Issues for Mailing list of the UML Profile for QoS and Fault Tolerance Finalization Task Force

List of issues (green=resolved, yellow=pending Board vote, red=unresolved)

List options: All ; Open Issues only; or Closed Issues only

Issue 7791: Section 8, 9.4 and Appendix A
Issue 7798: notion of a constraint
Issue 7799: call "GlobalConstraint" something like "CompoundConstraint"
Issue 7800: The term "QoS Level" doesn't seem right
Issue 7804: include the rationale for not declaring QoSDimension as tagged values
Issue 7805: How do we show the QoS for operations and attributes?
Issue 7806: Section 10
Issue 7807: Section 10 3rd paragraph
Issue 7808: Section 10.1
Issue 7822: obsession with use cases
Issue 7852: time/utility functions (TUFs) and TUF-based assurance analysis techniques
Issue 9587: Section 8.3 QoS Constraint, page 14
Issue 9588: Section 11.2.2 SWOT, page 54
Issue 9589: Figure 11-13 Value Definitions, page 57
Issue 10404: Page 19 Paragraph 5
Issue 17543: UML2 metamodel includes a non-existent Ecore metamodel reference

Issue 7791: Section 8, 9.4 and Appendix A (uml-qos-ft-ftf)

Specification of preemptive memory policy QoS annotated UML model characterized by stochastic-timing annotations allow to derive evaluation stochastic models that can be used to carry out verification and validation activities by means of the application of analytical methods and/or simulation techniques. When a stochastic model is characterized by activities whose duration is specified by general distributions (i.e., non negative exponential) it is necessary to associate to them memory policies that allow to decide in case of preemption whether or not to take into account of the amount of work carried out from the starting of the activity until the activity interruption. 

I am struggling with the notion of a constraint, whereby operators (e.g. >, < and =) are used within an expression containing QoS characteristics and class attributes. I can see that QoSCharacteristic is a specialisation of QoSContext, although QoSDimensionSlot seems an odd place to declare operators. Should the model look like: Diagram Alternatively, I assume there is a pattern within the SysML parametric model.

It may be better to call "GlobalConstraint" something like "CompoundConstraint" to avoid implications of the term 'global'.

The term "QoS Level" doesn't seem right. Maybe "QoS Configuration" is better.

The profile requires two stereotypes to be applied simultaneously (QoSDimension and QoSCharacteristic). This is untidy, although I can see from the examples later in the document that QoSDimension is applied to attributes when QoSCharacteristic is applied to a class. The document, at least, should include the rationale for not declaring QoSDimension as tagged values (fig 8-3 on page 11). 

QoSConstraint is defined as a dependency. How do we show the QoS for operations and attributes? I think this may be important since components provide services using operations and attributes. Thus the constraints are applied to these (and possibly the data sent within operations). 

It is unclear what we are trying to achieve with this section. It seems that the section contains a lot of definitions (e.g. throughput), but the figures suggest that these are only examples. Examples are good and hence the section should be reorganised to clearly state all the categories as examples

3rd Paragraph - "A quality model is easy to reuse in the specification of non-functional properties .." You should have a QoS for a requirement. This raises the question "Why have Categories?". Surely a model will contain packages of requirements (as being defined in SysML) and the QoS would be applied to them. 

This comment is listed as minor on the assumption that the QoS Categories listed are examples (see comment above). The QoS Categories listed seem to mix different concepts, namely Software Quality Factors (SQF), Design Characteristics and general QoS (or bucket!). Examples of SQF's and design characteristics are attached to these comments. Also, we have promoted three sub-categories of Performance, namely Timing, Accuracy and Resource. The comment here is that projects will have different views on categories and it is unlikely there will be a strong consensus. I don't think the profile does this because the QoS Categories listed are not specifically in the profile, but examples. You should include these examples, but structure the lists of QoS Categories - I suggest SQF and Design Characteristics at least. 

 don't understand the obsession with use cases here. A SWOT Element should not be a specialisation of a use case. A SWOT is performed for a system, not necessarily how you use it. I suggest we look for something equivalent to a Requirement (e.g. textual element), like there is in SysML

 think it would be good to include (at least mention) time/utility functions (TUFs) and TUF-based assurance analysis techniques. TUFs generalizes deadline constraints and TUF scheduling algorithms encompass deadline-based scheduling algorithms such as EDF/RMA in terms of timeliness behavior. Thus, I think including TUFs/TUF algorithms will increase the discussion's scope

Qos Contract:  second sentence is not a complete sentence.

Figure 11-9 SWOT Profile
Use Case is not listed in the figure.

catastrophic is misspelled.  Cannot edit the figure as is, needs to be fixed in the original figure.

The base class of stereotype <<QoSCharacteristic>> is Class. Properties and Structural Features with stereotype

<<QoSDimension>> provide support for the quantification of characteristics. The base classes of

<<QoSDimension>> are StructuralFeature and Property. The types for QoSDimensions are UML 2.0 primitive types,

enumerations, or QoS Characteristics. The metaclass Class included **Change in un** metamodel:

The non-normative OMG document ptc/06-11-04 (06-11-04.uml2) includes a reference to a non-existent document (ecore.uml2).


In the "uml:Package" named "uml2", we have a "uml:Class" named "Element" that have a generalization reference to a "uml:Class" 
href="../../eclipse/workspace2/MetaModels2/model/ecore.uml2#_Ui5E27hiEdqpTJOL-CJ2eQ".

This reference seems to be specific to a particular environment where the document 06-11-04.uml2 was exported. The reference needs to be updated to an existent one.