Issue 5087: Figure 11-3 Decomposition of WorkDefinition (spem-ftf) Source: (, ) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: I'm trying to map the assocations in Figure 11-3 "Decomposition of WorkDefinition" to those in Figure 7-1 "Process Structure Package" and I have 3 questions: 1. WorkDefinition has a direct association to itself in Figure 7-1 and Operation (to which WorkDefinition is mapped) in Figure 11-3 does not seem to have such direct corresponding association. Does this association map to Operation->ActivityGraph->CompositeState->ActionState->CallAction->Operation in Figure 11-3 ? 2. If the answer to the above question is yes then this question is: the self-assocation of Operation in Figure 11-3 passes through ActionState (to which Step from Figure 7-1 is mapped to) but the self assocation of WorkDefinition in Figure 7-1 does not seem to pass through Step, why ? 3. Step in Figure 7-1 is mapped to ActionState in Figure 11-3 and Step doesn't seem to have any sub-component. In Figure 11-3 ActionState has a composition assocation with Action (+entry), what does this represent ? Resolution: Accept. Revised Text: These issues are already addressed by changes made in 4673. No additional changes are needed. 1. This is addressed by [C43] 2. This is addressed by bullet 4 under 7.3 Associations. 3. This is addressed by [C38 Actions taken: March 20, 2002: received issue October 23, 2002: closed issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 13:27:50 -0500 From: Ming Chan Organization: Sun Microsystems of Canada X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en]C-CCK-MCD (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: issues@omg.org CC: Payman Hodaie , Jim.Lu@sun.com, Daryl Spencer Subject: Figure 11-3 Decomposition of WorkDefinition Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: P$:!!;A%!!H:Td906(!! Hi, I'm trying to map the assocations in Figure 11-3 "Decomposition of WorkDefinition" to those in Figure 7-1 "Process Structure Package" and I have 3 questions: 1. WorkDefinition has a direct association to itself in Figure 7-1 and Operation (to which WorkDefinition is mapped) in Figure 11-3 does not seem to have such direct corresponding association. Does this association map to Operation->ActivityGraph->CompositeState->ActionState->CallAction->Operation in Figure 11-3 ? 2. If the answer to the above question is yes then this question is: the self-assocation of Operation in Figure 11-3 passes through ActionState (to which Step from Figure 7-1 is mapped to) but the self assocation of WorkDefinition in Figure 7-1 does not seem to pass through Step, why ? 3. Step in Figure 7-1 is mapped to ActionState in Figure 11-3 and Step doesn't seem to have any sub-component. In Figure 11-3 ActionState has a composition assocation with Action (+entry), what does this represent ? Thanks Ming Chan Staff Engineer Sun MicroSystems Educational Services 200 University Ave. Toronto, ON. Canada Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 13:37:20 -0500 From: Jishnu Mukerji Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ming Chan Cc: Juergen Boldt Subject: Re: Figure 11-3 Decomposition of WorkDefinition References: <3C98D4A6.7B373C4A@sun.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: 8R9e9(_~!!SV8!!K7Vd9 Ming, Praytell which document may you be referring to? A document number or title would really help us all a lot in making any sense of what you say.:-) Thanks, Jishnu. Ming Chan wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm trying to map the assocations in Figure 11-3 "Decomposition of > WorkDefinition" to those in Figure 7-1 "Process Structure Package" and I > have 3 questions: > > 1. WorkDefinition has a direct association to itself in Figure 7-1 and > Operation (to which WorkDefinition is mapped) in Figure 11-3 does not > seem to have such direct corresponding association. Does this > association map to > Operation->ActivityGraph->CompositeState->ActionState->CallAction->Operation > in Figure 11-3 ? > > 2. If the answer to the above question is yes then this question is: the > self-assocation of Operation in Figure 11-3 passes through ActionState > (to which Step from Figure 7-1 is mapped to) but the self assocation of > WorkDefinition in Figure 7-1 does not seem to pass through Step, why ? > > 3. Step in Figure 7-1 is mapped to ActionState in Figure 11-3 and Step > doesn't seem to have any sub-component. In Figure 11-3 ActionState has a > composition assocation with Action (+entry), what does this represent ? > > Thanks > > Ming Chan > Staff Engineer > Sun MicroSystems > Educational Services > 200 University Ave. > Toronto, ON. Canada Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 13:44:54 -0500 From: Ming Chan Organization: Sun Microsystems of Canada X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en]C-CCK-MCD (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jishnu Mukerji CC: Juergen Boldt Subject: Re: Figure 11-3 Decomposition of WorkDefinition References: <3C98D4A6.7B373C4A@sun.com> <3C98D6E0.356DE7D2@hp.