1. OMG Mailing List
  2. VDML 1.1 Revision Task Force

Open Issues

  • Issues not resolved
  • Name: vdml-rtf
  • Issues Count: 21

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
VDML11-34 The "other" multiplicity end of association to Characteristic is not shown VDML 1.0 open
VDML11-33 Consider removing "OutputPort" from caption of Fig. 8.20 VDML 1.0 open
VDML11-32 Consider removing the sentence "This diagram begins to show integration with SMM..." VDML 1.0 open
VDML11-31 Element (CMOF) - consistency between SMM 1.1 and VDML 1.0. VDML 1.0 open
VDML11-30 Consider defining the class Performer VDML 1.0 open
VDML11-29 Problematic constraint on Role, Participant and Collaboration VDML 1.0 open
VDML11-28 Missing constraint on Capability Offer applied by Activity VDML 1.0 open
VDML11-27 Redundant constraints of Activity, Role and Collaboration VDML 1.0 open
VDML11-26 A Collaboration may contain any number of Activities. VDML 1.0 open
VDML11-25 There is no VDML Characteristic VDML 1.0 open
VDML11-23 Explanation of impact of model integrating on Scenarios is not clear enough VDML 1.0 open
VDML11-21 VDML spec overpromises on modeling of the actual transformation work VDML 1.0 open
VDML11-19 Confusing statement on Scenarios and context trees VDML 1.0 open
VDML11-17 Incomplete statement on the use of resources VDML 1.0 open
VDML11-15 Imprecise statement about Activity Value contributions VDML 1.0 open
VDML11-13 Unclear statements on Business Items and Deliverable Flows VDML 1.0 open
VDML11-10 Normative reference to CMMN is missing VDML 1.0 open
VDML11-8 Sentence about Capability is unclear, redundant and also in a wrong place VDML 1.0 open
VDML11-6 Statement about net economic value is unclear VDML 1.0 open
VDML11-4 Clause 8 not mentioned VDML 1.0 open
VDML11-2 Add VDML logo VDML 1.0 open

Issues Descriptions

The "other" multiplicity end of association to Characteristic is not shown

  • Key: VDML11-34
  • Status: open  
  • Source: DXC Technology ( Pavel Hruby)
  • Summary:

    In sub-clause 7.2.5.1 (BusinessItemLibrary), in Figure 7.23, page 68, the multiplicity on end of BusinessItemLibraryElement (of association to Characteristic) is not shown. It should be shown as (0..*). The same problem also occurs in the following three places:
    1) In sub-clause 7.2.5.2 (ValueLibrary), in Figure 7.24, page 70, the multiplicity on end of ValueDefinition (of association to Characteristic) is not shown. It should be shown as (0..*).
    2) In sub-clause 7.2.5.3 (CapabilityLibrary), in Figure 7.25, page 73, the multiplicity on end of Capability (of association to Characteristic) is not shown. It should be shown as (0..*).
    3) In sub-clause 7.2.5.5 (RoleLibrary), in Figure 7.27, page 79, the multiplicity on end of RoleDefinition (of association to Characteristic) is not shown. It should be shown as (0..*).

  • Reported: VDML 1.0 — Thu, 16 Nov 2017 20:29 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 21:00 GMT

Consider removing "OutputPort" from caption of Fig. 8.20

  • Key: VDML11-33
  • Status: open  
  • Source: DXC Technology ( Pavel Hruby)
  • Summary:

    Sub-clause 8.4 (Activity Network), in the caption of Figure 8.20, page 90, says “Shape of OutputPort, with ValueAdd, on boundary of Activity OutputPort”. It does not seem correct. The word ”OutputPort” at the end should be removed.

  • Reported: VDML 1.0 — Thu, 16 Nov 2017 20:21 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 21:00 GMT

Consider removing the sentence "This diagram begins to show integration with SMM..."

