Issues for UML Profile for Scheduling, Performance, and Time Finalization Task Force

To comment on any of these issues, send email to [email protected]. (Please include the issue number in the Subject: header, thusly: [Issue ###].) To submit a new issue, send email to [email protected].

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

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

Jira Issues

Issue 4836: Relate different refinements of the same thing, e.g. protocol stacks (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Relate different refinements of the same thing, e.g. protocol stacks

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 7, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Issue 4837: clarification regarding UML extensibility mechanisms as proposed for UML1.4 (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Clarification
Severity:
Summary:

The document has been developed assuming the UML extensibility mechanisms as proposed for UML 1.4, but this is not said until section 4.2.3. This assumption is done in the rest of the document, and the rest of the sections do not clarify this. We propose include this clarification in earlier chapters

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: Insert "Note that this profile is based on the extension mechanisms defined in version 1.4 of the UML specification [37]." into section 3.4.1
Actions taken:
February 7, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

State this in the introduction. An explicit  statement to this effect has been inserted as part of a new section in chapter 3 (section 3.4.1)

Issue 4838: General conventions used in the profile (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

A general convention used in the profile is to use prefix GRM, RT and SA for the names of the profiles. RT does not respect this and SA has not respect at tagged value value of stereotype SAArrivalPatternString

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 7, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

tag values don�t need them, and inside SAArrivalPattern String is not practical; Still, should be investigated (Bran)

Issue 4839: Clarification of the term 'Analysis' (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA (Dr. Sebastien Gerard, sebastien.gerard(at)cea.fr)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Below in the text, the term �Analysis� is used alone (i.e. without reference with objective of the anaysis, i.e. Performance, Scheduling, � which are real-time properties analysis) in association with �model� without and then become very ambiguous because if it is well understood by the majority of real-time system analysts I think it could be misunderstood by non real-time specialist modelers. Indeed, this terms is often used in process definition too as being the development stage where the modeler specify what the system has to do. And yet, this document will be certainly read by non real-time specialists too. To avoid such confusion, I propose to explicitly write �real-time properties analysis� or something closed to that.

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: Replace the term "analysis" by "model analysis" throughout document.
Actions taken:
February 7, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Resolution:  The term analysis (for model analysis) has been replaced throughout the document, by the term "model analysis"

Issue 4840: Chapters 7 and 8 clarification (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Esterel Technologies (Mr. Jean-Paul Rigault, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

" � I am certainly not a specialist in Schedulability and Performance Analyses. Thus I can only give a general impression. These two chapters appeared to me as the most diffi-cult to read and understand. The risk (clearly faced by the authors themselves) is that the concepts presented be biased toward existing tools. Another risk is that these con-cepts rely on the new Time and resource modeling, and that the corresponding notions need to be somewhat broken in before being applied."

Resolution: closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 7, 2002: received issue
September 24, 2004: closed issue

Discussion:

This issue raises two kinds of concerns:  1.	Feasibility of the concepts provided in the Schedulability and Performance sub-profiles  2.	Readability of the text  Regarding feasibility, these concerns should be somewhat alleviated given that both sub-profiles have been prototyped prior to adoption and, for the schedulability sub-profile at least, have also been made available in commercial products.  Concerning readability, this could be corrected with additional text, but based on the RTF policy of minimal change, such a change is deemed outside the scope.

Issue 4841: domain viewpoint are not present in the UML viewpoint (uml-scheduling-ftf)

I am very surprised by the fact that very often concepts specified in the domain viewpoint are not present in the UML viewpoint. Some examples can be extracted from the GRM model: the main concept introduced in this package, i.e. Ressource, is not translated in the UML viewpoint.

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 7, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Add text clarifying why this is so (resources are abstract things and do not appear in any concrete analysis -- there is no value in doing this) (Bran)

Issue 4842: "Position regarding Action Language Semantics Work (uml-scheduling-ftf)

"Position regarding Action Language Semantics Work I think that some concepts introduced in the SPT profile are closed, even similar, to ones introduced in the Action Semantics Language profile. For example: Is the concept of action introduced in SPT consistent with this one introduced in ASL? In fact, action definition is the core issue of ASL profile. So my opinion is that it would be better to reuse the ASL concepts as much as possible instead of introducing additional one? These two profiles are know almost mature and then are going to be standardized. Moreover, both are going to be very useful for real-time system area: SPT by nature, and ASL because it will allow to build full executable UML models. So it is very important these two profiles to be coherent. Then I think it could be a good think to take some times to synchronize both woks before standardizing them. "

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 7, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Issue 4843: fourth column of the tags specification table in the UML viewpoint (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA (Dr. Sebastien Gerard, sebastien.gerard(at)cea.fr)
Nature:
Severity:
Summary:

The fourth column of the tags specification table in the UML viewpoint should be �Domain Attribute/Association Name� instead of �Domain Attribute Name� because sometimes the tags match an attribute of the corresponding domain element but it can also match to an association.

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: Add new section, 3.4.1 which will describe the format of tag specifications.
Actions taken:
February 7, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

I think that this can be solved by providing a section that explains the format used to specify the profile elements (Bran)  Resolution:  The original issue was rejected since the way that "associations" are specified (actually it is links) in the profile mechanism is in the form of special values for tags. However,  the FTF team felt that the meaning of the various columns needed further clarification. Hence, a section explaining the format of the tag specifications was added to the document (section 3.4.1).

Issue 4844: clarification (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Universidad Politecnica de Madrid (Prof. Miguel de Miguel, mmiguel(at)dit.upm.es)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The profiles proposed, but CORBA RT sub-profile, are real-time platform and language independent. The extensions are independent of specific analysis methods, specially the performance and scheduling analysis sub-profiles. To identify some parameters of specific methods new extensions must be introduced. The analysis of platform specific models requires the definition of new sub-profiles based on the profiles of the standard, and this process requires a very good knowledge of this standard.

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 7, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

This is a general criticism, which I think is valid, but which more or less requires a rewriting of the document. I suspect that this is not something that can be easily resolved and we may address it partially but not resolve it as a whole (Bran)

Issue 4845: Scheduling and Performance sub-profiles do not give details (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Universidad Politecnica de Madrid (Prof. Miguel de Miguel, mmiguel(at)dit.upm.es)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Scheduling and Performance sub-profiles do not give details for the identification of behaviors from UML models. This is especially important in performance and scheduling analysis. They do not restrict the UML behavior models (e.g. collaboration diagrams, activity diagrams and state diagrams, sequence diagrams), and sometimes some types of models are not analyzable (e.g. loops in state and activity diagrams are not directly analyzable with scheduling analysis methods). Because of this, different mappings from UML models to analysis domain models can provide different analysis results or not classify consistent the same models. The profile do not provides restrictions and guidelines of mappings from message sequences, stimulus sequences, and state and activity transitions to scheduling domain models.

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 7, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

First of all, I think that this is a valid comment. However, the problem is similar to the previous one (1.10) and is similarly difficult to resolve. I am not sure we can do much about it. This generality is part of the original intent of the profile. Extensions ....

Issue 4987: Cclarify what is meant by "hard" real-time (uml-scheduling-ftf)

 clarify what is meant by "hard" real-time (i.e., is it regarding timeliness or criticality?); add examples of the types of systems that are covered.

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: Add to first paragraph of section 3.2.3: "A common distinction in this regard is between soft and hard real-time, the difference being that in the former a late reply is a good reply as long it is within some acceptable range, while in the latter case a late reply is useless, and sometimes totally unacceptable (fatal)."
Actions taken:
March 19, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Remove paragraph with no replacement (I don't understand this comment -- Bran) Resolution:  (AM) Now have this in 3.2.3: "A common distinction in this regard is between soft and hard real-time, the difference being that in the former a late reply is a good reply as long it is within some acceptable range, while in the latter case a late reply is useless, and sometimes totally unacceptable (fatal)."

Issue 4988: concurrency package (uml-scheduling-ftf)

do not know where you are within this task, but we should be interested to work with on the concurrency package?

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 19, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Issue 4989: difference between layered and peer interpretations (uml-scheduling-ftf)

The difference we understand between layered and peer interpretations is that in first case, the client is in the logical model whereas its resource(s) are part of one underlying execution model. In second case, they are at the same level of modeling. Is it right?

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 19, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

The differences should be made clearer

Issue 4990: �engineering� is a too much general term (uml-scheduling-ftf)

�engineering� is a too much general terms that may designate any kind of enginnering activity and not especially this one that consist in designing an real-time execution model. I propose also to substitute this terms by �execution� or �operational� or �operating� or why not �real-time engineering model�

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 19, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

A theological discussion is not very useful at this point

Issue 4991: example of priorities not being relevant to availability analysis (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The example of priorities not being relevant to availability analysis sounds wrong (since it turned out to be quite relevant for availability in the case of the Mars Pathfinder); choose a different example that is not likely to be misunderstood

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 19, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Give different example

Issue 4992: Make the notion of return values from Model Processing more explicit (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Simula Research Laboratory (Mr. Bran Selic, selic(at)acm.org)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Make the notion of return values from Model Processing more explicit and potentially add new material about meta-level replies

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 19, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Not sure if this is just a request to clarify or a request to add more substance -- I will interpret as the former since the latter may be out of scope of an FTF (Bran)

Issue 4993: Section 3.3: paradigm (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

 introduces the model-processing paradigm. The problem that we find in this paradigm is that some evaluation method (included scheduling analysis) can produce result that cannot be represented with UML elements. For example graphics of resource usage, preemption diagrams and other results that cannot be represented with tagged values, that is the method used in the profile to update the results in the model.

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 19, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

revise section 7 to harmonize with their experience and approaches

Issue 4994: Modeling Resources, 2nd paragraph, page 14 (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: U.S. Army Cecom-CSE (Mr. Tom Wheeler, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Modeling Resources, 2nd paragraph, page 14.  This RFP response uses the phrase �required QoS� for identifying the QoS a client demands from a resource.  To me, the word �required� implies an �all or nothing� response which I do not think is the right connotation if these QoS values are to be used at run time as well as during analysis.  I believe that eventually we will want auto-generated software embedded with these QoS values where the values are exposed and acted upon by the run time infrastructure.  In this case, clients may get less than optimal resource service.  Recommend the phase �required QoS� be replaced with �desired QoS�.   This phrase is used throughout the RFP response.

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 19, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

This is a question of taste; Tom has a point (although in some cases "desired = required"), but I am not sure that it is worth the bother of changing this throughout the document. I will probably reject this one (Bran)

Issue 4995: engineering model� introduced on page 34 (uml-scheduling-ftf)

In a first correction, I have mentioned I disagree with the proposed terms of �engineering model� introduced on page 34 in order to define the layer which is more technology-specific. In his reply Bran Selic answers me it was because of the RM-ODP terminology mandated by the OMG. But even if this term is conserved, we could at least put an asterisk explaining it. Because, according to my mind, people who build the logical model are also engineers, I prefer to use terms like: �operational�, �execution�, � instead of �engineering�.

Resolution: See issue 4990 for disposition
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 19, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

I will put in an extra explanation of this (Bran)

Issue 4996: tagged values to reference modeling elements (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Universidad Politecnica de Madrid (Prof. Miguel de Miguel, mmiguel(at)dit.upm.es)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

6. UML extensions use tagged values to reference modeling elements. This can create problems in the consistence of the models because of the creation or destruction of modeling elements. This is not a problem specific of this profile, this is a general problem of extension techniques, but in these profiles this solutions is used very often to represent associations.

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 19, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

I will probably reject this one. UML 1.4 provides the use of links defined by tagged values as a valid technique, so this is a valid way of applying UML (Bran).Out of scope.

Issue 4997: Chapter 14.1, reference 10 issue (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The reference should be the standard or at least should also include a reference to the standard itself

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 19, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

will check out (Bran)

Issue 4998: Chapter 14.2 (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Esterel Technologies (Mr. Jean-Paul Rigault, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

"The bibliography is abundant and relevant. It would be even more usable if there were links in the text (I know, it�s quite a job!)."

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 19, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

it woud be nice, but I don't plan on doing it (Bran)

Issue 4999: Section 15.1; Appendix B- Clock (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Appendix B- Clock

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 19, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 5000: Appendix B- Execution Engine (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA (Pr. Dr. Fran�ois Terrier, francois.terrier(at)cea.fr)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

we think that �thread� is a too much ambiguous term and propose to use �flow� instead here.

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 19, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

May be a valid comment, but "flow" is not really much better and is likely to be even more confusing; rejected (Bran)

Issue 5001: Appendix B- Thread (uml-scheduling-ftf)

we think that �thread� is a too much ambiguous term and propose to use �flow� instead here.

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 19, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Issue 5002: Appendix B- Logical Resource (uml-scheduling-ftf)

we think this term is too vague

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
July 20, 2000: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

it is vague, but this whole thing is very abstract; however, will revisit this as part of the whole issue of deployment modeling (Bran)

Issue 5003: Appendix B- Physical Model (uml-scheduling-ftf)

we add this expression definition in order to contrast with this one of �Logical model�

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 19, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

it is vague, but this whole thing is very abstract; however, will revisit this as part of the whole issue of deployment modeling (Bran)

Issue 5004: Appendix B- Physical Resource (uml-scheduling-ftf)

physical resource is same think that �execution engine�. Moreover, the expression �execution engine� is not present in the content of the preceding text whereas physical model it is.

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 19, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Issue 5006: Suggested insertion at the beginning of the section 3.1 (uml-scheduling-ftf)

"Suggested insertion at the beginning of the section:Extracted from [5]: � May be qualified as � real-time � every application operating a computing system  which  working is liable for the dynamic evolution of the environment state (so-called technique) that is linked to and which it has to control the behavior. �. Extracted from [38]: � Real-Time systems are those systems in which correctness of the system depends not only on the logical results of computations, but also on the time at which results are produced. �. Both previous definitions of the term �real-time� give us following features of real-time system: - A real-time system is tied up with its environment because it has to supervise its behavior via sensors and actuators; - Its computations has to be of course right, but also has to be delivered at the right  "

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

I am not sure that a definitive specification of the term "real-time" is something that this document should produce; I will have a look at this, but my inclination is to reject it (Bran)

Issue 5007: The term �Analysis� is very ambiguous (uml-scheduling-ftf)

The term �Analysis� is very ambiguous because if it is well understood by the majority of real-time system analysts I think it could be misunderstood by non real-time specialist modelers.  Indeed, this terms is often used in process definition too as being the development stage where the modeler specify what the system has to do. And yet, this document will be certainly read by non real-time specialists too. To avoid such confusion, I propose to explicitly write �real-time analysis�.

Resolution: See issue 4839 for disposition
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

I thought I saw this one already (will check for duplicates). I will investigate a proper definition (Bran)

Issue 5008: Chapter 3.2 (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Do you plan to provide an example of that (e.g. for Rate-Monotonic Analysis)? This could be an help for further reader of the profile to understand the mechanism.

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

There is one.

Issue 5009: composition relationship between ScenarioStep and Scenario (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

the composition relationship between ScenarioStep and Scenario is shown as ordered. It is not clear how this is specified in the profile.

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

We�re intending this to be used in ordered relationships in a UML model

Issue 5010: Section 4.1.4 2nd paragraph (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

 This should be expanded to identify what other taxonomies exist and guidelines should be added to help modelers identify how to classify specific resource types

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

expand on these taxonomies and consider other taxonomies (I agree to look into this -- Bran)

Issue 5011: Section 4.1.6 (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

item labeled "ReleaseResource" should be defined as a "non-exclusive" service rather than an "exclusive" service

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 5012: section 4.2.2 item labeled "GRMscenarioStep (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

item labeled "GRMscenarioStep: should the stereotype also apply to Activity?

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

I don't see that there is necessarily a link between these two concepts. I will check this (Bran)

Issue 5013: GRM Profile issue (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The profile some concepts as stereotypes when they are concepts that could be represented with other types of UML extensions, especially constraints. Some examples are GRMqosCharacteristic and GRMaccesControlPolicy. [1,4,8] use extensively constraint to represent these concepts, the represent the concepts like response times, and control policies as constraints. The problem is the formal language for the description of these concepts in the constraints, but we can use stereotyped constraints. This mean stereotypes for constraints, these stereotypes can include the tagged values that represent the constraint parameters and the constraint can represent the characteristic [3]. We can use the stereotype inheritance to represent the inheritance of these types of constraints.

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Resolve Morgan[2] and revisit.

Issue 5014: GRM Profile issue (02) (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The stereotype GRMconxtet is limited to collaboration, package and instance, but most of examples included in the proposal associate a diagram to collaborations or packages and stereotype the collaboration or package. An alternative would be to stereotype the diagrams, but it is not possible in UML 1.3. May be in UML 1.4. An alternative would be a configuration based on diagrams. If we represent the same collaboration with two alternative collaboration diagrams (two possible solutions) we can configure the analysis for a specific solution. If we stereotype the collaboration, what are we going to do? do we include both diagrams with all its elements?

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Agree - this is a UML problem. This is possible, based on a single coherent description, using Analysis Context. There is a misunderstanding of UML underlying this comment

Issue 5015: GRM Profile issue (03) (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The stereotype GRMresourceUsage could be associate to BehavioralFeature to represent the resource usage in all messages or stimulus to the same operation

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

this is done against GRMresourceService

Issue 5016: Section 4.1.4 Are threads and processes (at UNIX meaning) active resources (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Are threads and processes (at UNIX meaning) active resources? If yes (I think yes), I suggest to add an example which do not come from hardware area.

Resolution: Appropriate examples were added to the text in section 4.1.6.
Revised Text: Add "such as hardware, operating system processes and threads, etc." to the end of the 4th bullet in section 4.1.6.
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Seems reasonable to add these examples. (I agree -- Bran)

Issue 5017: Section 4.1.4 -- clarification (uml-scheduling-ftf)

I do not well understand the differency between the concept of �Ressource Broker� and this one of �Access Control Policy�. As described in the sentence, it seems to me that it designates the same thing. Moreover if you attache a �Ressource broker� to one or more unprotected resources they become protected. It is the reason I propose to suppress this concept in the Figure 19.

Resolution: Additional explanatory text added in section 4.1.7
Revised Text: Revise the second sentence in section 4.1.7 to read thus: "In general, we distinguish between a number of different roles here:The resource broker, is an entity that is responsible for allocation and deallocation of a set of resource instances (or their services) to clients according to a specific access control policy. For example, a memory manager will allocate memory from a heap upon request from a client and also return it back into the heap once the client no longer needs it. The access control policy determines the amount of memory provided to individula clients, the prioritization of competing requests, etc. The resource manager, on the other hand is responsible for creating and maintaining resources according to a resource control policy. For example, a buffer pool manager is responsible for creating a set of buffers from one or more chunks of heap memory. Once created and initialized, the resources are typically handed over to a resource broker. In most practical cases, the resource manager and the resource broker are the same entity.. However, since this is not always true the two concepts are modeled separately (they can be easily combined by designating the same entity as serving both purposes)."
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Needs to be explained: the broker is the entity that enforces a policy; this may be too subtle; revisit (Bran)

Issue 5018: Section 4.1.5 issue (uml-scheduling-ftf)

We introduce the term �query� in order to fit to the isQuery meta-attribute of BehavioralFeature in UML specifying when true that the execution of a feature leaves the state of the system unchanged and conversely we introduce the term �modifying� to fit to the case where the isQuery value is false that is involving side-effects. This point is similar to the one pertaining to read and write operations. This new terms are just propositions and may be of course changed

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

I don't really understand what this is trying to say; if it's just terminology quibling, I am inclined to reject (Bran)

Issue 5019: reappointed ToleranceLevel into ConcurrencyPolicy (uml-scheduling-ftf)

have reappointed �ToleranceLevel� into �ConcurrencyPolicy� because I think this concept is more relative to concurrency issues between different services provided by a given resource. Moreover ToleranceLevel may be give indication about fault tolerance.

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

It would be interesting to look at the current UML definition of concurrency also. (I will look into this -- Bran)

Issue 5020: Section 4.1.5 issue related to model of service description (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Previous model of service description allow release operation to performed concurrently and thus as being without side-effect on the resource state. For example, if you consider the Semaphore resource defind in POSIX, it get a release service so-called sem_post that modifies the resource state incrementing the semaphore value. So a release service may involve side-effect on its resource. (see. New model proposed below).

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Will look into this (Bran)

Issue 5021: Figure 20 issue (uml-scheduling-ftf)

We propose to add a link between the concepts �Service� and �Resource� (I have reappointed �RessourceService� into �Service� because it is evident due to the link). Moreover, I have reappointed also �AcquireRessource� into �AcquireService� and �ReleaseResource� into �ReleaseService� because I think it is more natural due to the fact we are describing services. Moreover, I think that  a service typed �ReleaseService� is an exclusive service. Indeed, I do not think it can be executed concurrently with another �ReleaseService�.

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

May have a point here; will check (Bran)

Issue 5022: 4.1.6 - Access Control Policy (uml-scheduling-ftf)

There is certainly a link to do between this concept and the �ConcurrencyPolicy� concept managing concurrent execution of services of a given a resource. But I did not find it�

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text: -- replace figure 6-3 with the following one: -- replace the first line of the "schedulingPolicy" explanation in section 7.1.4.6 by the following line: schedulingPolicy (inherited from ProtectedResource) the access control policy for handling
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
September 24, 2004: closed issue

Discussion:

I don't see that there is necessarily a link between these two concepts. It is unclear to me what is meant by "Concurrency Policy" in the text of the issue. In the Concurrency section there is no such concept, although there are corresponding concepts in the Schedulability and Performance analysis sections. However, in the schedulability sub-profile, the concept is a subclass of ResourceControlPolicy (which is wrong since it should be a subclass of AccessControlPolicy instead), whereas in the Performance analysis section the connection has not been made at all (although the same enumeration values are used for both cases). These two derivative issues could be fixed with a relatively minor change to the domain model with no accompanying backward compatibility problems (since they are in the abstract part of the domain model)..

Issue 5023: 4.1.6- Excusive Service (uml-scheduling-ftf)

We propose to suppress this association for following reason: It has been demonstrated (REF. MCH 94: C. McHale, �Synchronization in concurrent, object oriented languages: expressive power, genericity and inheritance.�, PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland, October 1994) that specifying mutual exclusion constraint among services by listing explicitly conflicting services penalizes maintainability, evolutivity of the system. Namely, this point leads to the question of inheritance anomaly. Indeed, it does not allow to change the interface (i.e. set of service it provides to clients) without reanalyzing whole concurrency issues. herefore, specifying concurrency constraints of services by declaring the set of used resource and their using mode (modifying, querying, �) ensures that the specification of each services remains independent. And thus it will remove the drawbacks mentioned before.

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

There is a difference between good design practices and ones that we need to support because people do them anyway; I will check this out, but my inclination is to reject since I am not convinced that we should be dictating how people do things (Bran)

Issue 5024: Resource Broker (uml-scheduling-ftf)

I do not well understand the difference between the concept of �Resource Broker� and this one of �Access Control Policy�. According to me, it is the same thing and moreover if you attache a �Resource broker� to one or more unprotected resources they become protected and are no more unprotected resource. It is the reason I propose to suppress this concept in the Figure 19.

Resolution: See issue 5016 for disposition
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 5025: Problem of ref number (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Problem of ref number, 3.3, last para

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

May have already been fixed (Bran)

Issue 5026: Figure 14 (uml-scheduling-ftf)

in this Figure, change of �Engineering� into �Execution�

Resolution: See issue 4990 for disposition
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 5027: Figure 15. (uml-scheduling-ftf)

According to previous remark, I change also in the Figure �Engineering Model� into �ExecutionModel�.

Resolution: See issue 4990 for disposition
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

depends on resolution of issue 3.9 (Bran)

Issue 5028: Section 4.1.4 (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

introduces the dimension protection, �which identifies whether the device is protected against concurrent access or not�. Some resources can be qualified as protected and concurrent at the same time if the resource capacity is limited. The attribute Capacity in page 6.5 introduces the Multi-Unit objects. A good example of these kind of resources are the multi-thread objects of RT-CORBA [9]. The access is controlled with specific policies, but the concurrent access is limited. In page 4.18 the class ProtectedResource includes the attribute AccessControlPolicy �that control access to the exclusive services

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

change to limited and unlimited (I don't really understand this one -- Bran)

Issue 5029: Page 4.23 (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

 end of paragraph 3 two point

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Fix

Issue 5030: Page 4.23 paragraph 5 (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Page 4.23 paragraph 5. UML 1.3 does not describe how to refer a Model Element with tagged values (I do not know if this will be included in UML 1.4). CASE tools have problems to maintain consistencies, when we use tagged value references. Modification names are not updated in the tagged values.

