Issue 13357: The Entity, Attribute and EntityRelationship stereotypes are in the wrong Package (updm-rfc-ftf) Source: PTC (Mr. Phillip Astle, nobody) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Significant Summary: The Entity, Attribute and EntityRelationship stereotypes are in the wrong Package. They should be scoped to the Core::TechnicalStandardsElements Package. OV-7 UPDM (OMG Beta) Jan 2009 8.1.1.1.4Fig 8.41 67 Phillip AstleArtisan Software Toolsphillip.astle@artisansoftwaretools.com It's inconsistent with MODAF/DoDAF and is misleading. We'll rescope the stereotypes. Resolution: We'll rescope the stereotypes. Revised Text: Move definition of 3 stereotypes from 8.1.1.1.4.2 UPDM L1::UPDM L0::Core::OperationalElements::Data to 8.1.1.1.8 UPDM L1::UPDM L0::Core::TechnicalStandardsElements Actions taken: January 29, 2009: received issue October 19, 2009: closed issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== s is issue # 13357 The Entity, Attribute and EntityRelationship stereotypes are in the wrong Package The Entity, Attribute and EntityRelationship stereotypes are in the wrong Package. They should be scoped to the Core::TechnicalStandardsElements Package. OV-7 UPDM (OMG Beta) Jan 2009 8.1.1.1.4Fig 8.41 67 Phillip AstleArtisan Software Toolsphillip.astle@artisansoftwaretools.com It's inconsistent with MODAF/DoDAF and is misleading. Subject: RE: UPDM Vote 2 Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 02:36:14 -0800 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: UPDM Vote 2 Thread-Index: AcmRNuB4ZjVcdTquRSSjqLPKK+JCiQAe0r+w From: "Pete Rivett" To: "Hause, Matthew" , Issue 13357: The resolution seems lacking, consisting only of the black text below: what does it mean to .move definition. as a .Before. action? And which .definition. (singular)? Does it mean the definitions of the three stereotypes mentioned in the Issue Summary? And only those three? As a general rule the resolution should not rely on the wording of the original issue unless it is explicitly referenced. And the Before and After style is not always useful except IMHO for replacing diagrams. Why not just say .Move definitions of the 3 stereotypes from 8.1.1.1.4.2 to 8.1.1.1.8. (fine to include the qualified names too)? Before: Move definition from 8.1.1.1.4.2 UPDM L1::UPDM L0::Core::OperationalElements::Data After: Move definition to 8.1.1.1.8 UPDM L1::UPDM L0::Core::TechnicalStandardsElements The .Duplicate. issues 13505 and 13506 should reference the duplicated issues by proper OMG issue numbers (I suggest in the Resolution field) not the UPDM code number (in a non-standard field).. Pete From: Hause, Matthew [mailto:matthew.hause@artisansoftwaretools.com] Sent: 17 February 2009 11:35 To: updm-rfc-ftf@omg.org; updmgroup@omg.org Cc: Juergen Boldt; FRANCIS THOM; kumsoft@gmail.com Subject: UPDM Vote 2 Colleagues, Enclosed please find the issues list and voting form for vote 2. The last two issues are marked as duplicate. What you are voting on is whether or not they are duplicates of the other issues already voted on. A yes vote means that you agree that the issue is a duplicate of the referenced issue. The due date for these votes is Friday February 28th. Let me know if you have any questions or comments. Matthew Hause Chief Consulting Engineer Suite 701, Eagle Tower, Montpellier Drive, Cheltenham, GL50 1TA, UK Tel: +44 (0)1242 229 321 Fax: +44 (0)1242 229 301 Mobile: +44 (0)7768 067 121 US Cell: +1 917 514 7581 Matthew.Hause@ArtisanSoftwareTools.com www.ArtisanSoftwareTools.com CONFIDENTIAL: The information in this message is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee(s). Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately contact the sender if you have received this message in error. Thank you. __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3862 (20090217) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com Subject: RE: UPDM Vote 2 Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 11:07:08 -0000 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: UPDM Vote 2 Thread-Index: AcmRNuB4ZjVcdTquRSSjqLPKK+JCiQAe0r+wAAGWK1A= From: "Hause, Matthew" To: "Pete Rivett" , Good point Pete. We will update the resolutions mentioned below and place the new file on the Wiki this afternoon. Paul and I struggled with the wording of the resolution and got it wrong. We will use your suggested formats for movement within the spec and for duplications in the future. From: Pete Rivett [mailto:pete.rivett@adaptive.com] Sent: 18 February 2009 10:36 To: Hause, Matthew; updm-rfc-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: UPDM Vote 2 Issue 13357: The resolution seems lacking, consisting only of the black text below: what does it mean to .move definition. as a .Before. action? And which .definition. (singular)? Does it mean the definitions of the three stereotypes mentioned in the Issue Summary? And only those three? As a general rule the resolution should not rely on the wording of the original issue unless it is explicitly referenced. And the Before and After style is not always useful except IMHO for replacing diagrams. Why not just say .Move definitions of the 3 stereotypes from 8.1.1.1.4.2 to 8.1.1.1.8. (fine to include the qualified names too)? Before: Move definition from 8.1.1.1.4.2 UPDM L1::UPDM L0::Core::OperationalElements::Data After: Move definition to 8.1.1.1.8 UPDM L1::UPDM L0::Core::TechnicalStandardsElements The .Duplicate. issues 13505 and 13506 should reference the duplicated issues by proper OMG issue numbers (I suggest in the Resolution field) not the UPDM code number (in a non-standard field).. Pete From: Hause, Matthew [mailto:matthew.hause@artisansoftwaretools.com] Sent: 17 February 2009 11:35 To: updm-rfc-ftf@omg.org; updmgroup@omg.org Cc: Juergen Boldt; FRANCIS THOM; kumsoft@gmail.com Subject: UPDM Vote 2 Colleagues, Enclosed please find the issues list and voting form for vote 2. The last two issues are marked as duplicate. What you are voting on is whether or not they are duplicates of the other issues already voted on. A yes vote means that you agree that the issue is a duplicate of the referenced issue. The due date for these votes is Friday February 28th. Let me know if you have any questions or comments. Matthew Hause Chief Consulting Engineer Suite 701, Eagle Tower, Montpellier Drive, Cheltenham, GL50 1TA, UK Tel: +44 (0)1242 229 321 Fax: +44 (0)1242 229 301 Mobile: +44 (0)7768 067 121 US Cell: +1 917 514 7581 Matthew.Hause@ArtisanSoftwareTools.com www.ArtisanSoftwareTools.com CONFIDENTIAL: The information in this message is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee(s). Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately contact the sender if you have received this message in error. Thank you. __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3862 (20090217) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com We'll rescope the stereotypes.