Issue 5985: PIM or PSM for CCM (deployment-ftf) Source: Zuehlke Engineering (Mr. Frank Pilhofer, fpilhofer2008(at)gmail.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: In the PSM for CCM chapter, should the result of the T1 trans- formaion be called PIM for CCM or PSM for CCM? I believe there was a majority for "PSM" at the OMG meeting in Paris. Proposed resolution: Change all occurences of "PIM for CCM" to "PSM for CCM". Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: June 19, 2003: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== Subject: Editorial issues Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 10:53:15 -0400 Thread-Topic: Editorial issues Thread-Index: AcM2coMptnFeo4Q1QsmkKIm5ox5qmw== From: "Pilhofer, Frank" To: Cc: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id h5JErtkM003542 These are minor editorial issues for the Deployment FTF: (3) PIM or PSM for CCM In the PSM for CCM chapter, should the result of the T1 trans- formaion be called PIM for CCM or PSM for CCM? I believe there was a majority for "PSM" at the OMG meeting in Paris. Proposed resolution: Change all occurences of "PIM for CCM" to "PSM for CCM". Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 17:07:21 -0400 From: Kevin Richardson Organization: The MITRE Corporation X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en]C-20020130M (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en To: deployment-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: Deployment FTF voting (1st poll), closing 20th October 2003 20:00 GMT One note, please consider indicate the exact subsections where the modifications are to take place (this makes it much easier for me to find the text in the document) OMG Issue No: 5953: Yes OMG Issue No: 5954: Yes OMG Issue No: 5955: No - I'd suggest that the semantics of ComponentPackageReference be made more generic and that the particulars of each association to it be restructured to specify the semantics of how a componentpackagerefernce should be used in that case OMG Issue No: 5956: Yes OMG Issue No: 5957: No - in InstanceDeploymentDescrition, PlanConnectionDescription, PlanPropertyMapping, PackageError there are still references to the label attribute. The resolution should also contain explicit instructions to update the figures. (if these are incorporated - Yes) OMG Issue No: 5958: Yes OMG Issue No: 5959: No - I've got a couple of discussion items before I say yes, 1) In the GenericTransformationRules it states the "an XML schema for persistent storage of metadata" - is it the case that the metadata has to be persistently maintained? 2) The paragraph beginning with "Composition associations in the model..." confuses me to no end, am I just missing something? OMG Issue No: 5960: Yes OMG Issue No: 5961: No - The semantics of CreatePackage need to better explain what distinguishes this operation from InstallPackage - you can probably use some of the text from the summary. It should also explicitly state that it creates the new PackageConfiguration. OMG Issue No: 5962: Yes (the title needs to be changed in the report) OMG Issue No: 5963: No - I couldn't figure out what the changes were supposed to be. OMG Issue No: 5964: No - Make sure instructions say to update the diagrams (for the label to name change) and the diagram in 6.4.1 (for the new class if necessary) In the dependsOn association remove the text ", assigning names to each" . In the referencedArtifact association its definition should be more descriptive, to explain that it represents to pointer to another artifact. Section 6.4.9.1 still has references to the "label" attribute. OMG Issue No: 5983: Yes OMG Issue No: 5984: Yes OMG Issue No: 5985: No - This change also needs to incorporate the T2 to T3 transformation in 9.1 OMG Issue No: 5986: Yes OMG Issue No: 5993: Yes OMG Issue No: 6024: Yes OMG Issue No: 6037: Yes OMG Issue No: 6038: Yes OMG Issue No: 6041: Yes OMG Issue No: 6042: No - This may be a hostage for another item which will result in an issue being raised, but section 8.2.4.1 describes capabilities not capacities OMG Issue No: 6044: Yes OMG Issue No: 6046: Yes OMG Issue No: 6048: Yes OMG Issue No: 6051: Yes OMG Issue No: 6052: Yes Kevin > > Andreas Hoffmann > > unhofer.de> cc: > Subject: Deployment FTF voting (1st poll), closing 20th October 2003 20:00 GMT > 10/02/2003 10:07 AM > > > > Hi FTF members, > > this is the first voting for the OMG Deployment FTF. For details on the > issue resolutions please refer to the attached document listing all the > issue resolutions of this voting. Compared to Tuesday's draft version I > have added issue 5962 and moved issues 5993, 6044 and 6052 from "Resolved" > to "Duplicate or merged". Anyway, this classification has no impact on the > voting. > > In order to give all FTF members enough time to study the issue resolutions > and their impacts on the specification the voting deadline is Monday 20th > October, 2003, 20:00 GMT. > > ------------------- snip -------------------- > > ** Deployment FTF Voting Poll 1 ** > ** Voting Deadline October 20, 2003, 20:00 GMT ** > > Company: > > Voter: > > Regards > Andreas > > ==================================================================== > Andreas Hoffmann > Fraunhofer FOKUS - Research Institute for Open Communication Systems > Kaiserin-Augusta-Allee 31 > D - 10589 Berlin > > Phone: +49 30 3463-7392 > Fax: +49 30 3463-8392 > Email: andreas.hoffmann@fokus.fraunhofer.de > ==================================================================== > > (See attached file: omg-deployment-ftf-01_10_03.zip) > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Name: omg-deployment-ftf-01_10_03.zip > omg-deployment-ftf-01_10_03.zip Type: application/zip > Encoding: base64 > Download Status: Not downloaded with message Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 09:04:12 -0400 From: James Kulp Organization: Mercury Computer Systems, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en,pdf To: Kevin Richardson CC: deployment-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: Deployment FTF voting (1st poll), closing 20th October 2003 20:00 GMT Kevin, Similar to the email to Dave, since Frank isn't around, I'll try to clarify some of the issues that you didn't want to accept. In general, to make progress, when comments come up at the ballot that were not raised earlier during the email and telecon discussions, it might be more efficient to raise them as new issues - especially in the case where they are making minor improvements to the larger proposed resolutions. Your call of course. Kevin Richardson wrote: One note, please consider indicate the exact subsections where the modifications are to take place (this makes it much easier for me to find the text in the document) OMG Issue No: 5953: Yes OMG Issue No: 5954: Yes OMG Issue No: 5955: No - I'd suggest that the semantics of ComponentPackageReference be made more generic and that the particulars of each association to it be restructured to specify the semantics of how a componentpackagerefernce should be used in that case The core difference was between a reference to an implementation vs. a reference to an interface, which were considered to be distinct enough to warrant different classes. OMG Issue No: 5956: Yes OMG Issue No: 5957: No - in InstanceDeploymentDescrition, PlanConnectionDescription, PlanPropertyMapping, PackageError there are still references to the label attribute. The resolution should also contain explicit instructions to update the figures. (if these are incorporated - Yes) OMG Issue No: 5958: Yes OMG Issue No: 5959: No - I've got a couple of discussion items before I say yes, 1) In the GenericTransformationRules it states the "an XML schema for persistent storage of metadata" - is it the case that the metadata has to be persistently maintained? The persistence is certainly not normative. Perhaps such a clarification should be a separate issue? The core issue of using the standard XMI->XML Schema mapping was mandated by the Architecture Board. 2) The paragraph beginning with "Composition associations in the model..." confuses me to no end, am I just missing something? Me too:-) Perhaps a separate issue to clarify these few sentences? OMG Issue No: 5960: Yes OMG Issue No: 5961: No - The semantics of CreatePackage need to better explain what distinguishes this operation from InstallPackage - you can probably use some of the text from the summary. It should also explicitly state that it creates the new PackageConfiguration. This new operation description was carefully written to mirror the wording for the installPackage operation, which, now that I look at it, could benefit from your comments in the same way. Perhaps a new issue that applied your comments to both? OMG Issue No: 5962: Yes (the title needs to be changed in the report) OMG Issue No: 5963: No - I couldn't figure out what the changes were supposed to be. The changes were all to change "String" to "String[0..1]" for the attributes already specified in the text as "optional". OMG Issue No: 5964: No - Make sure instructions say to update the diagrams (for the label to name change) and the diagram in 6.4.1 (for the new class if necessary) In the dependsOn association remove the text ", assigning names to each" . In the referencedArtifact association its definition should be more descriptive, to explain that it represents to pointer to another artifact. Section 6.4.9.1 still has references to the "label" attribute. These good refinements should be submitted as a new issue if this passes... OMG Issue No: 5983: Yes OMG Issue No: 5984: Yes OMG Issue No: 5985: No - This change also needs to incorporate the T2 to T3 transformation in 9.1 OMG Issue No: 5986: Yes OMG Issue No: 5993: Yes OMG Issue No: 6024: Yes OMG Issue No: 6037: Yes OMG Issue No: 6038: Yes OMG Issue No: 6041: Yes OMG Issue No: 6042: No - This may be a hostage for another item which will result in an issue being raised, but section 8.2.4.1 describes capabilities not capacities 6042 was a spelling error. Do you mean a different issue? OMG Issue No: 6044: Yes OMG Issue No: 6046: Yes OMG Issue No: 6048: Yes OMG Issue No: 6051: Yes OMG Issue No: 6052: Yes Kevin Andreas Hoffmann unhofer.de> cc: Subject: Deployment FTF voting (1st poll), closing 20th October 2003 20:00 GMT 10/02/2003 10:07 AM Hi FTF members, this is the first voting for the OMG Deployment FTF. For details on the issue resolutions please refer to the attached document listing all the issue resolutions of this voting. Compared to Tuesday's draft version I have added issue 5962 and moved issues 5993, 6044 and 6052 from "Resolved" to "Duplicate or merged". Anyway, this classification has no impact on the voting. In order to give all FTF members enough time to study the issue resolutions and their impacts on the specification the voting deadline is Monday 20th October, 2003, 20:00 GMT. ------------------- snip -------------------- ** Deployment FTF Voting Poll 1 ** ** Voting Deadline October 20, 2003, 20:00 GMT ** Company: Voter: Regards Andreas ==================================================================== Andreas Hoffmann Fraunhofer FOKUS - Research Institute for Open Communication Systems Kaiserin-Augusta-Allee 31 D - 10589 Berlin Phone: +49 30 3463-7392 Fax: +49 30 3463-8392 Email: andreas.hoffmann@fokus.fraunhofer.de ==================================================================== (See attached file: omg-deployment-ftf-01_10_03.zip) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Name: omg-deployment-ftf-01_10_03.zip omg-deployment-ftf-01_10_03.zip Type: application/zip Encoding: base64 Download Status: Not downloaded with message Subject: Editorial Issue: (5985 follow-up) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:50:32 -0500 Thread-Topic: Editorial Issue: (5985 follow-up) Thread-Index: AcP30aatF5t96jgnRx214jzCqTRgWA== From: "Pilhofer, Frank" To: X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id i1KGogre014426 We discovered a typo on page 116 (in the current December working draft). The first sentence of the first paragraph on that page reads, The first transformation, T1 (PIM to PSM for CCM), takes the platform-independent model, and refines it into a platform independent model for CCM. Remember that in the resolution for issue 5985, we replaced the original "PIM for CCM" with "PSM for CCM". So now, it should read "[...] refines it into a platform specific model [...]." So "independent" should be replaced by "specific." If it's okay with everybody, I'll handle this as an editorial change.