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

This is a problem with the UML mechanism; agree (Bran)

Issue 5031: End of page 4.25 and page 4.26. (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

 At the beginning of page 4.24 it is said �It is often useful to group sets of QoS characteristics that are related�� The ideas included in page 4.25 proposes distinguish �which annotations represent required QoS and which ones are offered QoS�. The stereotype SAResource includes the tagged value SAPriorityCeiling that is an output result of some scheduling analysis tools, and the stereotype includes other required tagged values

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

The two concepts are orthogonal.

Issue 5032: Figure 22 (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The hierarchy of Figure 22 creates problems when we combine protection and activeness in the same resource (this is very common). An alternative is to use two tagged values in GSMResource to distinguish protection and activeness

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Fixed by UML 1.4

Issue 5033: Chap. 4, p. 50 (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Source: Esterel Technologies (Mr. Jean-Paul Rigault, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Bullets for the definitions of Exclusive static and Exclusive dynamic: the use of the verb to support in this context brings trouble (to me at least); it has not been used so far to describe the relationship between clients and suppliers, and its meaning appears con-fuse (in fact, what supports what?); May be we should stick to using the verb to real-ize."

Resolution: Change made in section 4.2.1.1. "supports" replaced by "realizes"
Revised Text: Replace "supported" by "realized" in last two bullets of section titled: "Mapping Semantics"
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Don't quite understand this, but will look into it (Bran)

Issue 5034: Chap. 4, p.61 (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Esterel Technologies (Mr. Jean-Paul Rigault, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Second introductory paragraph: I agree with the idea of limiting this submission to metric time (as opposed to logical time), but I find a little too short the justification for the restriction. After all, real time system are also concerned by correction wrt logical time. Moreover, at run time, logical time (as represented by interrupt events) is often the only time of which the system is aware and that it may manipulate. This deserves certainly consideration, even at modeling level. Of course take this remark as from somebody whose real-time background deals mostly with logical time!"

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Adding this goes beyond the intended scope of the RFP (Bran)

Issue 5035: Chap. 5, p. 47 and following (4.2.1 Modeling Realization Relationships) (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Esterel Technologies (Mr. Jean-Paul Rigault, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The distinction between Refinement and Realization becomes less and less clear to me. I understand the logical difference between presenting the same model with vari-ous levels of details (refinement) and setting a bridge between two different models, one realizing/implementing/deploying the other (realization). However, as far as the modeling elements and their relationships are concerned, the mechanisms seem to be identical and the frontier often appears fuzzy. This trouble and confusion is apparent in the submission itself since one category of realization may well be considered as refinement (replacement, p. 51), as indicated by the authors themselves. The argument that hardware and software are still different entities is not completely convincing to make it a realization: indeed the hardware manipulates (although under different forms) the same information as the software, at run-time. Another question: why restrict replacement to the deploy mapping and to a relation-ship between hardware and software? Is not �code� a form of replacement? � I was also expecting a general notation for representing the Realization (or Realiza-tion/ Refinement) relationship in UML. This is only sketched in the document (p. 48) but far from expressing the whole richness. The following characteristics seem of interest to me: - multiplicity, both on client and supplier sides - conjunction or disjunction - exclusivity or not - "optionality" or "mandatority" - static or dynamic nature of the relationship and of all the above characteristics - combination of functionalities (additive, replacement...) I am not sure that the simple distinction between require on the one hand and inclu-sive and exclusive (static or dynamic) on the other hand (p. 50) is sufficient to repre-sent all the useful and significant cases. However, I am already late to send this review so I have no time to elaborate more on this, but I would be pleased to discussed it with anybody, if this is found interesting. Of course, this submission might not be the place to set up a general model of Real-ization/ Refinement.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue

Discussion:

This has been pointed out as one of the major weak areas of the submission and needs to be elaborated further or maybe removed (Bran). As indicated in previous discussions, this is indeed considered to be a major weak point in the spec and at least warrants some additional clarifications to the text in sections 4.1.8.1 and 4.1.8.2. However, it is not expected that these will be sufficient to remove the issue.  Also, the issuer seems to have missed the fact that at least some of the characteristics he mentions as being omitted (multiplicty, conjunction/disjunction, etc.) are in fact addressed in section 4.2.1.2.  Keep the issue open for the 2.0 version of the profile.

Issue 5036: p. 26/27: (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

This is a misunderstanding: there is no first and last event being modeled here. It has to do with the difference between reception and generation -- these are two distinct concepts. (Bran)

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Issue 5037: p. 36 (uml-scheduling-ftf)

See document (???? what is the issue?)

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Will look into this (Bran)

Issue 5038: p 70 (uml-scheduling-ftf)

A time interval is always relative; it makes no sense to talk about an absolute time interval (Bran)

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Issue 5039: p. 72, 80 and 82: (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

see document (don't know, what the issue is)

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: Change Domain Attribute Name of Rtduration to TimedAction::duration in table on page 5-20.
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Will look into this (Bran) Resolution:  fixed; "probability" changed to "duration" in RTduration tag definition; calrification written for "start" and "stop"; no action taken for the adding of a delay on RTtimedAction since this could be added in a specialization of the profile (the concept as currently defined is very general and the request here is for a very specific use of that concept)

Issue 5040: p. 84 (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

I see no compelling reason to support this feature -- it strikes me as being too detailed for the kinds of analyses envisaged by the profile (Bran)

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 5041: p. 84/85: (uml-scheduling-ftf)

The fourth column of the table describing the tags of �RTnewTimer� and �RTset� is not consistent with others. It is a description instead of  the domain attribute name specification.

Resolution: descriptions updated
Revised Text: Replace second para of section 5.2.1.13 by "Invocations of the operations of the time service are identified by corresponding stereotypes of ActionExecution or any model element that implies an action execution: "RTnewTimer" and "RTnewClock". The stereotype "RTnewTimer" has a tag, RTtimerPar, an instance of the RTtimeValue TVL type, which can be used to specify the value of a requested timer."
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Will look into this (Bran)

Issue 5042: approach of application of QoS characteristics (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Universidad Politecnica de Madrid (Prof. Miguel de Miguel, mmiguel(at)dit.upm.es)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The approach of application of QoS characteristics from the descriptor to instances can have associated problems, when the descriptor is an interface and the interface is implemented by multiples classifiers with different implementations of methods (the descriptor of the instance can be the interface and the classes can have associated different QoS characteristics and we cannot identify the characteristics of the instances).

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: Add 3rd sentence to 3rd para of section 4.1.1: "(This requires special care, however, and may not always be appropriate. In case of interface specifications, for example, there could be many realizations of the same interface, each with different service characteristics.)"
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Will look into this (Bran) Resolution:  This is indeed a concern, and a specific warning on this point has been added to the text in section 4.1.1

Issue 5043: concept of stimulus of UML metamodels (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Universidad Politecnica de Madrid (Prof. Miguel de Miguel, mmiguel(at)dit.upm.es)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Most of behavior concepts are based on the stimulus concept that is used in UML metamodels for the description of sequence diagrams semantics, but not for other diagrams like collaboration diagrams. This creates confusion because we can think that we are talking about the concept of stimulus of UML metamodels, and I suppose that this is not the intention of the authors.

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

This is a general problem; all the useful terms are already taken and it is impractical to try to avoid conflicts with some existing UML metamodel terms. An explicit warning was provided early in the document about this and I do not think we need to do more (Bran)

Issue 5044: Chap. 5, p. 66: remove footnote (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Esterel Technologies (Mr. Jean-Paul Rigault, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Footnote: the reference to Einstein appear rather pompous to me.

Resolution: reference removed
Revised Text: Remove footnote from section 5.1.3
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

I will remove the reference (Bran)

Issue 5045: Chap. 5, p. 91 (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Esterel Technologies (Mr. Jean-Paul Rigault, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The grammar for expressing time values, and especially dates, is very much Western  time oriented. It may appear as regressive compared to time internationalization  found in modern programming languages like Java, or even C! Although what is pre-sented  here is certainly sufficient for most real time applications, it cannot serve as a  general notion of time, usable by all sorts of UML models throughout many types of  application domains.  By the way, there was not a year 0, there will be hopefully a year 10000, and there  were negative years!

Resolution: Valid comment but definitely outside the scope of the RTF, closed no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
September 24, 2004: closed issue

Discussion:

This lines up somewhat with the comments made by Michael Chonoles; this whole area needs to be revisited based on that input (Bran)

Issue 5046: Timing Mechanisms, page 65 (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: U.S. Army Cecom-CSE (Mr. Tom Wheeler, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Timing Mechanisms, page 65.  Typo.  There is a missing word in the first line of the second-to-last paragraph.

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue
April 26, 2010: closed issue

Discussion:

will fix (Bran)

Issue 5047: concepts introduced can be redundant with UML (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Other concepts introduced can be redundant with UML modeling elements or attributes; for example SynchronousInvoke and AsynchronousInvoke are redundant with attributes of methods and operation attributes in UML metamodels

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue

Discussion:

This was intentional, but may need to be looked into; the problem is that some of the existing UML models of such things tended to be rather na�ve and did not fit well into the more sophisticated models required here; however, I will revisit this and see if something can be done (Bran). Valid comment but it should be taking into account in the context of an alignement work with UML2.0. It implies, it is out of the scope of this RTF.

Issue 5048: Section 6.2.2 UML Extensions, page 103 (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: U.S. Army Cecom-CSE (Mr. Tom Wheeler, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The proposed <<CRConcurrent>> stereotype appears to overlap concepts found in UML active classes and objects yet there is no discussion of their relationships.  Recommend such a discussion be included.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue

Discussion:

I will add such discussion in order to state "active" stereotype regarding these one introduced in the SPT profile. I fully share this point. But the problem is very difficult to solve because in theory a UML profile should be an extension or a subset of the UML. In this case, the UML instantiate a concept that is defined in a generic way in a profile. So how to status about this issue?  BTW, we will have the same problem later with the version 2.0 of the UML profile SPT regarding concept of time for example

Issue 5049: p. 99: (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

"In the domain view point describing the concurrency feature, two specific kinds of service are introduced: DeferredService and ImmediateService. I propose to add: IgnoredService A kind of service instance that is ignored if the receiving  object is not able to handle it when it receives it. RejectedService A kind of service instance that is rejected if the receiving object is not able to handle it when it receives it. The rejection of a call will also raise an exception that can be catch either by the sender of the stimuli or by the system itself."

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue

Discussion:

I propose to enrich this part in order to aligned with incoming proposal of UML 2.0. This point should be done in the context of alignment with UML2.0 (e.g. with concepts ciontroduced for protocol statemachine). So it is out of the scope of a RTF and should be done in the version 2.0 of the UML profile for SPT.

Issue 5050: SA Profile issue (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Activity diagrams are an interesting solution for the description of behaviors. This notation restricted (we cannot include loops and the fork join pseudo states must be used in cobegin-coend sequences) can represent the same types of responses used in some scheduling analysis methods [6,5,7,3]. They can be used to describe the behavior of Operations and this will describe the response associated to messages and stimulus. This is useful to describe sequences of actions that use different types of resources, and these actions could be executed in sequence, parallel or selection. If we have the sequence of a collaboration diagram DD1 ope1 -> DD1.1 ope2 -> DD1.2 ope3, and the operations are described with the activity diagrams like ((action1 || action2)  | action3) -> action4 (|| represents the parallel execution, | the selection, and actioni are action states that can be stereotyped as SAStep), we can substitute the operation message or stimuli by their activity diagram, and create an event response based on the combination of both types of behavior description. These notations are useful to represent complex behaviors of operations and messages and to optimize the evaluation of jitters

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue

Discussion:

Aim is sound, but problem with representing executions in Activity Graphs in UML. Consider activity graphs more fully in GRM. Given that we do not intend to incorporate any elements of UML 2.0 in to this revision this is outside the scope of the RTF but should be deferred to version 2.0.

