From: Friedenthal, Sanford
Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2002 3:02
Subject: FW: Issues With
SE Concept model draft 8 - Extra Addition
previous email, I had not included the proposed update to the definitions, which
I have included below.
The Draft 8 of the SE Conceptual Model
dated Oct 09, 2002 continues to improve as it evolves. As we have all agreed,
this model is critical to the success of the SE DSIG and AP-233 efforts,
and the model facilitates the syncronization between them. In particular,
this model will be used as a primary input to the development of
the SE UML requirements, which we will reviiew at the November SE DSIG
meeting in DC.
I have identified a set of issues
below with Draft 8 of the SE Conceptual Model. Please consider these
issues during the next review in Korea and iteration of the model.
I am hoping they will be addressed prior to the November SE DISG meeting.
Also, thanks for incoroprating several
comments from my August 13 proposed update to the SE Concept Model Draft 6.
The proposed update also included a set of definitions in response to an
action item from the concept model review at the INCOSE Symposium in July.
As we discussed, I do not believe you had the opportunity to review these
definitions previously, so I am reatttaching them for the teams considration.
They include the proposed definition, along with the definition that was in
Draft 6, so a side by side comparison can readily be made.
Thanks for all your good work in leading
this critical task.
OMG SE DSIG Chair
These files are sent to you
directly. They are not uploaded to BSCW yet because my memory allocation is
exceeded. I will get recommendations on tomorrows conference call on the best
way to resolve the memory problem.
JD, if anyone new wishes to
participate in issue identification and resolution, they need to work from the
draft 8 10/9/02 versions. they should read both the dictionary and the concept
Tom and Harry,
The sections on structure
and properties have additions from Julian and from your charts on AP210. Only a
few of the AP210 concepts were included to keep this model as simple as
possible. Desperately need corrections from you both to make these parts correct
The section on time was
revised in draft 7. The sections on verification and validation first appeared
in Draft 7. We have received no issues on these parts. This cannot possibly be
because they are correct as drafted. They need your insights and
Please use the issue log
format in submitting issue. this allows us to append new issue to the ones
collected to date without interpreting and rewriting the author's
Last updated on: