1. OMG Mailing List
  2. SACM 2.0 Finalization Task Force

Open Issues

  • Issues not resolved
  • Name: sacm2-ftf
  • Issues Count: 7

Issues Descriptions

The SACM 2.0 meta-model requires implementation of the Terminology Package in spite of the text of Chapter 2 on compliance points saying it is optional.


Inconsistent use of the word “Model” in describing the three compliance points

  • Key: SACM2-67
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MITRE ( Bob Martin)
  • Summary:

    Of the three compliance points, one is referred to with the word “Model” while the other two are not. All three should consistently use this word in describing the compliance points. Additionally, two times “model” is used instead of “Model”.

  • Reported: SACM 2.0b1 — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 19:00 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:57 GMT
  • Attachments:

There is no compliance point for those that support/use the Terminology Package specified in SACM 2.0’s metamodel.

  • Key: SACM2-73
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MITRE ( Bob Martin)
  • Summary:

    In making support for the Terminology Package optional a compliance point for those that want to support the Terminology Package was mistakenly left out.

  • Reported: SACM 2.0b1 — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 19:04 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:57 GMT
  • Attachments:

In the classes related to Citations, the terms Element and Asset are inconsistently used.

  • Key: SACM2-71
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MITRE ( Bob Martin)
  • Summary:

    The 31 uses of the class name “ArtefactElementCitation” and the 10 uses of the class name “ArgumentElementCitation” are inconsistent with the 20 uses of the class name “ArtefactAssetCitation” and 7 uses of the class name “ArgumentAssetCitation”.

  • Reported: SACM 2.0b1 — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 19:02 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:57 GMT

Model uses undefined ‘date’ type.

  • Key: SACM2-72
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MITRE ( Bob Martin)
  • Summary:

    Currently, the Artefact, and Activity classes use the type ‘date’ for some of their attributes, and the ‘date’ attribute is missing from the model and diagrams for ActivityEvent, despite appearing in the text of the specification.

  • Reported: SACM 2.0b1 — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 19:03 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:57 GMT
  • Attachments:

Section 2 doesn’t make it clear that AssuranceCase compliance point is mandatory.

  • Key: SACM2-70
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MITRE ( Bob Martin)
  • Summary:

    Section 2 doesn’t make it clear that AssuranceCase compliance point is mandatory. Also, some text in section 2.4 should be moved to precede all the compliance point descriptions.

  • Reported: SACM 2.0b1 — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 19:01 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:57 GMT
  • Attachments:

Incorrect description of the Argumentation compliance point.

  • Key: SACM2-69
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MITRE ( Bob Martin)
  • Summary:

    In the second paragraph of Section 2.1 there is currently the text, “The ‘ArtefactElementCitation’ class shall not be used.” This is incorrect. The ArtefactElementCitation class is still necessary for the use of Argumentation compliance point.

  • Reported: SACM 2.0b1 — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 19:01 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:57 GMT