Issue 17483: SMM does not allow for a formula, but only has a simple accumulator (smm-rtf) Source: Cordys (Mr. Henk de Man, hdman(at)cordys.com) Nature: Revision Severity: Summary: In industry, it is common to have composite measures with formulas like “A * (1 + B) / C”, whereby A, B and C are atomic measures. In this example, according to SMM, you would not have 4 measures, but 6, e.g.: • 3 direct measures: A, B, C • A rescaled measure, with formula “1+B” • A binary measure, with functor “times”, to multiple A and the rescaled measure from above. • A ratio measure to divide the previous one by C. Though this is technically OK, it is not always handy, as “given” industry measures would have to be refactored into smaller ones. I see a good reason why SMM measures are structured as they are: You have good grip than on the formula, the functor, etc. Because if you would allow for formula's like "( A * (1 + B) ) / C ", you would have difficulty in reconciling the various associated "sub" measurements with the formula of the measure that relates to the collective measurement. String parsing, etc. SMM in its current form is very structured, but that would make interpretation and implementation also very straightforward. That is a big advantage and I like that. But still I have trouble with e.g. industry-given libraries of VCG, SCOR, KPI LIbrary, etc., that though have composite measures with such more complicated formula's. How to import such measures into an SMM based library? Once imported, you could create more specific SMM measures, and refer to the original one as "equivalent" measure. But the main problem is that it cannot even be imported, as a collective measure in SMM does not allow for a formula, but only has a simple accumulator. How can this be resolved ? Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: July 13, 2012: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== s is issue # 17483 From: Henk de Man SMM does not allow for a formula, but only has a simple accumulator In industry, it is common to have composite measures with formulas like .A * (1 + B) / C., whereby A, B and C are atomic measures. In this example, according to SMM, you would not have 4 measures, but 6, e.g.: . 3 direct measures: A, B, C . A rescaled measure, with formula .1+B. . A binary measure, with functor .times., to multiple A and the rescaled measure from above. . A ratio measure to divide the previous one by C. Though this is technically OK, it is not always handy, as .given. industry measures would have to be refactored into smaller ones. I see a good reason why SMM measures are structured as they are: You have good grip than on the formula, the functor, etc. Because if you would allow for formula's like "( A * (1 + B) ) / C ", you would have difficulty in reconciling the various associated "sub" measurements with the formula of the measure that relates to the collective measurement. String parsing, etc. SMM in its current form is very structured, but that would make interpretation and implementation also very straightforward. That is a big advantage and I like that. But still I have trouble with e.g. industry-given libraries of VCG, SCOR, KPI LIbrary, etc., that though have composite measures with such more complicated formula's. How to import such measures into an SMM based library? Once imported, you could create more specific SMM measures, and refer to the original one as "equivalent" measure. But the main problem is that it cannot even be imported, as a collective measure in SMM does not allow for a formula, but only has a simple accumulator. How can this be resolved ? From: Larry Hines To: Juergen Boldt , "issues@omg.org" , "smm-rtf@omg.org" Subject: RE: issues 17482 - 17484 -- SMM RTF issues Thread-Topic: issues 17482 - 17484 -- SMM RTF issues Thread-Index: AQHNYR1acmdrSdtvOkWCsqHE9m50Upcqa2Eg Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 16:38:01 +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 16:38:02.0469 (UTC) FILETIME=[33AE2150:01CD62A8] With respect to # 17482 : Yes, adding times would be the next obvious n-ary accumulator. [ Just as a side note, I would mention, however, that I don.t see result1 * result2 * result3 * result4 * result5 as 4 rescalings. Better to be a collective measurement with the .times. n-ary accumulator. ] With respect to #17483: This sounds like DirectMeasure. Perhaps additionally languages should be allowed and perhaps we should have an example of the Operation class in the library. With respect to #17484: Yes, adding formula to BinaryMeasure should work. I would keep functor and add the constraint that exactly one of functor and formula is given. Similarly, I