Issue 5051: Section 6.1.3 (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

 it is said that the schedulability analysis is inherently instance-based. The instance-based description is required to identify the system load (identify the active objects and their execution distributions) and data resources (objects that can be used for synchronization purposes). But the non-blocking passive objects can be analyzed description-based, and their dynamic instantiation do not affect to the analysis because their responses do not depend on the instance (but some polymorpic behaviors). The instance-based analysis does not allow analyze systems where passive objects are created dynamically (the static analysis of systems with dynamic creation of active and resource objects is a different problem).

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

This scenario is outside the scope of the conceptual model - this needs to be addressed by a major revision.

Issue 5052: The scheduling analysis does not consider some UML concurrency parameters (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The scheduling analysis does not consider some UML concurrency parameters. Will the analyzers take in to account these attributes? Examples of these parameters are the concurrency attribute of metaclass Operation and attribute isActive of metaclass Class.

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

We need to show compliance to these charactestics, but we will maintain duplicate attributes in the profile. Our eventual aim will be to harmonize the profile and the UML.

Issue 5053: The stereotypes of the others profiles are in alphabetic order. SA Profile (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The stereotypes of the others profiles are in alphabetic order.

Resolution: Fix - Done
Revised Text: Order the stereotype descriptions in section 7.2.2.3 alphabetically.
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 5054: SA Profile issue (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The stereotype SARealTimeSituation makes reference to stereotype GRMAAnalysisContext that has been named GRMcontext

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 5055: Diagrams of Figures 40 and 41 include messages that only include a LinkEnd (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Diagrams of Figures 40 and 41 include messages that only include a LinkEnd. UML 1.3 specifies two or more LinkEnd associated to the Link. Next Figure is part of UML 1.3 metamodel

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

This is correct � we�ll consider how to represent the environment of the context, probably as Actor

Issue 5056: SA Profile Example (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

In these examples, the links represent the initial events, and we could represent this concept linking an actor instance to the SAEvent Link. But if we want to represent events that are not originated by external actors (for example a cyclic object executed periodically) other solutions are need (for example a classifier stereotype like SACyclic with a tagged value that identifies the sequence message generated periodically [2]).

Resolution: see below
Revised Text: In section 6.2.2.3. modify the base classes of "SAtrigger" to include Classifier, ClassifierRole, Instance, Object, Node, Method.
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
September 24, 2004: closed issue

Discussion:

Create new standalone tag-value called RecurrencePattern, which can be attached to active objects (amongst other things); I will look into this (Bran). This could be solved by allowing SAtrigger to apply to a wider category of UML model elements, in particular it appears, Classifiers. I suggest we do that.

Issue 5057: sequence diagrams of Figure 43 and 42 (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The sequence diagrams of Figure 43 and 42 (the Figure numbers are incorrect) include similar problems because the use pseudo sender object for the initial stimulus.

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Explain the use of the 'boundary bar'

Issue 5058: SA Profile Example (SAStep) (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

When we use SAStep intern to the objects instances (like step DD1 in diagram Figure 40) we need to identify the message sequence, and define its order. The SAStep stereotype has not associated tagged values to do this. In UML 1.3 this is represented with the associations predecessor and activator of metaclass Message.

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Actions have defined sequence in the UML model, so we don�t need to associate it to message, and Action Executions have an implied order..

Issue 5059: SAStep issue (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

If we include SAStep in the objects to represent the messages sequences we will not respect the method used in UML 1.3, because the element stereotyped are the objects and not the messages, and we can not use the sequence activator-predecessor to define the response sequence with steps associated to objects. Another problem: If we associate more than one SAStep to the object, who defines the order? we need some kind of tagged value in the stereotype to do this.

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

The order will be defined by the ordering of the underlying actions

Issue 5060: Figure 43 you include a QoS, needs clarification (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

In Figure 43 you include a QoS constraint to represent end-to-end response times. But it is not clear how you do this. If WCRT:80 is a tagged value, this cannot be represented in UML 1.3 because we can only associate a tagged value to a single element, and we cannot associate it to two messages, and if we do the association to the object we cannot identify the end points. Another alternative would be use constraints to represent the WCRT:80 condition (we can associate the constraint to more than one UML element), but you do not clarify this

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

OK, change the diagram to reflect the association to SAStep.

Issue 5061: Section 6.1.1 (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

the schedulable entity used at modeling stage may be some times not a concrete entity, It may depend on the modeling stage the modeler/user is working.

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Seems a reasonable addition

Issue 5062: Section 6.1.1 issue (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

 to be consistent with previous � where �thread� is only one possible example of the �schedulable entities�

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Agree witth the suggested change.

Issue 5063: 6.1.3 Schedulable Entity (uml-scheduling-ftf)

in fact the whole sentence could be suppressed, because it has been described in these terms before

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

I prefer the original sentence

Issue 5064: section 6.1.2 (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Universidad Politecnica de Madrid (Prof. Miguel de Miguel, mmiguel(at)dit.upm.es)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

we need to clarify what the term "value-based scheduling" means (there was some disagreement on this point)

Resolution: Rewrote the sentence
Revised Text: Change section headed "Dynamic Scheduling - value or utility based scheduling" on page 7-3 to read: "Dynamic Scheduling deals with the condition where the values used to order the scheduling of the CPU are a changing function over time. Therefore, dynamic scheduling uses a scheduler that makes decisions based on importance of each scheduling job, but the importance is continuously reexamined within the dynamic context of execution of the system containing the scheduler.This class of scheduling policy is often called value based or utility based scheduling; it uses a supplied function (which may be but doesn't have to be a function of time, v(t)) to obtain a value for scheduling importance. Earliest deadline first is a simple concrete example of a specific value function; it is a widely used scheduling policy implemented in a dynamic scheduling manner in many domains, including the telecommunications community. Although earliest deadline is a popular value function the notion can be generalized to any value function that makes sense for a specific domain. Value based scheduling is currently receiving significant attention."
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 5065: section 6.1.3 (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Universidad Politecnica de Madrid (Prof. Miguel de Miguel, mmiguel(at)dit.upm.es)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The item labeled as "Schedulable Entity"; the sub-item "isSchedulable" may be too simplistic as a result and should perhaps support something more sophisticated (e.g., an ordered list of alternative conclusions?)

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

This idea is not consistent with the analysis approach embodied in this profile. Each analsysis is for one concrete scenario. Alternatives have to be represented by separate scenarios.

Issue 5066: Chap. 7, p. 110 � Section 7.1.1, second paragraph: (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: U.S. Army Cecom-CSE (Mr. Tom Wheeler, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

"The schedule is the result of a scheduler implementing a scheduling policy across a set of scheduling jobs on the execution engines that it schedules. This sentence appears rather tautological to me and little informative. Note that it is repeated (without increasing the information) on top of p. 114: A scheduler is responsible for generating a schedule which is used to sched-ule one or more scheduling jobs."

Resolution: Removed offending sentence
Revised Text: Remove second sentence from 2nd para of section 7.1.1
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Rewrite sentences

Issue 5067: Section 7.1.2 Types of Analysis Methods, Dynamic Scheduling paragraph, page (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: U.S. Army Cecom-CSE (Mr. Tom Wheeler, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

This paragraph mentions �value based scheduling�.  This phrase however, does not appear in following pages where tag � value pairs are defined for scheduling policies.  Is the �MaxizeAccruedUtility� policy meant to cover value based scheduling?  If so, I recommend the phrase �value based scheduling� be replaced with �utility-based scheduling�.

Resolution: Add reference to utility-based scheduling as alternative nomenclature
Revised Text: See new sentence for Issue 5064.
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Add reference to utility-based scheduling as alternative nomenclature

Issue 5068: Figure 7-2 (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Universidad Politecnica de Madrid (Prof. Miguel de Miguel, mmiguel(at)dit.upm.es)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Figure 7-2 includes a direct and indirect inheritance from SAction to Scenario. Why two inheritances?

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Issue 5069: TimedAction and SAction (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Universidad Politecnica de Madrid (Prof. Miguel de Miguel, mmiguel(at)dit.upm.es)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

8. TimedAction and SAction are introduced as actions that can include subactions. In that case the priority of an action can be variable (subactions can vary their priority). Because of this, the description of priority in page 115 can create confusion.

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Clarify

Issue 5070: Definition of 'duration' in TimedAction is confusing (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Universidad Politecnica de Madrid (Prof. Miguel de Miguel, mmiguel(at)dit.upm.es)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

9. TimedAction defines �duration� as �the time interval during which the action is occurring�. This creates confusion when is reused in SAction because I suppose that duration defines the amount of time that preemptable resources will be used in the execution of the action. �duration� definitions looks like the definition of �Worst-case Completion Time� (�the overall time taken to execute the action, including all overheads�). �duration� includes the overheads too? When the action is blocked or preempted, is it occurring?

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Duration in SAaction reflects computation, not blocking or preemption.

Issue 5071: best way of representing end-to-end times across several schedulable entiti (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

"What's the best way of representing end-to-end times across several schedulable entities; "

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: Add "endToendTime - the worst case completion time for the complete chain of dependent responses measured from the arrival of the trigger" to section 7.1.3.11. Add equivalent tag SAendtoEnd to definition of "SAtrigger" on page 7-21.
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Add a new tag, SAEndToEnd, which is the worst case completion time for the dependency chain of "tasks" measured from the arrival of an external event. This deals with one type of end-to-end time, but the other, where there is no dependency chain is outside the scope of the FTF.  Resolution:  Add a new tag, SAEndToEnd, which is the worst case completion time for the dependency chain of "tasks" measured from the arrival of an external event. This deals with one type of end-to-end time, but the other, where there is no dependency chain is outside the scope of the FTF.

Issue 5072: Definition of Abs Deadline=Release-time + Rel Deadline (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

"One definition of Abs Deadline=Release-time + Rel Deadline,  whereas we seem to mean something else in the spec, i.e abs is used when  laxity is hard, rel is when laxity is soft"

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: Change definition of Absolute Deadline of page 7-7 to "specifies the final instant by which the action must be complete, defined as the Relative Deadline + Release Time. This may be either a hard or a soft deadline."
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Definitions differ depending on the research center. Sidharth's definition comes from Liu Other groups measure time from system initiation, not release time. The definition in the profile (laxity) is unconventional. I suggest that we change the profile to agree with Sidarth (and Liu).  Resolution:  Definitions differ depending on the research center. Sidharth's definition comes from Liu Other groups measure time from system initiation, not release time. The definition in the profile (laxity) is unconventional. I suggest that we change the profile to agree with Sidarth (and Liu).

Issue 5073: Worst-case Response time and Worst-case Completion time (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

"Is there any difference between Worst-case Response time and  Worst-case Completion time, or are the terms synonymous?"

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Generally the terms are NOT synonymous. We measure response time from task release time and completion time from the arrival of a "trigger" event (external event). Some groups treat completion time as an "absolute" time measured from system start.

Issue 5074: How do I model the response time for the entire scenario (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

How do I model the response time for the entire scenario when there are three independent triggers and all the messages are sent asynchronously?

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

This is outside the scope of the FTF

Issue 5075: Section 9.2.3 Modeling Guidelines and Example, Figure 9-2 (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: U.S. Army Cecom-CSE (Mr. Tom Wheeler, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

This example figure shows several active objects and two node instances in the same diagram.  Is there a UML view that allows this?  If not, perhaps the response should include this as part of a change to UML.

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text: .
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

yes there is such a view; UML does not prevent any diagrams being mixed as modelers find appropriate (Bran)

Issue 5076: RT CORBA models do not identifies network resources (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Universidad Politecnica de Madrid (Prof. Miguel de Miguel, mmiguel(at)dit.upm.es)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

10. RT CORBA models do not identifies network resources. RT CORBA standard does not pay special attention to communication transport times (like operating system support), but an scheduling analysis that does not take into account network resources (e.g. ATM, CAN networks, or RSVP protocols) provide scheduling analysis non realistic. The profile includes comments about the operating systems dependencies but not communication transport.

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: Change Fig 9-1 Add new section to 9.1.1: "9.1.1.1 RTCchannel This is an instance of a communication channel between RT CORBA ORBs. It represents the transport over which tow ORBs communicate. Attributes averageLatency the one-way latency (delay) for the communication channel. This is a time value expression, so it may be an integer, a distribution function, or a histogram. Associations schedulingPolicy (inherited from ExecutionEngine) is the scheduling policy for this communication channel. The usual policies are FixedPriority or FIFO. rTCconnection the set of RT CORBA connections that are deployed on this channel. In effect, this is an instance of a deploys relationship. However, for convenience, it is rendered in the domain model as a stereotyped association." Add new section to 9.1.1 "9.1.1.6 RTCscheduler This is an instance of an RT CORBA scheduler (see Section 7.1.3.7, "Scheduler," on page 7-10). It becomes the scheduling policy for the RT CORBA POA with which it is associated. As an infrastructure element, it is the platform for execution of the scheduler interface and serves as a resource broker for execution engines. The RT CORBA 2.0 specification defines four modules for four types of schedulers (fixed priority, earliest deadline first, least laxity first, and maximum utility (see "Scheduling Policy" on page 7-10)). Associations response the set of responses scheduled by this scheduler" Add a new association to domain definition of RTCconnection: "host the communication channel that implements this connection" Add new stereotype to section 9. Stereotype: "RSAchannel" Base Class: Classifier ClassifierRole Instance Object Node Parents: "SAengine" Tags: RSAschedulingPolicy RSAaverageLatency Tag Descriptions: Tag Name Tag Type Multiplicity Domain Attribute Name RSAschedulingPolicy Enumeration:{'FIFO','RateMonotonic','DeadlineMonotonic','HKL','FixedPriority','MinimumLaxityFirst','MaximizeAccruedUtility','MinimumSlackTime'} [0..1] RTCchannel::schedulingPolicy RSAaverageLatency RTtimeValue [0..1] RTCchannel::averagelatency Add new tag to RSAhost to RSAconnection to reference a Channel: Tag Name Tag Type Multiplicity Domain Attribute Name RSAhost Reference to an element stereotyped as "RSAchannel" [0..1] RTCconnection::host
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

I will look into this (Bran) The behavior of the communication transport probably belongs in the "engineering" layer along with processors and RTOSs. One approach is to define a specialization of execution engine to define the transport characteristics. Then transport would be either an association class for the association between execution engines, or  an engineering layer class that realizes the association between execution engines We've added a new Channel class to represent some kinds of communication

Issue 5077: Chapter 10: Material presented in this chapetr is too general (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Esterel Technologies (Mr. Jean-Paul Rigault, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Most of the material presented in this chapter appears to me as rather general and applicable to almost all kinds of UML models. Thus I do not clearly understand why it belongs here."

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

It is an RFP requirement (Bran)

Issue 5078: concepts that already exists in UML (uml-scheduling-ftf)

We think it is not possible to forget some concepts that already exists in UML and that are very closed to some of the previous one. More precisely I think about three following issues:  1.������ The isActive meta-attribute of the Class meta-class � Active/passive object which are particular case of active/passive resource; So, according to me they are specialization of the stereotype <<GRMactiveRessource>>.  2.������ The concurrency meta-attribute of the Operation meta-class which is a kind of concurrency policy on operations;  3.������ The isQuery meta-Attribute of BehavioralFeature may be connected to the Service concept.  4.������ Both stereotypes <<Thread>> and <<Process>> of the Classifier meta-class I deem that they are outside the scope of UML core and could be placed in the RT profile. There are indeed specialization of the stereotype <<GRMactiveResource>>.  To conclude, we think that the links between this profile and UML meta-model is not so simple. Today we have no precise solution. One way to proceed could be to remove from UML all concepts pertaining to concurrency and put them in the concurrency profile for UML � to remove isActive, concurrency and isQuery meta-attributes and <<Thread>> , <<Process>>  stereotypes;

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue

Discussion:

We should at least map the concepts over.

Issue 5079: how are the association from the initial class model reflected in the stere (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: International Business Machines (Mr. Morgan Bjorkander, nobody)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The concepts described in the beginning of each section in terms of a class model are later transposed in terms of stereotypes. But how are the association from the initial class model reflected in the stereotypes (which are, as I understand, the only normative part of the profile)?For example, a Resource has a set of offered QoS characteristics. How is the connection between a user <<GRMressource>> class and its corresponding <<GRMqosCharacteristics>> made in the user's model?The same question holds for all other associations. In some cases the connection is obvious informally: for example in case of a user class stereotyped with <<GRMresource>>, whose operations are stereotyped with<<GRMresourceService>>, it is clear that the operations represent the services of the resource represented by the user class. But that link is not captured formally by the metamodel / stereotype definition

Resolution: see below
Revised Text: This issue has been resolved by adding an explanation that can be included in the introduction to section 3.2 between the third and second paragraphs just preceding section 3.2.1: "In effect, the UML profile mechanism provides a way of specializing the concepts defined in the UML standard. A stereotype can be viewed as a subclass of an existing UML concept. Most domain concepts map directly into a stereotype with any additional attributes of such concepts, specified using appropriately typed tags for each attribute. However, the domain model often shows associations between domain concepts, and, since the UML extension mechanisms do not provide a convenient facility for specifying new associations in its metamodel, such domain associations have to be represented in a variety of different ways, depending on the case at hand. The following three general techniques are used to capture associations between domain elements: 1. Some domain associations map directly to existing associations in the metamodel. For example, the association between a resource (usually a kind of class or object) and its services (usually a kind of behavioral feature) maps directly to the meta-association that exists between Classifier and BehavioralFeature in the metamodel. 2. Some domain composition associations map to tags associated with the stereotype. For instance, the domain association between a TimedAction and TimeValue that is used to represent the "start" characteristic of the timed action is mapped into the tagged value RTstart associated with the RTaction stereotype. 3. In few cases, a domain associations is represented by using the <<taggedValue>> relationship provided by the UML profile mechanisms. For example, a real-time clock instance may have a domain link to another real-time clock that represents its reference clock (as shown in Figure 5-9)."
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

It�s up to the analysis tool to determine the associations, except for very specific situations, such as Realizes and a new one Usage.  We need to ensure that GRM associations between the base types can be derived from a combination of GRM associations and standard UML associations. However, It's up to the analysis tool to determine the associations, except for very specific situations, such as Realizes and a new one Usage.  We need to ensure that GRM associations between the base types can be derived from a combination of GRM associations and standard UML associations. This part of the issue has been deferred via issue 5875

Issue 5080: The limits of the use of stereotypes are sometimes ambiguous (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: International Business Machines (Mr. Morgan Bjorkander, nobody)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The limits of the use of stereotypes are sometimes ambiguous. For example, in Fig. 28 there is a composition drawn between two stereotypes. This is not supported in UML (stereotypes are not classifiers). Inheritance between stereotypes imposes constraints on the set of metaclasses on which the stereotypes are defined. For example, how is it possible for GRMaccessControlPolicy to be defined for ActivityGraphs, while its ancestor GRMqosCharacteristic is not valid on ActivityGraphs

Resolution: closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
September 24, 2004: closed issue

Discussion:

This is an issue that was raised against the initial submission and not against the revised submission. The particular problems reported in this issue were resolved in the final submission and the issue should have been closed even before the FTF. Most abstract stereotypes, such as "GRMqosCharacteristic" were removed from the proposal. Also, in all cases where one stereotype is defined as a subclass of another stereotype, there is consistency in terms of their base classes in the sense that the specialized stereotype applies to only a subset of the base classes of the parent class.

Issue 5081: It is not clear how a QoS characteristic can be attached to a Resource (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: International Business Machines (Mr. Morgan Bjorkander, nobody)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

It is not clear how a QoS characteristic can be attached to a Resource. The example given throughout Chapter 4 is {qosDeadline = 5ms}, which leaves the reader with the idea that QoS characteristics will be attached as tagged values. But later QoS characteristics are defined to be stereotyped Packages, Values, Instances or Classifiers (stereotyped with <<GRMqosCharacteristic>>), and qosDeadline turns out to be a predefined tag value without connection to the <<GRMqosCharacteristic>> stereotype. Furthermore, in Fig. 28, the QoS characteristics of a clock are defined as required tags of the RTtimingMechanism stereotype, with no mention to <<GRMqosCharacteristic>>.

Resolution: closed no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
September 24, 2004: closed issue

Discussion:

This particular issue was really related to the initial submission and much clarifying text was added and changes made to the domain model to deal with it. It really should have been closed by the FTF since the specific issues that it raises were solved there. The only reason it was kept was that it was misinterpreted as being a broader complaint about the overall vagueness of some parts of the profile. However, on reviewing it this time, I no longer see that interpretation of this issue.

Issue 5082: How do we formalize stereotypes and tag value constraints (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: International Business Machines (Mr. Morgan Bjorkander, nobody)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

How do we formalize stereotypes and tag value constraints (e.g. Limited To) in the UML

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Defer to UML; change definition of stereotypes

Issue 5083: App. C, p. 200 (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: Esterel Technologies (Mr. Jean-Paul Rigault, )
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Response to RFP 6.5.6: this response is short. The model of concurrency presented in chapter 6 is only a partial answer to 6.5.6; to complete it, it could be added that syn-chronization mechanisms are mentioned in chapter 4 (protected resource and access control policy). Even with this addition, we are far from the specifics of 6.5.6. At this point a (short) sentence might be needed to justify the gap."

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

I am not sure tht these sections are actually retained in the adopted specification; they may possibly be removed completely; I need to check this (Bran)

Issue 5084: link between the already existing UML elements that target time aspects (uml-scheduling-ftf)

"Position regarding to existing UML concepts pertaining to time aspects In the proposal, I have not really seen something about a link between the already existing UML elements that target time aspects (e.g. TimeEvent, active/passive objects, concurrent states�) and the concepts proposed by the SPT profile. I think the proposal does not position enough itself regarding to UML elements. "

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

This is simply a summary of a set of other individual issues raised elsewhere (Bran)

Issue 5085: The different profiles do not pay special attention to identify well-formed (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Source: Universidad Politecnica de Madrid (Prof. Miguel de Miguel, mmiguel(at)dit.upm.es)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The different profiles do not pay special attention to identify well-formed rules. Each stereotype has a set of rules, but they are not OCL constraints. The rules pay attention to the consistence of the stereotypes and their tagged values, but there are not consistence rules of complete models (e.g. the workload elements in performance models must have associated some steps that must be identified in the context of the model, and this identification depends on the mapping).

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
March 20, 2002: received issue

Discussion:

Valid point; but probably exceeds the scope of an FTF (Bran). I guess this is a complaint that some of the semantic relationships that exist in the domain model are not captured explicitly through OCL constraints. This is definitely the case, but would require significant effort to rectify - beyond the scope of an RTF but should be a requirement in the future RfP.

Issue 5274: Page 4-36, "GRMAcquire" (issue 1) (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Why is GRMexclServ a tag of GRMAqcuire, is this because this particular acquire only gives access to this set of services?

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 13, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 5275: Page 4-36, "GRMAcquire" (issue 2) (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Shouldn't the services referenced by GRMexclServ have a stereotype to say that they're exclusive - we used to have one GRMExclusive but this appears to have been removed.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 13, 2002: received issue

Discussion:

The scope of this goes beyond an RTF but shouldn't be forgotten.

Issue 5276: Page 5-21, "RTaction" (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The domain attribute name of the Rtduration tag is TimedAction::probability - should be TimedAction::duration I think.

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 13, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Issue 5277: Page 5-22, "RtclkInterrupt" (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Stimulus doesn't appear to have a Rttimestamp tag.

Resolution: fixed; added proper inherited tags (RTstart and Rtend)
Revised Text: Remove RTtimeStamp and add RTstart and RTend to description of stereotype "RTclkInterrupt" on page 5-21
Actions taken:
May 13, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 5278: Page 5-23, "Rtdelay" (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

It seems odd that a sub-type "Rtdelay" is more constrained than the super-type, "Rtaction", consider addressing this.

Resolution: constraint on the use of RTstart and RTend has been removed
Revised Text: Add RTstart and RTend to definition of stereotype "RTdelay" on page 5-22
Actions taken:
May 13, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Issue 5279: Page 5-25, "Rtinterval" (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

It seems odd that we have two sets of tags that model the same thing - RtintStart/Rtstart, RtintEnd/Rtend etc. Consider harmonising them

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 13, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 5280: Page 5-25, "Rtinterval" (issue 2) (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

In the domain concepts for TimedInterval, we say that duration is not explicitly modelling and yet it is.