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: H\id9`dWd9Ncnd9`@I!! Sorry, of course. "Software Process Engineering Metamodel Specification", Final Adopted Specification, December 2001. Thanks Ming Jishnu Mukerji wrote: > > Ming, > > Praytell which document may you be referring to? A document number or > title would really help us all a lot in making any sense of what you > say.:-) > > Thanks, > > Jishnu. > > Ming Chan wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I'm trying to map the assocations in Figure 11-3 "Decomposition of > > WorkDefinition" to those in Figure 7-1 "Process Structure Package" and I > > have 3 questions: > > > > 1. WorkDefinition has a direct association to itself in Figure 7-1 and > > Operation (to which WorkDefinition is mapped) in Figure 11-3 does not > > seem to have such direct corresponding association. Does this > > association map to > > Operation->ActivityGraph->CompositeState->ActionState->CallAction->Operation > > in Figure 11-3 ? > > > > 2. If the answer to the above question is yes then this question is: the > > self-assocation of Operation in Figure 11-3 passes through ActionState > > (to which Step from Figure 7-1 is mapped to) but the self assocation of > > WorkDefinition in Figure 7-1 does not seem to pass through Step, why ? > > > > 3. Step in Figure 7-1 is mapped to ActionState in Figure 11-3 and Step > > doesn't seem to have any sub-component. In Figure 11-3 ActionState has a > > composition assocation with Action (+entry), what does this represent ? > > > > Thanks > > > > Ming Chan > > Staff Engineer > > Sun MicroSystems > > Educational Services > > 200 University Ave. > > Toronto, ON. Canada From: BELAUNDE Mariano FTRD/DTL/LAN To: spem-ftf@omg.org, ming.chan@Sun.COM Subject: RE: Comment on issue 5087 -- SPEM FTF issue Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 13:36:05 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPartTM-000-e50a4131-40a9-11d6-b1e9-00508b69ab48" X-UIDL: VmPe9+FFe9Qo&!!W?^d9 Inside the text is my comment on the Ming's issue. Mariano -------------------- This is issue # 5087 Ming Chan Figure 11-3 Decomposition of WorkDefinition I'm trying to map the assocations in Figure 11-3 "Decomposition of WorkDefinition" to those in Figure 7-1 "Process Structure Package" and I have 3 questions: 1. WorkDefinition has a direct association to itself in Figure 7-1 and Operation (to which WorkDefinition is mapped) in Figure 11-3 does not seem to have such direct corresponding association. Does this association map to Operation->ActivityGraph->CompositeState->ActionState->CallAction->Operation in Figure 11-3 ? >>>>> YES 2. If the answer to the above question is yes then this question is: the self-assocation of Operation in Figure 11-3 passes through ActionState (to which Step from Figure 7-1 is mapped to) but the self assocation of WorkDefinition in Figure 7-1 does not seem to pass through Step, why ? >>>> A STEP is not considered in SPEM as being a "real" work definition >>>> (no specific performer can be attached to it). It seems more like a >>>> "checklist" item concerning an overall activity (such as "identify >>>> all the actors in the system" is something "to be considered" >>>> during the "analysis & design" activity execution). 3. Step in Figure 7-1 is mapped to ActionState in Figure 11-3 and Step doesn't seems to have any sub-component. In Figure 11-3 ActionState has a composition assocation with Action (+entry), what does this represent ? >>> According to UML 1.4 an ActionState is always associated with an >>> Action (not necessarily an ActionCall). In our case the ActionState >>> and the entry Action represents in fact the same thing (the Action >>> State is just the representation of the action as a NODE in the >>> activity diagram). >>> I personnally think, however, that it would be more consistent >>> to map a STEP as a UML Operation in the UML profile. >>> As for work definitions, this enables a proper conceptual >>> distinction between the usage (CallState/ActionCall) and the >>> definition (the Operation). Mariano