would suggest adding offset and multiplier to ReScaleMeasure. There the constraint would be either formula is given or both offset and multiplier is given, but if formula is given then neither offset nor multiplier is given. This would mean that both measures are very extendable and both have quick ways of specifying their most common usages. From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 12:31 PM To: issues@omg.org; smm-rtf@omg.org Subject: issues 17482 - 17484 -- SMM RTF issues This is issue # 17482 From: Henk de Man Add accumulator value .product.. Assume that you have 5 measurements (according to their measures), and that you just want to multiple the results of all 5: result 1 * result 2 * result 3 * result 4 * result 5. This can be done in SMM as follows: 1) 4 binary measures, with functor "times" , or 2) 4 rescaled measures, with formula " * baseMeasurement" But wouldn't it be very handy to just have 1 collective measure, whereby accumulator would be .product. ? Currently the accumulators are just "sum", "max", "min", "avarage" and "stdv". Proposal: Add accumulator value .product.. ======================================================================== This is issue # 17483 From: Henk de Man SMM does not allow for a formula, but only has a simple accumulator In industry, it is common to have composite measures with formulas like .A * (1 + B) / C., whereby A, B and C are atomic measures. In this example, according to SMM, you would not have 4 measures, but 6, e.g.: . 3 direct measures: A, B, C . A rescaled measure, with formula .1+B. . A binary measure, with functor .times., to multiple A and the rescaled measure from above. . A ratio measure to divide the previous one by C. Though this is technically OK, it is not always handy, as .given. industry measures would have to be refactored into smaller ones. I see a good reason why SMM measures are structured as they are: You have good grip than on the formula, the functor, etc. Because if you would allow for formula's like "( A * (1 + B) ) / C ", you would have difficulty in reconciling the various associated "sub" measurements with the formula of the measure that relates to the collective measurement. String parsing, etc. SMM in its current form is very structured, but that would make interpretation and implementation also very straightforward. That is a big advantage and I like that. But still I have trouble with e.g. industry-given libraries of VCG, SCOR, KPI LIbrary, etc., that though have composite measures with such more complicated formula's. How to import such measures into an SMM based library? Once imported, you could create more specific SMM measures, and refer to the original one as "equivalent" measure. But the main problem is that it cannot even be imported, as a collective measure in SMM does not allow for a formula, but only has a simple accumulator. How can this be resolved ? ====================================================================== This is issue # 17484 From: Henk de Man Should a binary measure have a formula next to a functor ? In SMM, a binary measure has a functor. Examples in the spec (instance models) suggest functor values like .sum., .difference., .times., .divide.. This sounds like functor should have an enumeration defined in the spec, like also accumulator has for a collective measure. However, SMM does not do that for functor. Why not? It is rather similar (see also that accumulator has a value .sum. ..). On the other hand: an enum can be too rigid, as it is not easily extendable. As Alain Picard has admitted, it would for vendors be more flexible to also allow formula.s (like rescaled measures have), for binary measures, e.g. .A * B. (instead of functor .times. to multiple A and B). But that would require that a binary measure should have a formula next to a functor ? 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=EIZ40xfW5aQT7CrafyQQM4aAOv+iBVGoQv9vv9+33VY=; b=f2dSCZWhLn2b74f4//l0LzSWKTxSpBFL1LErnnfe++qdkiLG15MiFhKGZCJDKXeYlR pgHZy9zLiGvOkKJNAY1EC1XNtPrDbrdoNUHOd/j4MZFdrm0p/t6pBxuYJIZHB8c42Zpa REuZZBMl3KFmys2rJK7pTuRswSRjAlzDDm5E550n3wq26i0u0dMpCX1RlOXmeDxPwLpZ KALlwYiSse5tMLrJf2DBHmw+1jwr1GnPhNR8/OOQWK7kttffKM3jiWV/6/gaLYkfFMK8 jMPnBZUXD2SKTtJ8WCjjMVbvS3qZVP9hwWEQFGpFYFwGzAybBM2N5hhPsDBw5FjOI1/e ZLuQ== Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 14:19:10 +0200 Subject: Re: issues 17482 - 17484 -- SMM RTF issues From: Henk de Man To: Larry Hines Cc: Juergen Boldt , "issues@omg.org" , "smm-rtf@omg.org" , Alain Picard , Henk de Man X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmLQ5KxLdBraMM0UVaSZWCKMx4UMxNtyWgpg6vZ+KWYDej3W91qvwPWzCy5cP0/GWDKQK3Y Larry, See below. On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Larry Hines wrote: With respect to # 17482ÂÂ: Yes, adding times would be the next obvious n-ary accumulator. [ Just as a side note, I would mention, however, that I donât see result1 * result2 * result3 * result4 * result5 as 4 rescalings. Better to be a collective measurement with the âtimesâ n-ary accumulator. ] [hdm] Regarding issue Â# 17482: Agreed, but I prefer adding "product" rather than "times". "Product" is the better name, see e.g. the formula list in Excel.  