Resolution: Incorrect text in section 5.1.5.5 removed
Revised Text: Remove text in parens at end of description of duration in section 5.1.5.5.
Actions taken:
May 13, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 5281: Page 5-25,"RtnewTimer" (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

RttimerPar is an RttimeValue, but presumably that only applies to instances of the service, not to the description of the service - presumably in that case, it is a reference to the formal parameter that is used to convey the new time. How should we model this?

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: Change the Base Class(es) from Operation to ActionExecution, Stimulus, Action, Message, Method, ActionSequence, ActionState, SubactivityState, Transition for the following stereotypes: RTnewClock, RTnewTimer, RTset, Rtpause, RTreset, Rtstart in section 5.2.2.3.
Actions taken:
May 13, 2002: received issue
September 24, 2004: closed issue

Discussion:

Resolution:  The utility of declaring this and other timing mechanism operations as stereotypes of Operation is quite dubious. It is much better if they are actually stereotypes of some kind of action execution, since that is a much more common way of specifying that a timer has been started, stopped, reset, rather than doing it on operations. Besides, as the problem report states, it makes no sense to declare actual values against an operation, since that is merely a declaration and not a usage of the operation. Hence, the base class for these stereotypes was changed from Opertion to a number of concepts that may represent action executions. More needs to be done here. The utility of declaring this and other timing mechanism operations as stereotypes of Operation is quite dubious. It is much better if they are actually stereotypes of some kind of action execution, since that is a much more common way of specifying that a timer has been started, stopped, reset, rather than doing it on operations. Besides, as the problem report states, it makes no sense to declare actual values against an operation, since that is merely a declaration and not a usage of the operation. Hence, the base class for these stereotypes was changed from Opertion to a number of concepts that may represent action executions. More needs to be done here.  On reviewing this issue and its accompanying comment, it is not clear at all what is meant by "more needs to be done here" (I am not sure what I had in mind). As far as I can tell, this issue was resolved by the solution executed in the FTF.

Issue 5282: Page 5-29,"Rttimeout" (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Again, RTStimulus doesn't have a timestamp tag.

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: Change the tags of the RTtimeout stereotype from RTtimestamp(inherited) to RTstart(inherited) and RTend(inherited) in section 5.2.2.3.
Actions taken:
May 13, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Resolution:  the issue report erroneously refers to RTStimulus when it meant Rttimeout (seems to be a copy/paste problem from issue 5277), which had mistakenly included an Rttimestamp tagged value which does not exist. That tag was removed in the draft spec) and the proper start and end tags were inserted in the Tags column.

Issue 5283: Page 7-15, "SAaction" (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

SAActualPty is not in the domain model, or in the tag table - is it actually needed - perhaps it is the Sapriority tag applied to a specific instance

Resolution: Not needed - remove
Revised Text: Remove SAactualPty from definition of "SAaction" on pages 7-15 and 7-16
Actions taken:
May 13, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 5284: Page 7-16,"Saengine" (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Both this and resource have an access policy - are they in fact the same and so should have the same tag definition - if so, how do we show this?

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 13, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Issue 5285: Page 7-16,"Saengine" (issue 2) (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

SacontextSwitch has a tag type of Time Function - should this be RttimeValue?

Resolution: Make tag type of SAcontextSwitch RTtimeValue on page 7-17.
Revised Text: Make tag type of SAcontextSwitch RTtimeValue on page 7-17.
Actions taken:
May 13, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Issue 5286: Page 7-17,"Saengine" (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Should SaschedulingPolicy include a value of FIFO?

Resolution: Add FIFO to enumeration for SAschedulingPolicy on page 7-18.
Revised Text: Add FIFO to enumeration for SAschedulingPolicy on page 7-18.
Actions taken:
May 13, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Issue 5287: Page 7-20, "Sascheduler" (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

SaschedulingPolicy references a similarly named tag - isn't this really the same tag?

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 13, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 5288: Page 8-17,"PAHost" (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

PaschdPolicy uses acronyms whereas scheduling policy in theSAprofile uses full names - consider harmonizing

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: Change text of PAschdPolicy on page 8-17 to "Enumeration: {'FIFO', 'HeadOfLine', 'PreemptResume', 'ProcSharing', 'PrioProcSharing', 'LIFO'}" Change the description of the scheduling policy tag of ProcessingResource (8.1.4.5) to "(inherited from Resource) the set of rules for assigning the resource to a set of steps; a number of policies are pre-defined: FIFO = first-in-first-out HeadOfLine = head-of-the-line or non-preemptible priorities PreemptResume = pre-empt resume ProcSharing = processor sharing (representing round-robin) PrioProcSharing = priority processor sharing LIFO = last-in-first-out" Change the description of the schedulingPolicy tag of Passive Resource (8.1.4.6) to: "(inherited from Resource) the access control policy for handling requests from scenario steps. The following policies are predefined: FIFO = first-in-first-out PriorityInheritance = priority inheritance NoPreemption = no pre-emption HighestLockers = highest lockers PriorityCeiling = priority ceiling (note that in this case, we also need to provide the actual value of the priority ceiling, which generally is the priority of the highest priority scenario step that uses the resource)" Change the description of the algorithm tag in section 7.1.3.9 to: "the scheduling algorithm. The following scheduling algorithms are predefined: FIFO RateMonotonic DeadlineMonotonic HKL = Harbour, Klein, Lehoczky FixedPriority MinimumLaxityFirst MaximizeAccruedUtility MinimumSlackTime" Change the description of the accessControlPolicy on SResource in section 7.1.3.12 to: "(inherited from ProtectedResource - see Section 4.1.9.20, "ProtectedResource," on page 4-21) the access control policy for handling requests from scheduling jobs. The following policies are pre-defined: FIFO = first-in-first-out PriorityInheritance = priority inheritance NoPreemption = no pre-emption HighestLockers = highest lockers PriorityCeiling = priority ceiling (note that in this case, we also need to provide the actual value of the priority ceiling, which generally is the priority of the highest priority scenario step that uses the resource)" Change PAschdPolicy (for stereotype PAhost) to: "Enumeration: {'FIFO', 'HeadOfLine', 'PreemptResume', 'ProcSharing', 'PrioProcSharing', 'LIFO'}" Change PAschdPolicy for stereotype PAresource to: "Enumeration: {'FIFO', 'PriorityInheritance', 'NoPreemption', 'HighestLockers', 'PriorityCeiling'}"
Actions taken:
May 13, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Resolution:  Full names for policies provided; also added the possibility for policies to have parameters (requires new tag); and did the same for the schedulabilty sub-profile (for ExecutionEngine and for SResource). Also provide full lists in the domain descriptions for Processing Resource and Passive Resource. Harmonise policy names with the schedulability profile.

Issue 5289: Page 8-18, "PAresource" (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Shouldn't a resource have an access policy, not a scheduling policy?

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 13, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 5290: Page 8-20, PaextOpValue (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

PaextOpValue is a complex tagged value that seems to iterate over a set of operation and provide information about those operations. Wouldn't it be better to introduce a stereotype of operation and add <integer> and <time-value> to that? We would then either add a tag from "Pastep" to this new stereotype or use an existing UML relationship.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 13, 2002: received issue

Discussion:

The recommendation for an RTF revisit of this was based on a misunderstanding of what RTFs are mandated to do. This is a new feature that requires a separate RFP.

Issue 5291: Page 9-7, "RSAcleint" (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Why have RSAclPrio when the parent supports a priority?

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 13, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Issue 5292: Page 9-7, "RSAConnection" (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

In the Paprofile and Saprofile we've used Priority Range whereas here we've used High and Low priorities - consider harmonising

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 13, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 5293: Page 9-8, "RSAserver" (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The tag name is SaaccessControl, but the enumeration values are different, so should be different tag.

Resolution: see below
Revised Text: Change both occurrences of "SAAccessControl" to "RSAaccessControl". There are four occurrences, two in the paragraphs titled "<<RSAconnection>>" and two in the paragraphs titled <<RSAmutex>>.
Actions taken:
May 13, 2002: received issue
September 24, 2004: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 5294: Page 9-9, "RSAorb" (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The tag Saschedulingpolicy seems to be related to SchedulingPolicy::timeout

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: Change definition of SASchedulingPolicy to "Execution Engine::SchedulingPolicy" on page 9-11
Actions taken:
May 13, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Resolution:  That looks to be an error. The domain attribute should be ExecutionEngine::SchedulingPolicy

Issue 5295: Page 9-9, "RSAserver" (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Why have RSAsrvPrio when the parent supports a priority?

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 13, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 5306: Chapter 5: support for scaling of time and clocks (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

 there should be support for scaling of time and clocks so that models can work with heterogeneous time scales (e.g., microseconds as well as days all in the same model and diagrams)

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 22, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Issue 5307: How do we map months/years to seconds (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

How do we map months/years to seconds

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 22, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 5308: The names of tagged values can create confusion (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The names of tagged values can create confusion, especially when we want to combine this profile with other profiles. Tagged value names as value and arg can be repeated in the profiles for the same element and this can create collisions of tagged values

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 22, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Issue 5309: Figure 27 (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

What is the relation of Figure 27 with UML 1.3 DataType package and the metaclass TimeExpression

Resolution: see below
Revised Text: -- insert the following text as the last paragraph in section 4.2.1 and just before section 4.2.1.1: UML defines a data type called TimeExpression that denotes "a statement which will define the time of occurrence of an event". The intent of this is to specify values of time that are to be used at run time. We refer to such values as run-time values. For example, an instance of TimeExpression would be used to define the value of some periodic interval timer. However, when the corresponding program is executing, due to dynamic loads and other complex run-time effects, the actual measured values of the interval may differ somewhat from the one specified. In analyses, it is often necessary to factor in these variations by modeling the value of this interval by, say, a probability distribution. Such a probabilistic value specification is generally not useful or even meaningful at run time. We will call such values analysis values. Note that, in contrast to run-time values, analysis values are specific to the type of analysis performed. Thus, there could be many different ways of modeling the same run-time value For this reason, even though there may be a functional relationship between a run-time value and its corresponding analysis values, the method for specifying analysis values is not based on TimeExpression. Keeping these two sets of values correlated is a problem that is outside the scope of this profile. Based on the same reasoning, the modeling of timed events in this profile is distinct from the standard UML concept of TimeEvent.
Actions taken:
May 22, 2002: received issue
September 24, 2004: closed issue

Discussion:

I thought we had fixed this one in the FTF, but after reviewing the document I realize that I had not (again, I believe that I read more into this issue than what was reported - this must be the reason why I did not fix it). This should be easily fixed with a small comment in section 5.2.1.2.

Issue 5310: relation of RTtimeEvent in Figure 27 with UML 1.3 metaclass TimeEvent (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

What is the relation of stereotype RTtimeEvent in Figure 27 with UML 1.3 metaclass TimeEvent?

Resolution: see below
Revised Text: -- the resolution to this problem is captured by the resolution text for issue 5309.
Actions taken:
May 22, 2002: received issue
September 24, 2004: closed issue

Discussion:

Same comment as for issue 5309, except that the clarifying text should be in section 5.2.1.8.

Issue 5311: RTtimeString issue in chapter 5 (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

RTtimeString should be able to represent a percentile requirement (for soft real-time systems)...a value and a percentage of responses that should meet it.

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 22, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Issue 5312: Delay stereotype needed (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

A critical delay may begin at one event and end at a different one which is in a different place in the system. Time at the moment is represented in tagged values associated with stereotypes. What may be needed is a Delay stereotype, which points to the initiating event and the terminating event, and has time tags.

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 22, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Issue 5313: more abstract demand unit needed (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

CPU demands are represented as time values... this is useful for limited studies, but a more abstract demand unit, that can be scaled to different platforms, which give greater modeling power. There is no obvious unit for this... the definition of execution demands could be relaxed so it can be any units. Call it demand instead of execution time.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 22, 2002: received issue

Discussion:

Valid comment, but this is a new feature that is outside the scope of either an FTF or RTF. Should be deferred to major revision.