  • Key: VDML11-32
  • Status: open  
  • Source: DXC Technology ( Pavel Hruby)
  • Summary:

    Sub-clause 7.2.4.1, right above Figure 19, on page 59, says: "This diagram begins to show integration with SMM, discussed later.". But already in an earlier sub-clause, about Analysis Context and Scenario, integration with SMM was specified (to Observation). So it is not true that "this diagram (i.e., Figure 19) begins to show integration with SMM". Removing the sentence would be the easiest way to fix this.

  • Reported: VDML 1.0 — Thu, 16 Nov 2017 20:17 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 21:00 GMT

Element (CMOF) - consistency between SMM 1.1 and VDML 1.0.

  • Key: VDML11-31
  • Status: open  
  • Source: DXC Technology ( Pavel Hruby)
  • Summary:

    VDML 1.0 integrates with SMM 1.1. In the SMM specification, in Figure 71, it is demonstrated that Element (CMOF) does not own measurement (the opposite association end, but rather the association owns it. However, when the same association is shown in the VDML 1.0 specification, in Figure 7.19, on page 59 of sub-clause 7.2.4.1, it shows with the measurement owned by Element (CMOF). This does not seem correct. The same problem is there in Figure 7.29, on page 82, in sub-clause 7.2.6.2.

  • Reported: VDML 1.0 — Thu, 16 Nov 2017 20:14 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 20:59 GMT

Consider defining the class Performer

  • Key: VDML11-30
  • Status: open  
  • Source: DXC Technology ( Pavel Hruby)
  • Summary:

    Figure 7.16, in sub-clause 7.2.2.4 (Capability Methods), page 51, shows the class “Performer”, but it appears that it is never defined. Consider adding its Class definition to the VDML specification.

  • Reported: VDML 1.0 — Thu, 16 Nov 2017 20:08 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 20:59 GMT

Problematic constraint on Role, Participant and Collaboration

  • Key: VDML11-29
  • Status: open  
  • Source: DXC Technology ( Pavel Hruby)
  • Summary:

    Sub-clause 7.2.1.2.3 (Assignment Class), page 36, has a constraint that says, page 37: “A Role MUST NOT be assigned to more than one Participant that is a Collaboration, unless the additional Assignments are context-based, i.e., contained by DelegationContext”. This constraint has several problems. It ignores the fact that participations can be indirect, through a chain of assignments (“roles of roles”). It also ignores the fact that context-based assignments are not only possible with delegation contexts (i.e., children in the context tree), but also with scenarios (the top of context tree). Furthermore, this constraint was written with Position roles in mind, but leaves too much room for invalid situations for other types of roles.

  • Reported: VDML 1.0 — Thu, 16 Nov 2017 20:01 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 20:58 GMT

Missing constraint on Capability Offer applied by Activity

  • Key: VDML11-28
  • Status: open  
  • Source: DXC Technology ( Pavel Hruby)
  • Summary:

    There must be consistency between the Capability Method to which an Activity delegates (in a particular Delegation Context) and the Capability Offer that is applied by the Activity. A constraint, to enforce this consistency, is missing in the specification. It should be added.

  • Reported: VDML 1.0 — Thu, 16 Nov 2017 19:54 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 20:58 GMT

Redundant constraints of Activity, Role and Collaboration

  • Key: VDML11-27
  • Status: open  
  • Source: DXC Technology ( Pavel Hruby)
  • Summary:

    Constraint “Activities that are performed by a Role MUST be contained in the same Collaboration that also contains the Role.” in Constraints of sub-clause 7.2.1.1.5 (Role Class), on page 31, is redundant with constraint “The Role that performs an Activity MUST be contained in the Collaboration that also contains the Activity.” in Constraints of sub-clause 7.2.1.2.1 (Activity Class), on page 34

  • Reported: VDML 1.0 — Thu, 16 Nov 2017 19:48 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 20:58 GMT

A Collaboration may contain any number of Activities.