With respect to #17483: ÂThis sounds like DirectMeasure. Perhaps additionally languages should be allowed and perhaps we should have an example of the Operation class in the library. [hdm]ÂRegarding issueÂ#17483: This has been extensively discussed with Alain Picard, and he stated that he fully agrees on this, and that his understanding was that Bill Curtis did earlier already intend to implement this in SMM spec, so the issue seems to be known, and my request is just articulating it once more. Note that if this is not supported, SMM is not so good in supporting business metrics libraries that are common in Industry.  With respect to #17484: ÂYes, adding formula to BinaryMeasure should work. I would keep functor and add the constraint that exactly one of functor and formula is given. Similarly, I would suggest adding offset and multiplier to ReScaleMeasure. There the constraint would be either formula is given or both offset and multiplier is given, but if formula is given then neither offset nor multiplier is given. [hdm]ÂRegarding issueÂÂ#17484: Agreed to both. Though I am not sure what you mean by offset (but I trust you will be right on it).  This would mean that both measures are very extendable and both have quick ways of specifying their most common usages.  From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 12:31 PM To: issues@omg.org; smm-rtf@omg.org Subject: issues 17482 - 17484 -- SMM RTF issues  This is issue # 17482ÂÂÂFrom: Henk de Man Add accumulator value �product�. Assume that you have 5 measurements (according to their measures), and that you just want to multiple the results of all 5: result 1 * result 2 * result 3 * result 4 * result 5. This can be done in SMM as follows: 1) 4 binary measures, with functor "times" , or 2) 4 rescaled measures, with formula " * baseMeasurement" But wouldn't it be very handy to just have 1 collective measure, whereby accumulator would be �product� ? Currently the accumulators are just "sum", "max", "min", "avarage" and "stdv". Proposal: Add accumulator value �product�. ======================================================================== This is issue # 17483ÂÂÂFrom: Henk de Man SMM does not allow for a formula, but only has a simple accumulator In industry, it is common to have composite measures with formulas like �A * (1 + B) / C�, whereby A, B and C are atomic measures. In this example, according to SMM, you would not have 4 measures, but 6, e.g.: �ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ3 direct measures: A, B, C �ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂA rescaled measure, with formula �1+B� �ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂA binary measure, with functor �times�, to multiple A and the rescaled measure from above. �ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂA ratio measure to divide the previous one by C. Though this is technically OK, it is not always handy, as �given� industry measures would have to be refactored into smaller ones. I see a good reason why SMM measures are structured as they are: You have good grip than on the formula, the functor, etc. Because if you would allow for formula's like "( A * (1 + B) ) / C ", you would have difficulty in reconciling the various associated "sub" measurements with the formula of the measure that relates to the collective measurement. String parsing, etc. SMM in its current form is very structured, but that would make interpretation and implementation also very straightforward. That is a big advantage and I like that. But still I have trouble with e.g. industry-given libraries of VCG, SCOR, KPI LIbrary, etc., that though have composite measures with such more complicated formula's. How to import such measures into an SMM based library? Once imported, you could create more specific SMM measures, and refer to the original one as "equivalent" measure. But the main problem is that it cannot even be imported, as a collective measure in SMM does not allow for a formula, but only has a simple accumulator. How can this be resolved ? ====================================================================== This is issue # 17484ÂÂÂFrom: Henk