-----Original Message-----
From: Friedenthal,
Sent:
To: 'Jim U'Ren'
Cc: Friedenthal,
Subject: RE: Follow-up Telecon to
Complete Review of SE UML / AP233 Definitions Friday Jan 17
Jim,
Here is the updated proposed SE UML definitions, including
the comments and the comaprative assessment with the
Semantic Dictionary Draft 8 definitions . This update
reflects inputs from the reviews on Friday(Jan 17),
and the previous Friday (Jan 10). As we discussed at the review, these
definitions will be included (or referenced) as part of the SE UML Profile RFP
draft. The draft RFP will be reviewed at the OMG meeting in Burlingame and the
INCOSE IW in
OMG SE DSIG Chair
Lockheed Martin Corporation
(703) 293-5557
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim U'Ren [mailto:
Sent:
To: Jim U'Ren
Cc: Friedenthal,
Subject: Follow-up Telecon to
Complete Review of SE UML / AP233 Definitions Friday Jan 17
There will be a follow-up telecon
to complete the review of the proposed SE UML definitions and a comparison with
the semantic dictionary Draft 8 definition next Friday, January 17 from 10:00 -
12:00 EST. The telcon information is as follows:
DIAL-IN NUMBERS:
US Number:
888-677-4575
International
Number: 610-769-3269
PASSCODE: 55509
We will pick up where we left off at the end of last
Friday's (January 10) preliminary review, where we completed the definitions
related to structure, behavior and properties. The review next Friday will
focus on the definitions related to requirements and verification.
The approach we used to assess the consistency between the
proposed
a) The definitions are sufficiently consistent that either
can be used.
Note: This also includes cases where there was no semantic
dictionary definition.
b) The definitions have some minor inconsistencies, which
may require an update.
c) The definitions have some major inconsistencies, which
may result in significant compatibility problems.
The attached matrix includes the results of our preliminary
assessment (a, b, c) and associated comments based on last Friday's review. I
also incorporated the changes in the SE UML definitions where we identified a
proposed solution. Some of the
definitions were identified to have significant incompatibility, such as
interface, which will require more dialogue, and/or we will need to ensure the
Thanks again for all or your help in this review. We are
continuing to make significant progress in both AP-233 and the SE DSIG and
their synchronization.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim U'Ren [mailto:
Sent:
To: Friedenthal,
Subject: Telecon: SE UML / AP233
Definitions Review
REVIEW PURPOSE: Review the definitions being proposed for
the SE UML Profile RFP in conjunction with the defintiions
for the SE Concept Model.
TELECON INFORMATION:
Time: 0700-1000 PST / 1000-1300 EST / 1500-1800 GMT
US Number: 888-677-4575
International No: 610-769-3269
PASSCODE: 54509
BACKGROUND: The Requirements analysis for
The effort over the few months has been focused on deriving
detailed declarative requirements for the SE UML Profile RFP. We held our first
review at the OMG Washington meeting in November, and have been incorporating
comments and refinements since that time, including inputs resulting from the
U2P Collaboration. The updated requirements will be reviewed at the next OMG
meeting the week of January 27, followed by an INCOSE review on February 4-5.
The plan is to issue the RFP for the SE UML Profile at the March OMG meeting.
The proposed SE UML definitions are consistent with the
updated SE UML requirements, and generally consistent with the SE Concept Model.
Many of these definitions (or variants of them) have evolved over the last
year, and some have been previously proposed as updates to the semantic
dictionary. The intent is to refer to these definitions in the SE UML Profile
requirements, and ensure they are precise and consise.
The attached spreadsheet contains the proposed SE definitions for the SE UML
Profile, and the most current semantic dictionary defintions
(Draft 8).
The SE UML definitions in the spreadsheet represents only a
partial list of definitions, which have a direct analog with the definitions in
the the semantic dictionary. I did not include the
other definitions, in order to focus our 3 hour review. However, the remaining
definitions will be reviewed at the OMG and INCOSE reviews. The spreadsheet is
available from a link on the SE DSIG site, or direclty
on the SE Concept Model page at the following
URL:
http://syseng.omg.org/SE_Conceptual%20Model/SE_Conceptual_Model.htm
REVIEW APPROACH:
Our goal is to arrive at a single definition. However, I
recommend we focus on assessing whether the definitions are sufficiently
consistent to avoid compatibility issues between AP-233 and
1. Assess the level of consistency
a) The definitions are sufficiently consistent that either
can be used.
b) The definitions have some minor inconsistencies.
c) The definitions have some major inconsistencies, which
may result in significant compatibility problems.
2. Select a definition
a) Both
b) Proposed
c) SE Semantic dictionary definition with refinement as requried
d) Other - Neither is adequate
e) No resolution
Based on this assessment, we can determine the follow-up
actions items needed to resolve any outstanding issues.
TIME ALLOCATION:
There are 61 SE UML definitions in the spreadsheet, and we
have 3 hours to review them. I suggest we allocate an average of 3 minutes per
definition, and as a minimum complete the assessment in item 1 above, even if
we do not select a definition.
AGENDA:
Introduction (10 min) - S. Friedenthal/J. U'ren
Definition Review (2hr 30 min) - J. U'Ren
as moderator
Summary and Action Items (20 min) - J. U'Ren/S.
Friedenthal
CONCLUSION:
The joint AP-233/SEDSIG/INCOSE team,
has considerable progress in 2002 to reach a common understanding of the basic
systems engineering concepts. We are well on our way to having an UML profile
for a systems engineering modeling language and a compatible AP-233 systems
engineering data interchange standard. Thanks for your participation.