Issue 5314: Repetition counts (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Repetition counts on messages need to be RTtimeString rather than integers, to allow for more general behaviour. For instance in sending an image frame, the number of packets sent is not a fixed number, but depends on compression... so an RTtimeString could give the distribution or average number.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 22, 2002: received issue

Discussion:

Valid comment, but this is a new feature that is outside the scope of either an FTF or RTF. Should be deferred to major revision.

Issue 5315: The concept of scenario (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The concept of scenario is limited to an ordered set of steps. It needs to accomodate scenario structure, such as a graph with connectors such as OR-form/join, and probabilities of forks. This kind of structure is also needed in the sequence diagram, so maybe the same solution can be used for both.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 22, 2002: received issue

Discussion:

This new feature needs UML 2.0 sequence diagrams, so defer to new RfP

Issue 5316: there could be a better, more complete RTtimeValue (p90+) (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

"1) I believe that there could be a better, more complete RTtimeValue (p90+). While the included format does handle many situations it is not sufficiently general. For example, it could handle several other common time designators, e.g., time zones (EST, GMT, PDT,...), Julian Date, and (the un-related) Julian Calendar, approximates times, and to support diversity, non Gregorian calendars."

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 22, 2002: received issue

Discussion:

Again, the existing comment reflects a misunderstanding of an RTF mandate. This is a new feature that requires a new RFP.

Issue 5317: Frequency (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

"2) Frequency. While the probabilistic definitions are included (and necessary), there are many other instances of repeatable events that need to be described e.g., Every Third Monday, the 15th of the month, twice a day. (or a really hard one, every Easter). Though you may feel that these events are out of scope, they are important in any sort of scheduler, and are necessary to ensure that the low-level time definitions scale up. It would not be good to use incompatible time/frequency expressions at different scale."

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 22, 2002: received issue

Discussion:

Again, the existing comment reflects a misunderstanding of an RTF mandate. This is a new feature that requires a new RFP.

Issue 5318: OrderedTimeSets (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

"3) OrderedTimeSets: While I did some ordered time for the purpose of schedule. I believe that a more robust OrderedTimeSet may be needed for the concepts of observations. The special case of a OrderedTimeSet with 2 elements becomes the basis for Duration."

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 22, 2002: received issue

Discussion:

Again, the existing comment reflects a misunderstanding of an RTF mandate. This is a new feature that requires a new RFP.

Issue 5319: time/frequency definitions (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

"The general timing specification (GTS) semantically is a general set of points in time. The purpose of the GTS is to specify the complex timing of events and actions (mainly in orders and scheduling systems.) The GTS also supports the cyclical validity patterns that may exist for certain kinds of information, such as phone numbers (evening, daytime)... The GTS data type has the following aspects: � GTS as a general set of points in time (SET<TS>). From this aspect GTS answers whether any given point in time falls in the schedule described by the GTS value. � GTS as the combination of multiple periodic intervals of time. This aspect describes how both simple and complex repeat-patterns are specified with the GTS. � GTS as a generator of a sequence of intervals of point in time (LIST<IVL<TS>>). From this aspect, GTS can generate all occurrence intervals of an event or action, or all validity periods for a fact. � GTS as an expression-syntax defined for a calendar. This aspect is the GTS literal form. In all cases the GTS is defined as a set of point in time (SET<TS>). Using the set operations, union, intersection and difference, more complex sets of time can be constructed from simpler ones. Ultimately the building blocks from which all GTS values are constructed are interval, periodic interval, and event-related periodic interval. The construction of the GTS can be specified in the literal form... I've recently passed part of the HL7 data type spec to Bran Selic, I arguing for using this opportunity to develop a more broadly useful and powerful time [BTW, I'd personally enumerate the days of the week with Sunday first, not last]

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
May 22, 2002: received issue

Discussion:

Again, the existing comment reflects a misunderstanding of an RTF mandate. This is a new feature that requires a new RFP.

Issue 5320: The properties of timing devices (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

"� The properties of timing devices are listed, but some of them are not explained, and no clue is given as to measure or represent them. This is the case for stability and skew. In particular, the relationship between skew and offset should be explicit. � Last paragraph but one, last sentence, definition of drift: the definition does not appear very clear to me: what can be the relative frequency of a clock between two successive ticks? Is not the drift simply measured by (the absolute value of) the difference of fre-quencies? (Frequency taken with the usual definition, one over the period.) � Last paragraph, last sentence: It says that a timer is always associated with a particular clock; this is not explicit on the diagram of fig. 5-3; in fact, according to this diagram, a timer is indirectly and implicitly associated with (at least) two clocks, one coming through inheritance from TimingMechanism (the reference clock) and the other com-ing through the association with TimeValue, which is itself associated with a refer-ence clock; there is no constraint to express that these two clocks should be the same. Should they?"

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: Add the following footnote to first para on page 5-5: "A more precise definition of each of these characteristics can be found in [32]"
Actions taken:
May 22, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Resolution:  The first two sub-issues have been resolved by providing an explicit reference to the latest version of the Enhanced View of Time Specification (formal/02-05-07) which contains the appropriate definitions (repeating these complex definitions in the RT profile spec would require repeating a substantial portion of text already specified in the EVT spec).   The last sub-issue is rejected. They do not have to be the same. The timer is a timing mechanism in its own right and can have its own reference clock.

Issue 5323: First example, on page 6-10 - (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

First example, on page 6-10 -       "The clock main scenario executes a MessageAction that is a <<CRImmediate>>  invocation of the TelemDataGather operation in DataGatherer. What I  wonder:  Why is TG clock's life line stereotyped <<CRAsynch>>?  Is it an indication  that nobody is blocking on the main scenario of TGClock?

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: Remove return arrow in figure 6-2.
Actions taken:
May 23, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Resolution:  (BS)It is not the lifeline that is stereotyped but the focus of control block (which maps into an ActionExecution). This simply means that the execution of this block is executing asynchronously of any action that caused its invocation. Since this action is not shown, it probably is not necessary to show its stereotype in the diagram.  (AM)As Bran says it is the focus of control. What this is supposed to mean is that the call action of "TelemDataGather" is made asynchronously. This begs the question of what the return arrow means - strictly it should mean that any return values are read asynchronously, perhaps via a Future; I don't think is the case here, so there should be no return arrow.

Issue 5324: example on page 6-11 (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Second, in the example on page 6-11      "there is a notational difference that I don't get. <<CRAsync>> is put on  the receiving instance (on TelemDataDisplay) but for the synch.  invocations  <<CRSynch>> is put on the client side (TelemetryDisplayer).      '[email protected]

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: Attach "CRasynch" stereotype to TGClock lifeline in figure 6-3.
Actions taken:
May 23, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Resolution:  (BS) Well, the stereotype is attached to the action execution (not    the instance), which is mainfested as a focus of control block in the  diagram. So, the first block, labeled <<CRAsynch>> is invoked asynchronously  of the main thread of the TelemetryDisplayer (implying some kind of forking of a supplementary thread), while the subsequent blocks are invoked synchronously, indicating that the main thread will be  blocked until the synchronous actions are completed.   (AM) I think that the <<CRasynch>> tag is attached to the wrong control block - it should be attached to the TGClock lifeline.

Issue 5334: The capitilzation of stereotype and tag names should be consistent (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The capitilzation of stereotype and tag names should be consistent  throughout the profile.

Resolution: see above
Revised Text: Change the names of all profile elements to respect the following convention: the profile prefix should be in caps, the immediately following character should be in lower-case and the rest of the tag name should be lower except to emphasise the start of a new word.
Actions taken:
June 5, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Resolution:  Change - the profile prefix should be in caps, the immediately following character should be in lower-case and the rest of the tag name should be lower except to emphasise the start of a new word.

Issue 5675: potential problems with name clashes (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

There is a stereotype   called<<SAschedulable>> and a tag   definition called SAschedulable in the SAprofile package    - to avoid  potential problems with name clashes (UML is unclear   > whether this is  > > allowed) the stereotype should be renamed <<SAschedRes>>.

Resolution: see below
Revised Text: In 7.2.2.3, "SAschedulable" change all references to the SAschedulable stereotype to SAschedRes. Figure 7-5, change ref to SAschedulable stereotype to SAschedRes, Figure 7-6, change references to SAschedulable stereotype to SAschedRes Figure 7-7, change references to SAschedulable stereotype to SAschedRes Change parent of the RSAclient stereotype to SAschedRes Section 7.2.1.1, Resources and Execution Engines, change reference to SAschedulable stereotype to SAschedRes Change SAhost association of SAaction to read: "Reference to a model element that is stereotyped as "SAschedRes""
Actions taken:
October 7, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Issue 5698: <<RTaction� This stereotype should also be associated with operations. (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

<<RTaction�  This stereotype should also be associated with operations.

Resolution: Agreed. Add Operation to the RTaction Base Class column in section 5.2.2.3.
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 24, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Issue 5699: suggest inclusion of <<RTtimedAction>> stereotype (inherited from <<RTactio (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

"As actions can have a limited time budget, they should include a deadline. Therefore, I suggest the inclusion of the <<RTtimedAction>> stereotype (inherited from <<RTaction>>), which would represent an action with a deadline (tag RTdeadline - also new) and a timeout exception handler (tag RTtimeoutException). A motivation for adding this new element is that, in general, modeling such restrictions is more complex than programming it using ORC APIs! Another benefit is that the exception caused by the deadline violation would be explicitly associated with the stereotype. Please take a look at item 1 in the attached file (Leandro Diagrams.doc)."

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 24, 2002: received issue

Discussion:

Valid point that requires a new feature and, hence, an RFP

Issue 5700: TVL notation (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

"TVL notation: I could observe the absence of expressiveness to indicate a condition to finish the event generation (e.g. in the TMO one can say ""generate events from 10am to 10:50am""): ""for t = from 10am to 10:50am  every 30min  start-during (t, t+5min) finish-by t+10min"", i.e.:  {""start-during (10am, 10:05am)   finish-by 10:10am"",  ""start-during (10:30am, 10:35am)   finish-by 10:40am""}."

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 24, 2002: received issue

Discussion:

Valid point that requires a new feature and, hence, an RFP

Issue 5701: <<CRaction>>: this stereotype should be inherited from <<RTaction>> (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

<<CRaction>>: this stereotype should be inherited from <<RTaction>>

Resolution: closed no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 24, 2002: received issue
September 24, 2004: closed issue

Discussion:

Because of lack of more information about the motivations relating this change and its impact of the profile architecture, I propose to reject this issue.

Issue 5702: <<CRasync>>, <<CRsync>> (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

<<CRasync>>, <<CRsync>>:  In my understanding, UML already includes means to represent sync  and async invocations (through the arrow shape - e.g. in RTS one can  edit the 'Timing' folder in the methods properties). Therefore, I would  consider these stereotypes as alternative to the already existing UML  notation. Nevertheless, such stereotypes are associated with the UML  notion of action (e.g. OSD::Step), what forbids combining them directly  with the methods invocations (or operations). To be more exact, I  suggest allowing these stereotypes to be associated also with operations  (see attached item 2 in  (Leandro Diagrams.doc)

Resolution: see below
Revised Text: Agreed. Add Operation as a valid BaseClass item in section 6.2.2.3 to both the CRsynch and CRasynch table definitions
Actions taken:
October 24, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Issue 5703: <<CRsync>> (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

<<CRsync>>: we suggest the inclusion of a new tagged valued called  CRcallTimeout. It would represent the maximum waiting time from the  calling object. For example, this would be useful to model the RT-CORBA  Messaging:: RELATIVE_RT_TIMEOUT_POLICY_TYPE attribute. Like in 1.2, the  could be a timeout handler associated with, for example, a stereotype  named RTcallTimeoutHandler (see attached item 3 in (Leandro Diagrams.doc)).

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 24, 2002: received issue

Discussion:

Because of impact on the profile architecture (dependency between time and concurrency sub-profiles), I suggest to defer this issue the version 2.0.

Issue 5704: <<SAschedRes>> (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

<<SAschedRes>>: why this stereotype isn't inherited from  <<CRconcurrent>>? As I could understand from the documentation, they  represent the same thing: "a unit of concurrent execution, such as a  task, a process, or a thread". Therefore, I believe it should also  include the tag CRmain.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 24, 2002: received issue

Discussion:

I agree with this suggestion -  but it does change the normative specification slightly, by adding a new feature, so I'll defer to 2.0.

Issue 5705: Section 4, Page 4-4, Line 6. (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Suggest adding " In this case, the QoS characteristics and QoS value of descriptors and instance must be compatible". This addition tries to clarify that the annotations on classifier is a good technique to reuse the annotations but can create inconsistencies be-cause of inheritance (subclass and superclass have annotations incompatibles; the type of an instance in the scenarios is the superclass, but the class in exe-cution is the subclass). The same problem appears when the annotations are attached to interfaces (the interface and its implementations can have incon-sistent annotations and the real type of the instance, classified with the inter-face, is not known when we do the analysis).

Resolution: closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 24, 2002: received issue
September 24, 2004: closed issue

Discussion:

I think that Miguel is confusing things here: section 4.1.1 describes the domain model that is defined independently of how it is mapped to UML stereotypes. Inserting the proposed sentence at the recommended point would not be particularly useful since it merely states the obvious: that instances conform to their class specification. The intent of the sentence is to propose a general statement on how to map from domain models to corresponding UML extensions. Since that is not the subject of this specification, I don't see a need for this at all.

Issue 5706: Section 4, Page 4-10, Line 6 section 4.1.6 and figure 4.9. (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

We suggest you introduce a new superclass (Executing Resource), with the following descritpion "executing resources represent any type of resource that support services for the execution of actions",  to generalize the executing resources that can be included in an analysis (specially to associate this new type to the scheduling analysis metamodels, to consider the scheduling policies not only of processor resources). This affects section 7  figure 7-2.

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 24, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 5707: Section 4, figure 4-9. (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Spelling error in the title of figure

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text: the leading period should be removed from the figure title in Figure 3-9.
Actions taken:
October 24, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Issue 5708: Section 4, Page 4-21, (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

description of protected resource. Suggest this for the first 3 sentences of the definition: "This is an instance of a resource that provides one or more exclusive services�services that can only be accessed according to an access control policy administered by an associated resource broker. (The resource broker is a role that may be played by the resource itself.) The number of concurrent services executed in the resource is bounded and in general 1". SResource in section 7 inherits of protected resource, but has associated the capacity attribute (number of permissible concurrent users). Both definitions are inconsistent.

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 24, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 5709: Section 4,Page 4-31, definition of synchronous (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

We think that client and supplier are interchanged.

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 24, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 5710: Section 4, Page 4-38, (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

GRMrelase stereotype there is a spelling error.

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 24, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 5711: Section 5, figure 5-5. (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Some scheduling analysis techniques use more than one duration time in the description of actions (one action, specially SAction that inherits TimedAction, can have associated more than one duration and this can provide different scheduling analysis results).

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 24, 2002: received issue

Discussion:

Requires significant change to the spec, so outside scope of RTF - useful idea though so bear in mind for new RfP.

Issue 5712: Section 5, Page 5-13 first lines. (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

The definition of duration looks like an �execution time� definition, not like a �computation time� definition, that is the role of this attribute in analysis metamodels. Suggest the following definition: "the time interval of execution capacity used by the action"

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 24, 2002: received issue

Discussion:

This may be true in certain analysis domains, but I do not believe that it holds for all necessarily. Hence, the general nature of the concept of "duration" in this abstract part of the model should be retained and then refined in the appropriate subsections. This is related to the proposed resolution of issue 5711. Hence, this should be retained as an RTF item.

Issue 5713: Section 7, Figure 7-1 (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

We suggest changing some multiplicities to avoid some problems. The association ExecutionEngine-SchedulingJob imposes a single ExecutionEngine to SchedulingJob. In distributed systems an schedulingjob will execute in mode than one execution engine (the modification of page 118 description of Scheduling Jobs is because of this). Some scheduling analysis techniques support alternative of responses (more than one response for each scheduling job), and more than one trigger event can generate the execution of the scheduling job.

Resolution: see abopve
Revised Text: Replace existing figure 7-1 with the figure in Issue 5721
Actions taken:
October 24, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Resolution:  AM - Miguel provided a class diagram here,(see document: ptc/2002-12-05) � - I agree with the suggested changes

Issue 5714: Section 7,Page 7-8 (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Suggest the following definition Execution Engine: "An execution engine is an active, protected, executing-type resource that is allocated to the execution of schedulable resources, and hence any actions that use those schedulable resources to execute. In general, they are processor, network or device."  See issue with page 30 in section 4. This modification takes in to account the scheduling policies in networks and devices (not only processors)

Resolution: AM - I agree with the suggestion
Revised Text: Use suggested text
Actions taken:
October 24, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 5715: Section 7, Page 7-8, (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Suggest this as first sentence for definition of host "the schedulable resource that the action executes on; this is only defined if all the internal SActions that constitute the SAction execute on the same schedulable resource". This modification tries to clarify the same details that include the same definition in page 140.

Resolution: AM - I agree with the suggestion
Revised Text: Use suggested text
Actions taken:
October 24, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 5716: Section 7, Page 7-8 (02) (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

definition Processing Rate. We are talking about percents and we use probabilities as numbers, so suggest normative value is 100%.

Resolution: AM - I agree with the suggestion
Revised Text: Use suggested text
Actions taken:
October 24, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 5717: Section 7, Page 7-10 (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

definition of role "executionEngine" should be "the execution engines which realizes this scheduling job" (the same reason as modification page 113 figure 7-1).

Resolution: AM - I agree with the suggestion
Revised Text: Use suggested text
Actions taken:
October 24, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 5718: Section 8, Page 8-15 (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

some spelling errors and remote references in second title and first line of second paragraph.

Resolution: see above
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 24, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Title 8.2.2.3 - apply correct font throughout  First paragraph of section Title 8.2.2.3 should read:  "In this section we describe how the domain concepts can be represented in UML. First we discuss the mappings in general, and then introduce the actual UML extensions defined for this purpose. It is not necessary to define a separate stereotype for every domain concept, since some of the concepts do not appear explicitly in UML models. However, their presence can be inferred from the presence of others. For descriptions of the semantics of the stereotypes defined here and the rules for their usage, the reader should refer to sections: 8.1.3, "Domain Model" and 8.1.4, "Domain Concept  Details"."

Issue 5719: Bibliography (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Reference 10, "Guiterrez" should read "Gutierrez"

Resolution: Use suggested text
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 24, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 5720: Fig 5-5 Timed Action should inherit from Action Execution (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Fig 5-5 Timed Action should inherit from Action Execution - this would allow  it to have predecessors and successors and requiredQoS as well as Scenario  properties (because Action Execution inherits from Scenario)  Julio Medina [[email protected]]

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 24, 2002: received issue

Discussion:

This is a new feature request that requires an RFP

Issue 5721: Fig 7-1 (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Fig 7-1 In order to better support analysis of distributed scheduling  problems, we need to weaken some of the multiplicities: A (distrubuted)  Scheduling Job should be related to one or more Execution Engines; An  SAction has an optional host.   Julio Medina [[email protected]]

Resolution: see below
Revised Text: This was the original intent (in fact, the textual explanation in section 7.1.3.8. talks about "execution engines" in the plural). A new version of the diagram is included below to fix this issue. Note, however, that there are two more changes that should be made to the latest document that do not require any problem report since they were due to bad editing in response to other problems: 1. the item 7.1.3.12 (SResource) should appear before the item Trigger (section 7.1.3.11) since these things are supposed to be sorted alphabetically. 2. the spelling of the attribute "endToendTime" should be changed to "endToEndTime" (capitalized second "e").
Actions taken:
October 24, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Issue 5722: Fig 7-3 (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Fig 7-3 An Execution Engine may have one to many Scheduling Policies - this  seems clear if you follow the relationship from Execution Engine through  Scheduler to Scheduling Policy. Julio Medina [[email protected]]

Resolution: see below
Revised Text: Agreed. This is fixed with the diagram submitted for issue 5721 above and also the following changes in the text: 1. the explanation for the association called "schedulingPolicy" should be changed to read: the set of policies that define the rules for assigning execution engine time to a set of scheduling jobs. This can be any one of a standard set of policies such as Rate Monotonic, Deadline Monotonic, Earliest Deadline First, etc. 2. The table entry for the SaschedulingPolicy tag under the SAengine stereotype (page 7-18 in the latest draft) should have its multiplicity changed from [0..1] to [0..*].
Actions taken:
October 24, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Issue 5724: use of multiple stereotype (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: International Business Machines (Dr. Bruce Powel Douglass, bruce.douglass(at)us.ibm.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

I find the use of multiple stereotypes just to get the tags required to do a simple global RMA analysis, plus all the indirection necessary. ugly, ugly, ugly. A thought occurred to me - why not highly-specific analysis subprofiles, where we would define a set of stereotypes like <<RMAG_Task>> which would be <<CRConcurrnent>>, <<SASchedulable>> and <<SAAction>> all bundled together? (RMA Global is where I got RMAG). Thus we could stereotype elements such as active objects and resources very simply.  A small set of internally consistent tags with the right properties that map specifically to the kind of analysis to be perform would make the profile much easier to use.

Resolution: Closed, no change
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 24, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Issue 5725: Section 5, Page 5-2: Tag definitions (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Tag definitions. The domain attribute name of RTduration is wrong.

Resolution: See issue 5039 for disposition
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
October 25, 2002: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Issue 5874: Appendix B (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Update Appendix B to align the specification with RT CORBA 2.0

Resolution: see below
Revised Text: Change first paragraph of Appendix B, in order to add reference,.to: In this section we describe a custom model library that defines UML extensions for modeling the internal elements of Real-Time CORBA [35]. This, in turn, is based on the OMG standard UML Profile for CORBA. The overall package structure is shown in FigureB1. Move second paragraph to before Figure B-1 and change to the following to add references: In the remainder of this appendix, we provide definitions of the contents of these packages. However, we do not go into a detailed description of any of them, since they are all defined in the appropriate OMG CORBA specifications [31], [34], [35]. Change third paragraph to: The elements of the CORBA and IOP packages are shown in FigureB2 and FigureB3 respectively Change Figure B-1 to: Change first paragraph on B-6 to: Another part of the RT CORBA interface is the Scheduling Service, shown in Figure B-11. Add the following diagrams and explanation to the end of Appendix B: Figure B-12 RTScheduling typedefs The following four figures describe the interfaces for four well-known scheduling disciplines: fixed priority, earliest deadline first, least laxity first, and maximuze accrued utility. These interfaces are used in conjunction with the RTScheduling::Scheduler interface. Figure B-13 Fixed priority scheduling structs and interfaces Figure B-14 Earliest deadline first interface Figure B-15 Least laxity first interface Figure B-16 Maximize accrued utility interface FigureB17 depicts the interfaces that implement the dynamic scheduling functions for RTCORBA. RTScheduling::Scheduler creates and sets the scheduling policy for RTScheduling::Current. RTScheduling::ThreadAction has a single virtual operation RTScheduling::ThreadAction::do() that is the entry point for an application. RTScheduling::Current controls the allocation of the distributable thread (RTScheduling::DistributableThread) that is the scheduling unit for RTCORBA. RTScheduling::ResourceManager is an abstract interface for defining a scheduling discipline's resource manager. Figure B-17 RTScheduling interfaces (RTScheduling::Current, RTScheduling::Scheduler, RTScheduling::ResourceManager, RTScheduling::ThreadAction, and RTScheduling::DistributableThread)
Actions taken:
February 28, 2003: received issue
June 30, 2003: closed issue

Discussion:

Issue 5875: General issue (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Need to say for each association in the domain models, how they map  to UML with the SPT profile applied.

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
February 28, 2003: received issue

Discussion:

This requires significant rework much of which will have to be redone for the 2.0 version of the profile. Hence, it is better to resolve the issue in 2.0.

Issue 5919: Support high-level schedulability analysis (uml-scheduling-ftf)

Click here for this issue's archive.
Source: The MathWorks (Mr. Alan Moore, alan.moore(at)mathworks.co.uk)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity:
Summary:

Often in the early stages of analysis, an the active objects, rather than  their internal operations are treated as the schedulable entity. In order to  support this mode of analysis, the stereotypes associated to schedulable  entities, SAtrigger and SAresponse, must include in their base types all  relevant classifiers and Instance

Resolution:
Revised Text:
Actions taken:
April 29, 2003: received issue