.g. a confidence interval, with a confidence value. So-far about confidence interval and confidence. Now about distribution (stochastic distribution): A Monte Carlo measurement (i.e. outcome of Multi Carlo simulation or experiment) is typically expressed as a set of values that can be best described by a distribution curve. Stochastic enabling of measurement is important. But the distribution itself can not very well be defined as part of the measure, because the measure is re-usable in different contexts, and the distribution will often be specific to that context.   With respect to #17473: Each of these types seem to be categories of measures. Perhaps SMM should include some built-in measure categories such as Estimators, Simulators and Benchmarks. [hdm] ÂWith respect to #17473: It is not about the measure, but about the observation. It is about a specification the type of the observation. Note that the same measure can be used for for estimated measurement, as-is measurement, simulated measurement.  With respect to #17474: Measures can be equated. If there are multiple, equally good direct measures for a given characteristic then they are be directly associated by the measure equivalence relationship. [hdm]ÂWith respect to #17474.ÂThis is not about equivalence. ÂIt is like method overloading in Java ... When the same direct measure is applied in different contexts, slightly different or additional arguments (parameters) might be required in its operation. So, actually, more than one operation would be required. During discussions with Alain Picard this came out as the best solution.  With respect to #17475: Iâm good with this.   From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 10:59 AM To: issues@omg.org; smm-rtf@omg.org Subject: issues 17472 - 17475 -- SMM RTF issues  This is issue # 17472ÂÂÂFrom: Henk de Man To: Henk de Man CC: Juergen Boldt , "issues@omg.org" , "smm-rtf@omg.org" , Alain Picard , Pete Rivett , Arne Berre , "fred.a.cummins" Subject: RE: issues 17473 -- SMM RTF issues -- Add attribute . type. (String) to Observation Thread-Topic: RE: issues 17473 -- SMM RTF issues -- Add attribute . type. (String) to Observation Thread-Index: Ac18t8KOW3ukJfCIRp2eo/4gZOYBww== Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 20:34:55 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.64.26.6] Given the resolution of 17474, is there a reason for 17473 anymore? Larry Hines, PhD Software Systems Developer, Sr. Principal Micro Focus larry.hines@microfocus.com 8310 Capital of Texas Highway, Suite 100 Austin, Texas, 78731, USA Telephone : 512-340-4740 This message has been scanned by MailController. X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A0B0209.502FCDB9.0094:SCFSTAT4017574,ss=1,vtr=str,vl=0,fgs=0 From: Larry Hines To: Henk de Man CC: Juergen Boldt , "issues@omg.org" , "smm-rtf@omg.org" , Alain Picard , Pete Rivett , Arne Berre , "fred.a.cummins" Subject: RE: issues 17473 -- SMM RTF issues -- Add attribute .t ype. (String) to Observation Thread-Topic: issues 17473 -- SMM RTF issues -- Add attribute .type . (String) to Observation Thread-Index: AQHNfUKrUCT748ESx022voqLY5Clw5dfwvPg Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:15:33 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.24.11.161] As I see it, we are down to two issues, 17472 and 17483. See attached for my comments (mostly just agreed) about the other issues. 17483 comes down to mapping the variable names of the formula/operation to the base measures. I don.t see how that is done. Until we have such a mapping we can.t move forward on resolving this. 17472 is not just a technical issue. SMM is about measures and measurements. 