de Man Should a binary measure have a formula next to a functor ? In SMM, a binary measure has a functor. Examples in the spec (instance models) suggest functor values like �sum�, �difference�, �times�, �divide�. This sounds like functor should have an enumeration defined in the spec, like also accumulator has for a collective measure. However, SMM does not do that for functor. Why not? It is rather similar (see also that accumulator has a value �sum� ..). On the other hand: an enum can be too rigid, as it is not easily extendable. As Alain Picard has admitted, it would for vendors be more flexible to also allow formula�s (like rescaled measures have), for binary measures, e.g. �A * B� (instead of functor �times� to multiple A and B). But that would require that a binary measure should have a formula next to a functor ? 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 Business Operationns From: Larry Hines To: Henk de Man CC: Juergen Boldt , "issues@omg.org" , "smm-rtf@omg.org" , Alain Picard Subject: RE: issues 17482 - 17484 -- SMM RTF issues Thread-Topic: issues 17482 - 17484 -- SMM RTF issues Thread-Index: AQHNYR1acmdrSdtvOkWCsqHE9m50Upcqa2EggANCLwD//+H3IA== Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 14:41:47 +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 14:41:48.0363 (UTC) FILETIME=[4B9D81B0:01CD642A] #17482 : Product is good with me. #17483: DirectMeasure is exactly what you are asking for. Why are we duplicating it? Is the operation class awkward to use? Basically, I.m asking why DirectMeasure does not work. #17484: Rescaling is often a linear function, the base measurement is multiplied and then added to. For example, F = (C*9/5)+32. The addend (e.g. 32) is what I referred to as an offset. From: Henk de Man [mailto:hdman@cordys.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 7:19 AM To: Larry Hines Cc: Juergen Boldt; issues@omg.org; smm-rtf@omg.org; Alain Picard; Henk de Man Subject: Re: issues 17482 - 17484 -- SMM RTF issues Larry, See below. On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Larry Hines wrote: With respect to # 17482 : Yes, adding times would be the next obvious n-ary accumulator. [ Just as a side note, I would mention, however, that I don.t see result1 * result2 * result3 * result4 * result5 as 4 rescalings. Better to be a collective measurement with the .times. n-ary accumulator. ] [hdm] Regarding issue # 17482: Agreed, but I prefer adding "product" rather than "times". "Product" is the better name, see e.g. the formula list in Excel. With respect to #17483: This sounds like DirectMeasure. Perhaps additionally languages should be allowed and perhaps we should have an example of the Operation class in the library. [hdm] Regarding issue #17483: This has been extensively discussed with Alain Picard, and he stated that he fully agrees on this, and that his understanding was that Bill Curtis did earlier already intend to implement this in SMM spec, so the issue seems to be known, and my request is just articulating it once more. Note that if this is not supported, SMM is not so good in supporting business metrics libraries that are common in Industry. With respect to #17484: Yes, adding formula to BinaryMeasure should work. I would keep functor and add the constraint that exactly one of functor and formula is given. Similarly, I would suggest adding offset and multiplier to ReScaleMeasure. There the constraint would be either formula is given or both offset and multiplier is given, but if formula is given then neither offset nor multiplier is given. [hdm] Regarding issue #17484: Agreed to both. Though I am not sure what you mean by offset (but I trust you will be right on it). This would mean that both measures are very extendable and both have quick ways of specifying their most common usages. From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 12:31 PM To: issues@omg.org; smm-rtf@omg.org Subject: issues 17482 - 17484 -- SMM RTF issues This is issue # 17482 From: Henk de Man Add accumulator value .product.. Assume that you have 5 measurements (according to their measures), and that you just want to multiple the results of all 5: result 1 * result 2 * result 3 * result 4 * result 5. This can be done in SMM as follows: 1) 4 binary measures, with functor "times" , or 2) 4 rescaled measures, with formula " * baseMeasurement" But wouldn't it be very handy to just have 1 collective measure, whereby accumulator would be .product. ? Currently the accumulators are just "sum", "max", "min", "avarage" and "stdv". Proposal: Add accumulator value .product.. ======================================================================== This is issue # 17483 From: Henk de Man SMM does not allow for a formula, but only has a simple accumulator In industry, it is common to have composite measures with formulas like .A * (1 + B) / C., whereby A, B and C are atomic measures. In this example, according to SMM, you would not have 4 measures, but 6, e.g.: . 3 direct measures: A, B, C . A rescaled measure, with formula .1+B. . A binary measure, with functor .times., to multiple A and the rescaled measure from above. . A ratio measure to divide the previous one by C. Though this is technically OK, it is not always handy, as .given. industry measures would have to be refactored into smaller ones. I see a good reason why SMM measures are structured as they are: You have good grip than on the formula, the functor, etc. Because if you would allow for formula's like "( A * (1 + B) ) / C ", you would have difficulty in reconciling the various associated "sub" measurements with the formula of the measure that relates to the collective measurement. String parsing, etc. SMM in its current form is very structured, but that would make interpretation and implementation also very straightforward. That is a big advantage and I like that. But still I have trouble with e.g. industry-given libraries of VCG, SCOR, KPI LIbrary, etc., that though have composite measures with such more complicated formula's. How to import such measures into an SMM based library? Once imported, you could create more specific SMM measures, and refer to the original one as "equivalent" measure. But the main problem is that it cannot even be imported, as a collective measure in SMM does not allow for a formula, but only has a simple accumulator. How can this be resolved ? ====================================================================== This is issue # 17484 From: Henk de Man Should a binary measure have a formula next to a functor ? In SMM, a binary measure has a functor. Examples in the spec (instance models) suggest functor values like .sum., .difference., .times., .divide.. This sounds like functor should have an enumeration defined in the spec, like also accumulator has for a collective measure. However, SMM does not do that for functor. Why not? It is rather similar (see also that accumulator has a value .sum. ..). On the other hand: an enum can be too rigid, as it is not easily extendable. As Alain Picard has admitted, it would for vendors be more flexible to also allow formula.s (like rescaled measures have), for binary measures, e.g. .A * B. (instead of functor .times. to multiple A and B). But that would require that a binary measure should have a formula next to a functor ? 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 Business Operations This message has been scanned by MailController. 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=ttMegFpRMqSvB4srp1UIjsYkhaBILDl8RQt2HxvRSyE=; b=XHG0g8CrTO8LmDfdyCvZAXStibvXiPBLass//ytx+LA4LHITD6X2n+wrft2OWXqUsJ dZVCng5ST6AW/FbPETJANJqW/AyJnik4UZoTDF5MsS0Ep/Oftp50RwIQHILtXb4ssETA kEE6+7q1VpDCrC67/Km/Lzm4BQSKMZALHv2PBxPX2/okL9rq28P/ByKLZY0Lx3SsCoMM ZyGpWA9gGnmUHenMsJnMO9+ajJ3yqF4ljaIvHNjURG3t+FFCOa/IWW3yn6fEDzw7pfYy TpDVcgsp9TJnKQsCggKn4hFQEmqVT1RQ9dABCNJrDkyjzadi6IG0Xiib3l3lS/Dkt9VY i9ng== Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 18:21:34 +0200 Subject: Re: issues 17482 - 17484 -- SMM RTF issues From: Henk de Man To: Larry Hines Cc: Juergen Boldt , "issues@omg.org" , "smm-rtf@omg.org" , Alain Picard , Henk de Man X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlfgfCiZqYMmrHAdyNluIvfuzbrHPgOpyhTrjtb5QnIkQmtn/FFb8VVefLq4mkorBmy0efS Larry, See below. On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Larry Hines wrote: #17482Â: Product is good with me. #17483: DirectMeasure is exactly what you are asking for. Why are we duplicating it? Is the operation class awkward to use? Basically, Iâm asking why DirectMeasure does not work. [hdm] What is meant is an aggregation based on formula. I am saying two things here: (1) it is about aggregation from underlying measures (a direct measure is not about that) , (2) next to accumulator, it is require to also do that based on formula (as most industry sources of business measures do suggest). And as said: Based on Alain Picard's feedback I got the impression that he had that same idea already before, and so my proposal was not knew but only confirming of what Alain and Bill C. already thought. #17484: Rescaling is often a linear function, the base measurement is multiplied and then added to. For example, F = (C*9/5)+32. The addend (e.g. 32) is what I referred to as an offset. [hdm] I see. Good proposal, and very useful.   From: Henk de Man [mailto:hdman@cordys.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 7:19 AM To: Larry Hines Cc: Juergen Boldt; issues@omg.org; smm-rtf@omg.org; Alain Picard; Henk de Man Subject: Re: issues 17482 - 17484 -- SMM RTF issues  Larry,  See below. On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Larry Hines wrote: With respect to # 17482ÂÂ: Yes, adding times would be the next obvious n-ary accumulator. [ Just as a side note, I would mention, however, that I donât see result1 * result2 * result3 * result4 * result5 as 4 rescalings. Better to be a collective measurement with the âtimesâ n-ary accumulator. ] [hdm] Regarding issue Â# 17482: Agreed, but I prefer adding "product" rather than "times". "Product" is the better name, see e.g. the formula list in Excel.  With respect to #17483: ÂThis sounds like DirectMeasure. Perhaps additionally languages should be allowed and perhaps we should have an example of the Operation class in the library. [hdm]ÂRegarding issueÂ#17483: This has been extensively discussed with Alain Picard, and he stated that he fully agrees on this, and that his understanding was that Bill Curtis did earlier already intend to implement this in SMM spec, so the issue seems to be known, and my request is just articulating it once more. Note that if this is not supported, SMM is not so good in supporting business metrics libraries that are common in Industry.  With respect to #17484: ÂYes, adding formula to BinaryMeasure should work. I would keep functor and add the constraint that exactly one of functor and formula is given. Similarly, I would suggest adding offset and multiplier to ReScaleMeasure. There the constraint would be either formula is given or both offset and multiplier is given, but if formula is given then neither offset nor multiplier is given. [hdm]ÂRegarding issueÂÂ#17484: Agreed to both. Though I am not sure what you mean by offset (but I trust you will be right on it).  This would mean that both measures are very extendable and both have quick ways of specifying their most common usages.  From: Juergen Boldt [mailto:juergen@omg.org] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 12:31 PM To: issues@omg.org; smm-rtf@omg.org Subject: issues 17482 - 17484 -- SMM RTF issues  This is issue # 17482ÂÂÂFrom: Henk de Man Add accumulator value �product�. Assume that you have 5 measurements (according to their measures), and that you just want to multiple the results of all 5: result 1 * result 2 * result 3 * result 4 * result 5. This can be done in SMM as follows: 1) 4 binary measures, with functor "times" , or 2) 4 rescaled measures, with formula " * baseMeasurement" But wouldn't it be very handy to just have 1 collective measure, whereby accumulator would be �product� ? Currently the accumulators are just "sum", "max", "min", "avarage" and "stdv". Proposal: Add accumulator value �product�. ======================================================================== This is issue # 17483ÂÂÂFrom: Henk de Man SMM does not allow for a formula, but only has a simple accumulator In industry, it is common to have composite measures with formulas like �A * (1 + B) / C�, whereby A, B and C are atomic measures. In this example, according to SMM, you would not have 4 measures, but 6, e.g.: �ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ3 direct measures: A, B, C �ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂA rescaled measure, with formula �1+B� �ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂA binary measure, with functor �times�, to multiple A and the rescaled measure from above. �ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂA ratio measure to divide the previous one by C. Though this is technically OK, it is not always handy, as �given� industry measures would have to be refactored into smaller ones. I see a good reason why SMM measures are structured as they are: You have good grip than on the formula, the functor, etc. Because if you would allow for formula's like "( A * (1 + B) ) / C ", you would have difficulty in reconciling the various associated "sub" measurements with the formula of the measure that relates to the collective measurement. String parsing, etc. SMM in its current form is very structured, but that would make interpretation and implementation also very straightforward. That is a big advantage and I like that. But still I have trouble with e.g. industry-given libraries of VCG, SCOR, KPI LIbrary, etc., that though have composite measures with such more complicated formula's. How to import such measures into an SMM based library? Once imported, you could create more specific SMM measures, and refer to the original one as "equivalent" measure. But the main problem is that it cannot even be imported, as a collective measure in SMM does not allow for a formula, but only has a simple accumulator. How can this be resolved ? ====================================================================== This is issue # 17484ÂÂÂFrom: Henk de Man Should a binary measure have a formula next to a functor ? In SMM, a binary measure has a functor. Examples in the spec (instance models) suggest functor values like �sum�, �difference�, �times�, �divide�. This sounds like functor should have an enumeration defined in the spec, like also accumulator has for a collective measure. However, SMM does not do that for functor. Why not? It is rather similar (see also that accumulator has a value �sum� ..). On the other hand: an enum can be too rigid, as it is not easily extendable. As Alain Picard has admitted, it would for vendors be more flexible to also allow formula�s (like rescaled measures have), for binary measures, e.g. �A * B� (instead of functor �times� to multiple A and B). But that would require that a binary measure should have a formula next to a functor ? 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 Business Operations  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 Busiiness Operations From: Larry Hines To: Henk de Man CC: Juergen Boldt , "issues@omg.org" , "smm-rtf@omg.org" , Alain Picard , Henk de Man Subject: SMM RTF issue 17483: SMM does not allow for a formula on Collective Measure, only has a simple accumulator Thread-Topic: SMM RTF issue 17483: SMM does not allow for a formula on Collective Measure, only has a simple accumulator Thread-Index: Ac1uZa6sqP9+2L6USNKWXlPv6x730w== Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:12:07 +0000 Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.64.26.6] X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jul 2012 15:12:08.0279 (UTC) FILETIME=[AFBD6670:01CD6E65] The core difficulty with a formula or operation is mapping the operands of the operation to the base measurements. For example, with A * (1 + B) / C we would provide three base measurements. Which one is A? Is it the first? Maybe OCL has already solved this issue. Otherwise, we have six possible interpretations. If OCL does not already have a solution, then I would suggest that we look at adding a .parameter number. attribute to base measurement relationship. Alain may have already been thinking in this direction. 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-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=+w3f2wqO8RSk0Bic+d5M8V3gG7E7rW8CzJf0taahrlA=; b=AAgxAbVGRRs78v2t0DW6d8npfyGqndnz+y94B0Cj97khLOpgZ7F8LSqtPNACF69YIE zILYB7Omoyqhpf+HYPQQeyfiDQg2x2RR98p/HYT8m3oThwgNluzUZgGZ65Ev241qfptH qjPYxNNJUyKXu9Gs5pgfF80wF5NiSUiP2+EDRqsOoQLHQbhWxYRAVHYbcvYsFOOZFWRu wsuBF7PXb/fu64SLznoomEDkexL6VbwvnjqUVrj6MMTiwevTN8zKfpe/eakVYJEp1ty9 EVAKqnjVarAwnlsG7Uyf9TAVjbwr3FVvd2fwaISrkMUAhcxT9SmxDg1YXmUPksCMS4eG EOxg== Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 17:55:50 +0200 Subject: Re: SMM RTF issue 17483: SMM does not allow for a formula on Collective Measure, only has a simple accumulator From: Henk de Man To: Larry Hines Cc: Juergen Boldt , "issues@omg.org" , "smm-rtf@omg.org" , Alain Picard , Henk de Man X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnucQkvEqqpILnj1ieP5J50V9zXL7TbCJY4pBAgnvMb8CD7fKZ3VgX37luo2vYVEch4Z0Z3 Larry, Alain, I respond here to what Larry said below. A collective measurement has unambiguous relationships with the measurements from which it aggregates. And each of these "underlying" measurements are related unambiguously to a measure in a library. And within each library, the name of a measure, that is contained in it, is unique. So, I guess that A, B and C can just represent the names of the measures of the "underlying" measurements ? Together with the measurement aggregation relationships this should be sufficient? That's also what's common sense in industry: formula's of composite measures have operands that represent other measures. Do you see difficulty here? Regards, Henk de Man On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Larry Hines wrote: The core difficulty with a formula or operation is mapping the operands of the operation to the base measurements. For example, with A * (1 + B) / C we would provide three base measurements. Which one is A? Is it the first? Maybe OCL has already solved this issue. Otherwise, we have six possible interpretations. If OCL does not already have a solution, then I would suggest that we look at adding a .parameter number. attribute to base measurement relationship. Alain may have already been thinking in this direction. 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