Issue 4682: Section 8.4, page 34                                                                                                                                                                                    (spem-ftf)
Source: France Telecom R&D (Mr. Mariano Belaunde, mariano.belaunde@orange-ftgroup.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary: "A ProcessRole is responsisble for..."
  Too complex and unclear. Why not an explicit "responsibleFor" relationship
in the MM?
  This will minimize the size of XMI files generated from SPEM.
Resolution: Accept.
Revised Text: Add an association to figure 7-1 as follows:
 
In 7.4 ProcessPerformer and ProcessRole:Associations bullet 2, delete "; this is modeled by creating M1-level associations between the ProcessRole and the relevant WorkProducts".

In 7.1 WorkProduct and InformationElement:Associations, add a new bullet:
A WorkProduct may be associated with a responsibleRole, representing the role that is formally responsible for the production of this WorkProduct.

On page 11-7, before the paragraph referring to WorkDefinition::goal, insert a new paragraph as follows:

WorkProduct::responsibleRole.  This is not represented directly in the profile.  Instead, in an application of the profile, this would be modeled by creating M1-level associations between the ProcessRole and the relevant WorkProducts.

Actions taken:
November 7, 2001: received issue
October 23, 2002: closed issue
Discussion: 

End of Annotations:=====
From: BELAUNDE Mariano FTRD/DTL/LAN
       <mariano.belaunde@rd.francetelecom.com>
To: spem-ftf@omg.org
Subject: Issues to the SPEM document
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 12:43:16 +0100 
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	      charset="iso-8859-1"
X-UIDL: Nnl!!iMLe9;"'!!~>;!!

Hi all,

You will find below a list of issues regarding the current version of
the SPEM specification.

Regards,
Mariano Belaunde
France Telecom R&D
------------------------------------------------------

Section 8.4, page 34
  "A ProcessRole is responsisble for..."
  Too complex and unclear. Why not an explicit "responsibleFor"
  relationship
in the MM?
  This will minimize the size of XMI files generated from SPEM.