17472 steps into probability and statistics. That might be a good follow up standard for SMM. I.ll try to make time on Monday for a more extended note. Thanks, Larry From: Henk de Man [mailto:hdman@cordys.com] Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 8:09 AM To: Larry Hines Cc: Juergen Boldt; issues@omg.org; smm-rtf@omg.org; Alain Picard; Pete Rivett; Arne Berre; fred.a.cummins; Henk de Man Subject: Re: issues 17473 -- SMM RTF issues -- Add attribute .type. (String) to Observation Larry, 17473 can indeed be closed, with no action. I concluded on that one also, earlier this week. See my red comment to that issue in the attachment. Can you check status and my last feedback on all issues in that same attachment. We need some more discussion on the ones that we did not yet resolve. And maybe confirmation on the rest. Regards, Henk de Man On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Larry Hines wrote: Given the resolution of 17474, is there a reason for 17473 anymore? Larry Hines, PhD Software Systems Developer, Sr. Principal Micro Focus larry.hines@microfocus.com 8310 Capital of Texas Highway, Suite 100 Austin, Texas, 78731, USA Telephone : 512-340-4740 This message has been scanned by MailController. -- 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 Business Operations 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=zW5GtgXE1PTl5SqltZaNqYJyGYXEScPa/cknrFAf9aI=; b=NqsCa9atl/7Paa30pR8E1X2EcAsK2mE8SWn1+5xzJ9eBZzXlffaWIYLZLbxCXTbDB0 PrzS0V4GDTjIKhtJnYSVfiRyf5Cp38cug/kEAjRflT41X7H3U4fBSUD/2hZg5fjqPe/Q Ul6zdbB3rbqO01CNE6FgY+GQDi9P8Zu13fZlpEeVpXrosf+BOVeznCj4HzXkWxHebGIy Sc2dHcba9k4+yaldRuah8o7CXo4plsUjbvvj0sPSXzPc5EzWbABy+iLxL196DYIMzldU ZPifBj9a34cgCFqj4eoIiN0k+sakX0dv3/kO0HPaKi1WFiWbUkF2aST/9xHIQfL6ZFvj DQ1w== Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 15:09:48 +0200 Subject: Re: issues 17473 -- SMM RTF issues -- Add attribute .type. (String) to Observation From: Henk de Man To: Larry Hines Cc: Juergen Boldt , "issues@omg.org" , "smm-rtf@omg.org" , Alain Picard , Pete Rivett , Arne Berre , "fred.a.cummins" , Henk de Man X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnFpWoLKlszJuTJTppcsuy/j15FqGKR+jiqXGOP0jdk2T9DNXyS2z29N64NhqcnL1lfHUup Larry, I did some more thinking / effort in coming as close as possible to you/SMM on both 17483 and 17472. See attachments, and my [hdm] responses added in green. Hope this will resolve, or, with little more iteration will lead to resolution soon. Looking forward to your response based on the attachment. Note that I also commented on some of your comments, but all in agreement-mode (but there's some info here and there, for you to consider). (( Note also issue 17212 of Pete's older list, which I added here as place-holder-to-not-forget this/these. )) Regards, Henk de Man Cordys On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 7:15 PM, Larry Hines wrote: As I see it, we are down to two issues, 17472 and 17483. See attached for my comments (mostly just agreed) about the other issues. 17483 comes down to mapping the variable names of the formula/operation to the base measures. I don.t see how that is done. Until we have such a mapping we can.t move forward on resolving this. 17472 is not just a technical issue. SMM is about measures and measurements. 17472 steps into probability and statistics. That might be a good follow up standard for SMM. I.ll try to make time on Monday for a more extended note. Thanks, Larry From: Henk de Man [mailto:hdman@cordys.com] Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 8:09 AM To: Larry Hines Cc: Juergen Boldt; issues@omg.org; smm-rtf@omg.org; Alain Picard; Pete Rivett; Arne Berre; fred.a.cummins; Henk de Man Subject: Re: issues 17473 -- SMM RTF issues -- Add attribute .type. (String) to Observation Larry, 17473 can indeed be closed, with no action. I concluded on that one also, earlier this week. See my red comment to that issue in the attachment. Can you check status and my last feedback on all issues in that same attachment. We need some more discussion on the ones that we did not yet resolve. And maybe confirmation on the rest. Regards, Henk de Man On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Larry Hines wrote: Given the resolution of 17474, is there a reason for 17473 anymore? Larry Hines, PhD Software Systems Developer, Sr. Principal Micro Focus larry.hines@microfocus.com 8310 Capital of Texas Highway, Suite 100 Austin, Texas, 78731, USA Telephone : 512-340-4740 This message has been scanned by MailController. -- 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 Business Operations -- 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 Business Operations Content-Type: application/msword; name="SMM RTF Issue Status Aug 20.doc" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="SMM RTF Issue Status Aug 20.doc" X-Attachment-Id: f_h63kzeq11 SMM RTF Issue Status Aug 202.doc 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=YyOyZg1V5HFpiLv0eOy9s1xoBoujsVAPTM+7GGcBoeI=; b=ZsgwWuHqwz9Wy71k/URDRKk7EmG6zpWDbGs22V6rG0tWzcu/UIdkh3DWTJfNAnUEfB Wg1wlB4Xq35yFFQnUqqDuB+naJOArUo1ezopqSOj4JhE0F6c9hSG6njN8otgMFO+WiyS nma6Lyl4ydvo7nP475nPUYwXvC7yO+899V2UIGTNR44HwvBs2FOYdGB0CPUMIGgVA7dI W9WGuyVwydTcXtM6KLRSSP1sxnBX+8Btsoarn0U+03nROAUmoPKSHejzqnVkJ1iadIur GZTm+YDqBS5N0a9rfQt1Kr8qc3qCpLaZJTQfEadACqRldT4pwsGMrB4gtn5EQy2KlYG+ ixHg== Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 15:31:02 +0200 Subject: Re: issues 17473 -- SMM RTF issues -- Add attribute "type" (String) to Observation From: Henk de Man To: William Ulrich Cc: Larry Hines , Juergen Boldt , issues@omg.org, smm-rtf@omg.org, Alain Picard , Pete Rivett , Arne Berre , "fred.a.cummins" , Henk de Man X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkQE1G1mo8kVk/zjId1J48FB8GlKcaOtUOnSyMGBtP4L2J4/7KL5MEh+12d028kwdMAtTPA Bill, Arne, Larry, Alain, To Bill: That sounds good. Let's try to follow up on this. To Arne: can you then adopt co-chair ship, together with Alain Picard, in line with what Bill suggests. Think about the following: PTC agenda item to extend SMM RTF deadline (Andrew Watson puts it on the agenda, with proposal for 1 meeting cycle extension). Some need to make the motion. Agenda item will also be needed (possibly) to add yourself as co-chair, and some to make the motion for that. Find out who will be there on Friday to make them. Calls/meetings required to go forward. Larry Hines cannot make it to Jacksonville (see his e-mail), but he can be called in during a Jacksonville RTF SMM meeting. You will be there, and so will Alain (most likely) be, as well as Pete and I. Can you see to organize a meeting. Probably we need one or few calls (GoToMeeting ?) prior to Jacksonville. If people have time. Maybe you can try. In the other e-mail there's my last update on the discussions with Larry. I think we move well there, and it is likely that we come to consensus on these, from a conceptual/content point of view. Can you manage, with Alain (as Bill suggests) the effort around all this. Work involves balloting (Alain and you ?), discussing non-resolved issues (all involved), upgrading meta-model & XMI (Larry Hines ?), upgrading specification doc (we cal all contribute to that, where appropriate, but most logically the original owners of sections update these first). I volunteer as reviewer, co-designer with Larry/Alain, and to provide some help where appropriate. Note also the older list of Pete / Alain issues, as distinct from the list of newer issues that came from VDML. Regards, Henk de Man Cordys To Larry (on his suggestion regarding meeting / calll): I see that you cannot make it to Jacksonville. Given the deadline that will be proposed by Andrew Watson, we need to have a sustainable foot in the door now, so that we can more forward, so we can indeed have a call during Jacksonville meeting. On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 7:21 PM, William Ulrich wrote: Henk Larry was original co-chair and original author of SMM. Of course Larry would have to agree. I would suggest an alternative . that one of your team (Arne perhaps) steps in as co-chair to help Alain with ballot writing and the like but to leverage Larry to focus on the actual interpretation and modification of the Metamodel. That to me makes more sense and does not tie Larry down with the co-chair administrative tasks. Bill From: Henk de Man [mailto:hdman@cordys.com] Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 7:04 AM To: William Ulrich Cc: Larry Hines; Juergen Boldt; issues@omg.org; smm-rtf@omg.org; Alain Picard; Pete Rivett; Arne Berre; fred.a.cummins; Henk de Man Subject: Re: issues 17473 -- SMM RTF issues -- Add attribute "type" (String) to Observation All, Further to what's suggested below, to add co-chair (suggestion from Pete Rivett): if the current crew of the RTF has time/capacity to fill that position, that would be best. E.g. Larry Hines, as 2nd to Alain Picard. Larry: what about that? ( Just in case the current members are feeling capacity problem, someone from "outside" (but with major interest) could undertake that, and in that case we might ask Arne Berre. But if Larry or someone else from the team can do it, that's not required. ) Note again that Andrew Watson will add the RTF deadline extension to the agenda of PTC. Someone has to make a motion there. Who will be in that meeting? Neither Pete nor me will be there on Friday. In case the team wants a 2nd co-chair, an agenda item + making a motion for that might be required for that also ? But first the team should say whether this is needed/prefered. The notion for chair extension came from the observation that there has been a list of issues from the beginning, which had not been worked on. That's obviously because of the notorious and well-known lack of time. Can someone suggests the best way forward here. Regards, Henk de Man On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Henk de Man wrote: BIll, I will forward you the proposal of Andrew Watson. The idea is that RTF will be extended with one meeting cycle. But he (and/or Pete) also said that we need ballots, looking into all issues, and Pete also talked about adding a co-chair, etc. Maybe Arne Berre would be good as co-chair in case we all agree that we need to staff ? I feel that the discussions on the VDML-originated issues is progressing very well, with Larry Hines. We need to discuss some issues on the list further, but I trust we will reach to conclusion soon on all issues. Pete is right that attention is also required for his other issues, and for some issues of Alain. But then, work is required, including: Ballot writing and handling (... I never did that myself, so I hope that the original team members can undertake that; I can of course help where appropriate). Meta-model upgrading. To newer MOF version (Pete's good point) as well as to implement all agreed upon resolutions. If some of the orginal team (preferably Larry and/or Alain) can do the editing (in EA; note that I use MD), I can act as reviewer. Upgrading the revised submission document. Quite some work. We can divide that work between all of us. We really need a meeting soon (preferably in Jacksonville). Can someone organize that? And we also might need a telecon sessions regularly to get all that work done. Looking forward to your suggestions. Regards, Henk de Man Cordys Gentlemen Point of order question on this work (thanks Larry and Henk for your hard work on this). We had an SMM RTF date with a 30 day-delivery (which has passed) for our Sept. meeting. How does this work related to the RTF, is it being incorporated, did we request an RTF extension from Andrew? I did not see the submission when we hit the 30 day mark so I wanted to make sure all of your excellent efforts were going into the RTF and we are also following proper procedures. Thanks, Bill From: Larry Hines [mailto:Larry.Hines@microfocus.com] Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 1:35 PM To: Henk de Man Cc: Juergen Boldt; issues@omg.org; smm-rtf@omg.org; Alain Picard; Pete Rivett; Arne Berre; fred.a.cummins Subject: RE: issues 17473 -- SMM RTF issues -- Add attribute .type. (String) to Observation Given the resolution of 17474, is there a reason for 17473 anymore? Larry Hines, PhD Software Systems Developer, Sr. Principal Micro Focus larry.hines@microfocus.com 8310 Capital of Texas Highway, Suite 100 Austin, Texas, 78731, USA Telephone : 512-340-4740 This message has been scanned by MailController. -- 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 Business Operations -- 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 Business Operations -- 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 Business Operations