-----Original Message-----

From: Friedenthal, Sanford

Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 9:59 PM

To: 'Jim U'Ren'

Cc: Friedenthal, Sanford; David Oliver; Harold P. Frisch; Cris Kobryn; Roger Burkhart; Joe Skipper; Julian Johnson; Eran Gery; Dwayne Hardy; Georg Siebes

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 Tampa. The review comments were very constructive, and I believe we have continued to make good progress. Thanks for your help in this.

 

            Sandy

 

Sanford Friedenthal

OMG SE DSIG Chair

Lockheed Martin Corporation

sanford.friedenthal@lmco.com

(703) 293-5557

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Jim U'Ren [mailto:juren@jpl.nasa.gov]

Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 11:05 PM

To: Jim U'Ren

Cc: Friedenthal, Sanford; David Oliver; Harold P. Frisch; Cris Kobryn; Roger Burkhart; Joe Skipper; Julian Johnson; Eran Gery; Dwayne Hardy; Georg Siebes

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 SE UML definitions and the Semantic Dictionary Draft 8 definitions, seems to be an effective mechanism for moving forward. The assessment of consistency included the following:

 

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 SE UML and semantic dictionary terms and definitions are not confused.  We will have further opportunity to resolve these issues at the upcoming OMG and INCOSE reviews, prior to the release of the SE UML Profile RFP. This will help to ensure the SE UML Profile RFP includes a self consistent set of definitions, which are compatible with the semantic dictionary and AP-233 definitions.

 

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:juren@jpl.nasa.gov]

Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 11:24 PM

To: Friedenthal, Sanford; David Oliver; Harold P. Frisch; Cris Kobryn; Roger Burkhart; Joe Skipper; Julian Johnson; Eran Gery; Dwayne Hardy; Georg Siebes

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:

 

Friday January 10, 2003 

 

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 SE UML has been on-going since January 2001 (1 year). The analysis has included support for the evolving SE Concept model, and other detailed analysis based on a variety of inputs (e.g. SE UML Request For Information, SE UML Prototying, UML V2.0Support).

 

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 SE UML implementation. In the review, I suggest we do the following:

 

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 SE UML definition with refinement as required

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.

 

            Sandy