  • Key: VDML11-26
  • Status: open  
  • Source: DXC Technology ( Pavel Hruby)
  • Summary:

    Sub-clause 7.1.13 (Scenarios and Contexts), page 23, says: “When the Activity of a Collaboration delegates to another Collaboration in order to engage a shared Capability, that particular use of the sub-Collaboration may be one of many.” It is confusing to talk about “the” Activity of a Collaboration. A Collaboration may contain any number of Activities.

  • Reported: VDML 1.0 — Thu, 16 Nov 2017 19:46 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 20:57 GMT

There is no VDML Characteristic

  • Key: VDML11-25
  • Status: open  
  • Source: DXC Technology ( Pavel Hruby)
  • Summary:

    Sub-clause 7.1.12 (Measures), page 22, says: “A Measure is applied to a Characteristic, such as weight of a part, to determine a Measurement that expresses the value of the Characteristic for a particular VDML model element.” And a bit further, on the same page: “VDML Characteristics reflect statistical Measurements per unit of production.”. In the light of Figure 7, this does not seem correct. Because VDML has MeasuredCharacterstic, referring to Characteristic in SMM. Strictly spoken there is no "VDML Characteristic".

  • Reported: VDML 1.0 — Thu, 16 Nov 2017 19:43 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 20:56 GMT

Explanation of impact of model integrating on Scenarios is not clear enough

  • Key: VDML11-23
  • Status: open  
  • Source: VDMbee ( Henk de Man)
  • Summary:

    Point 3 in sub-clause 7.1.15 (Model Integration), and the last paragraph of that sub-clause, both on page 27, contain incorrect and confusing statements. It talks about "direct and indirect delegations" and "non-delegation inputs and outputs". In the context of the meta-model, it is unclear what these mean. It also says: "A branch of a delegation tree in one Scenario may then be assigned as a delegation from an Activity in the other Scenario.” The word “assigned” is mis-used here, as, in the VDML specification this term is reserved for assignment of a role. It is also unclear, with the actual meta-model in mind, what the sentence actually means.

  • Reported: VDML 1.0 — Wed, 15 Nov 2017 16:40 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 16:40 GMT

VDML spec overpromises on modeling of the actual transformation work

  • Key: VDML11-21
  • Status: open  
  • Source: VDMbee ( Henk de Man)
  • Summary:

    The second and third paragraph of sub-clause 7.1.14 (Staff Collaborations), on page 26, are suggesting that VDML can be used to model transformation work, involved in transformation of the business that is also modeled. This is bit misleading and tends to overpromise.

  • Reported: VDML 1.0 — Wed, 15 Nov 2017 16:22 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 16:22 GMT

Confusing statement on Scenarios and context trees

  • Key: VDML11-19
  • Status: open  
  • Source: VDMbee ( Henk de Man)
  • Summary:

    In sub-clause 7.1.13 (Scenarios and Contexts), page 25, right above Figure 7.5, it says: "Since Assignments can also be context dependent, the delegations of one Scenario can differ from those of another Scenario thus forming a different tree." But the phrase "Since Assignments can also be context dependent" is irrelevant here, because: delegations of one Scenario (i.e., sub-Collaborations in DelegationContext nodes in the Scenario tree) can be different from those of another Scenario anyway.

  • Reported: VDML 1.0 — Tue, 14 Nov 2017 16:48 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 16:48 GMT

Incomplete statement on the use of resources

  • Key: VDML11-17
  • Status: open  
  • Source: VDMbee ( Henk de Man)
  • Summary:

    In sub-clause 7.1.11 (Resources and Stores), page 22, it says: “The cumulative duration of these uses will determine the consumption of available resource time. This, along with the rate of production, will determine if the Pool of resources will always have resources available or will introduce some additional wait-time for assignment of a resource.”. This only talks about assigning a resource. But before it can be assigned, one may need to wait till it gets released. Can this be worked into the sentence, to make it better reflecting that also.

  • Reported: VDML 1.0 — Tue, 14 Nov 2017 16:34 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 16:34 GMT

Imprecise statement about Activity Value contributions

  • Key: VDML11-15
  • Status: open  
  • Source: VDMbee ( Henk de Man)
  • Summary:

    In sub-clause 7.1.9 (Activity), page 22, it says: "Conversely, all values can be traced back to their contributors. This is possible, because VDML is not representing the actual paths of each unit of production, but rather the statistical use of various Activities that contribute to results achieved over some period of time. That representative set of results includes some Activities that are only active for some units of production due to product features, operating exceptions, defects, repairs, sample testing, machine failures, and so on." The word "includes" (see above in bold) sounds strange to me. Because Activities are not included in a set of results. Is maybe a different verb meant or was it meant to say something different ?

  • Reported: VDML 1.0 — Tue, 14 Nov 2017 16:21 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 16:21 GMT

Unclear statements on Business Items and Deliverable Flows

  • Key: VDML11-13
  • Status: open  
  • Source: VDMbee ( Henk de Man)
  • Summary:

    In sub-clause 7.1.9 (Activity), page 20, it says: "A BusinessItem (...) may flow through a delegation to a sub-Collaboration, or be the input or output of a Collaboration." How is the following meant: "be the input or output of a Collaboration" ? Is that only saying in other words what is said with "may flow through a delegation to a sub-Collaboration"? Similar doubt regarding the immediate next sentence: "Flow of BusinessItems into and out of Activities as well as Collaborations is depicted by DeliverableFlows." The phrase of "as well as Collaborations" is a bit arguable. As known, DeliverableFlows do not connect Ports of Collaborations directly.

  • Reported: VDML 1.0 — Tue, 14 Nov 2017 15:56 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 15:56 GMT

Normative reference to CMMN is missing

  • Key: VDML11-10
  • Status: open  
  • Source: VDMbee ( Henk de Man)
  • Summary:

    In sub-clause 7.1.8 (Capability Method) the specification talks about CMMN, but it is not listed as reference.
    More-over, BPMN is included as reference twice.

  • Reported: VDML 1.0 — Fri, 14 Oct 2016 13:46 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 00:12 GMT

Sentence about Capability is unclear, redundant and also in a wrong place

  • Key: VDML11-8
  • Status: open  
  • Source: VDMbee ( Henk de Man)
  • Summary:

    Sub-clause 7.1.7 (Organization Unit) says "A Capability may produce value directly for a customer or it may contribute value when it is engaged in a specific Activity of a value stream.".
    It is unclear what the first half of the sentence means. The second part of the sentence talks about concepts that will be dealt with, and will be dealt with more clearly, in later sub-clauses, and are referred to too early here therefore.

  • Reported: VDML 1.0 — Fri, 14 Oct 2016 12:08 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 00:12 GMT

Statement about net economic value is unclear

  • Key: VDML11-6
  • Status: open  
  • Source: VDMbee ( Henk de Man)
  • Summary:

    Sub-clause 7.1.6 (Business Networks) talks about the net economic value for a party, and how it can be modeled. This statement is a bit fuzzy and is influenced by some elements in the VDML beta1 meta-model around Value Propositions and Business Networks, that got changed in VDML 1.0.

  • Reported: VDML 1.0 — Fri, 14 Oct 2016 09:49 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 00:12 GMT

Clause 8 not mentioned

  • Key: VDML11-4
  • Status: open  
  • Source: VDMbee ( Henk de Man)
  • Summary:

    Clause 8 (Notation) is not mentioned in sub-clause 6.3 (Guide to the Specification).

  • Reported: VDML 1.0 — Fri, 14 Oct 2016 08:39 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 00:12 GMT

Add VDML logo

  • Key: VDML11-2
  • Status: open  
  • Source: VDMbee ( Henk de Man)
  • Summary:

    Add VDML logo to the VDML specification

  • Reported: VDML 1.0 — Fri, 14 Oct 2016 08:18 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 00:12 GMT
  • Attachments: