Issue 18740: Use of Actual vs. Type in PV-1 (updm-2-0-rtf)
Source: MITRE (Dr. Fatma Dandashi, dandashi(at)mitre.org)
Nature: Enhancement
Severity: Significant
Summary: Currently, one has to use ActualProject and ActualOrganization to get an organizational to project mapping. Why not organization and project types? Understand this theoretically, (only a “real” organization can undertake a “real” project), however what if the architecture description itself was all a pattern? I should be able to associate classes of organizations (a type) with classes of projects.
 
Profile:
 
 

Resolution: 
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
May 29, 2013: received issue
Discussion: 

End of Annotations:=====
ssue 18740 :
Name: Fatma Dandashi
Employer: Mitre Corp.
mailFrom: dandashi@mitre.org
Terms_Agreement: I agree
Specification: UPDM Profile
Section: PV-1, A1.1.1. B1.1.1
FormalNumber: dtc/12-12-17
Version:  2.1
Doc_Year: 2012
Doc_Month:  December
Doc_Day:  17
Page: 246, 292
Title: Use of Actual vs. Type in PV-1
Nature:   Enhancement
Severity: Significant
CODE: 
B1:   Report Issue
Remote Name:  
Remote User:
Time: 

Description: 
Currently, one has to use ActualProject and ActualOrganization to get an organizational to project mapping. Why not organization and project types? Understand this theoretically, (only a .real. organization can undertake a .real. project), however what if the architecture description itself was all a pattern? I should be able to associate classes of organizations (a type) with classes of projects.



Profile: