Omg issue Number

Disposition: Resolved

OMG Issue No: 11857

Title: What is the Meaning of "Business Management Perspective"?

Source:

Thales: Sébastien Demathieu, [e-mail])

Summary:

What is the Meaning of "Business Management Perspective"?

Resolution:
Strike the phrase “Business Management Perspective” Change it by “system perspective”
Revised Text:

Disposition: Resolved

Disposition: Resolved

OMG Issue No: 11858

Title: Section: 1 MARTE spelling missing in the introduction

Source:

Thales (Sebastien Demathieu, [e-mail])

Summary:

In Table 2.1, I would suggest sorting the extensions units according to the table of content of this document.

Resolution:

Agree on the suggestion, see proposed resolution

Revised Text:

Let’s note that the following resolution take into account the renaming resolution as described in the resolution sheet for issue 11859.

In the table 2.1, replace the first column as follow:

NFP

Time

GRM (let’s notice that GRM should refer section 10 in the 3^rd column of the table)

GCM

Alloc

RTEMoCC

SRM

HRM

GQAM

SAM

PAM

VSL

CHF

RSM

Disposition: Resolved

Disposition: Resolved

OMG Issue No: 11859

Title: Section: 1 MARTE spelling missing in the introduction

Source:

Thales (Sebastien Demathieu, [e-mail])

Summary:

In Table 2.1, I would suggest using the profile names (e.g. Alloc)in the acronym column instead of defining new ones (e.g. ALM). That would may facilitate reading the document.

Resolution:

Agree on the suggestion, see proposed resolution

Revised Text:

In Table 2.1 (on page 2) and Table 7.2 (on page 4 and 5), replace:

• 
  “ETM” by “Time”
  
• 
  “ECM” by “GCM”
  
• 
  “ALM” by “Alloc”
  
• 
  “RTM” by “RTEMoCC”
  
• 
  “GAM” by “GQAM”
  

Update also section 2.4.2, replace

“

• Software Modeling

• Base: RTM, GRM, NFP, ETM

• Full: SRM, ECM, ALM, VSL, CHF

• Hardware Modeling

• Base: HRM, GRM, NFP, ETM

• Full: ECM, ALM, VSL, CHF, RSM

• System Architecting

• Base: RTM, HRM, GRM, NFP, ETM

• Full: SRM, ECM, ALM, VSL, CHF, RSM

• Performance Analysis

• Base: PAM, GAM, GRM, NFP, ETM

• Full: VSL, CHF

• Schedulability Analysis

• Base: SAM, GAM, GRM, NFP, ETM

• Full: VSL, CHF

• Infrastructure Providing

• Base: SRM, GRM, ETM, NFP,

• Full: RTM, VSL, ALM, CHF

• Methodologist

• Base: : RTM, HRM, GRM, NFP, ETM, GAM

• Full: MARTE (ECM, ALM, SRM, PAM, SAM, VSL, CHF, RSM)

“

By

“

• Software Modeling

• Base: RTEMoCC, GRM, NFP, Time

• Full: SRM, ECM, Alloc, VSL, CHF

• Hardware Modeling

• Base: HRM, GRM, NFP, Time

• Full: ECM, Alloc, VSL, CHF, RSM

• System Architecting

• Base: RTEMoCC, HRM, GRM, NFP, Time

• Full: SRM, ECM, Alloc, VSL, CHF, RSM

• Performance Analysis

• Base: PAM, GQAM, GRM, NFP, Time

• Full: VSL, CHF

• Schedulability Analysis

• Base: SAM, GQAM, GRM, NFP, Time

• Full: VSL, CHF

• Infrastructure Providing

• Base: SRM, GRM, Time, NFP,

• Full: RTEMoCC, VSL, Alloc, CHF

• Methodologist

• Base: RTEMoCC, HRM, GRM, NFP, Time, GQAM

• Full: MARTE (ECM, Alloc, SRM, PAM, SAM, VSL, CHF, RSM)

“

Disposition: Resolved

Disposition: Resolved

OMG Issue No: 11860

Title: In section 2.4.2, the list of extension units and table 7.2 are redundant

Source:

Thales (Sebastien Demathieu, [e-mail])

Summary:

In section 2.4.2, the list of extension units and the table 7.2 are redundant. I would suggest removing the list of extension units

Resolution:

I agree on the redundancy, but I propose to keep the table instead of the text.

Revised Text:

In section2.4.2, replace the text:

“

The Extension Units that must be supported in each Compliance Cases are assigned in the following way:

• Software Modeling

• Base: RTM, GRM, NFP, ETM

• Full: SRM, ECM, ALM, VSL, CHF

• Hardware Modeling

• Base: HRM, GRM, NFP, ETM

• Full: ECM, ALM, VSL, CHF, RSM

• System Architecting

• Base: RTM, HRM, GRM, NFP, ETM

• Full: SRM, ECM, ALM, VSL, CHF, RSM

• Performance Analysis

• Base: PAM, GAM, GRM, NFP, ETM

• Full: VSL, CHF

• Schedulability Analysis

• Base: SAM, GAM, GRM, NFP, ETM

• Full: VSL, CHF

• Infrastructure Providing

• Base: SRM, GRM, ETM, NFP,

• Full: RTM, VSL, ALM, CHF

• Methodologist

• Base: : RTM, HRM, GRM, NFP, ETM, GAM

• Full: MARTE (ECM, ALM, SRM, PAM, SAM, VSL, CHF, RSM)

This is summarized in the table below.

”
By
“The Extension Units that must be supported in each Compliance Cases are assigned as depicted in the following table.”

Disposition: Resolved

Disposition: Resolved

OMG Issue No: 11861

Title: attribute “rephrase section 7.3”

Source:

Thales: Sébastien Demathieu, [e-mail])

Summary:

Section 7.3 is very important to understand how to use of MARTE stereotypes in the following chapter. However, the explanation given here is hard to read. I would suggest rephrasing this specific paragraph.

Resolution:
Rephrase the paragraph conveniently.

Revised Text:

Replace the paragraph:

As stated before, this chapter does not define concrete extensions to UML, but it collects a number of primitive modeling concepts to be use in the domain models of other chapters in this specification. Nevertheless all further concepts defined in this specification may adopt the nature of Classifier or Instance presented here, and this is made according to: their definition, the purpose of the annotation, and the intended semantics. In many cases these concepts are represented in UML by a stereotype annotation on a concrete UML modeling element. When this is the case, the Classifier or Instance intrinsic nature of the UML annotated element may define the corresponding nature, semantics, or concrete variations of the MARTE concept that is intended to be represented with the annotation. As a consequence, explicit different semantics may be defined for each MARTE modeling concept whether it is annotated on an instance or on a classifier; the differentiation is then straightforward, since it is dependent directly on the fundamental nature of the corresponding UML element that is annotated.

By:

As stated before, this chapter does not define concrete extensions to UML offered as stereotypes to the user. Instead it collects a number of primitive modeling concepts to be use in the domain models of other chapters in this specification. Nevertheless, a certain impact on the representation of modeling elements is envisioned according to their classifier/instance dual nature.

The modeling elements defined in this specification may adopt the nature of Classifier or Instance presented here, or both. This quality of being may be of course specifically stated as part of their definition, but it may be also left to the user to be decided according to the purpose of the annotation, and the intended semantics.

In most of the cases the concepts defined in the domain view are proposed to be represented in UML by means of a stereotype extending a concrete UML modeling element. When this is the case, the Classifier or Instance intrinsic nature of the UML annotated element may lead to identify the corresponding nature, semantics, or concrete variations of the MARTE concept that is intended to be represented with the annotation. Hence, the explicit different semantics that may be defined for each MARTE modeling concept, when it is considered as an instance or as a classifier, may be inferred directly from the fundamental nature of the corresponding UML element that is annotated.

Disposition: Resolved