Structured Metrics Metamodel Avatar
  1. OMG Specification

Structured Metrics Metamodel — Open Issues

  • Acronym: SMM
  • Issues Count: 9
  • Description: Issues not resolved
Open Closed All
Issues not resolved

Issues Descriptions

Inconsistency between specification and provided Meta Model

  • Key: SMM12-84
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15014
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Fraunhofer FOKUS ( Marcus Engelhardt)
  • Summary:

    Comparing the specification and the provided meta model, numerous inconsistencies between both appear. For example:
    • Naming differentials: Most of the meta classes with an underscore in their name mentioned in the specification document are named differently without the underscore.
    • Some association ends are missing in the provided model, e.g. categoryElement for the association between SMMCategory and Measure. (In our opinion, this association should be called measureElement to separate from the reflexive Association of the SMMCategory class having the same name.)
    • Numerous multiplicity values in the meta model differ from the specification. For example, the association between the SMMModell class and the SMMElement class has the upper bound value 1.
    • The subclasses of CollectiveMeasure (AdditiveMeasure and MaximumMeasure) mentioned in the specification do not occur in the meta model.

  • Reported: SMM 1.0b2 — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 1 Jan 2016 05:12 GMT

OCL expr. of BinaryMeasurement

  • Key: SMM12-82
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15012
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Fraunhofer FOKUS ( Marcus Engelhardt)
  • Summary:

    The OCL expression related to the BinaryMeasurement Class refers to the context RatioMeasurement instead of BinaryMeasurement.

  • Reported: SMM 1.0b2 — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 1 Jan 2016 05:12 GMT

operation attribute of DirectMeasure class

  • Key: SMM12-85
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15011
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Fraunhofer FOKUS ( Marcus Engelhardt)
  • Summary:

    The operation attribute is declared to be of type Operation while this type is not specified in the document. Moreover, e.g. in Figure 5, it is declared to be of type string.

  • Reported: SMM 1.0b2 — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 1 Jan 2016 05:12 GMT

Add support for Scale of Measurement


Measure audits

  • Key: SMM12-81
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15017
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Fraunhofer FOKUS ( Marcus Engelhardt)
  • Summary:

    In some cases, it is helpful to compose several measures to a single audit to run these measures at once without the necessity to select the individual measures manually prior to each computation. Although it would be possible to model such as relationship using a subclass of the MeasureRelationship class, we recommend to introduce a class Audit that simply has an association to the Measure class to model the membership of a measure to a specific audit.

  • Reported: SMM 1.0b2 — Mon, 1 Feb 2010 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 1 Jan 2016 05:12 GMT

SMM confuses "To" and "From"

  • Key: SMM12-78
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19607
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Micro Focus ( Larry Hines)
  • Summary:

    SMM confuses "To" and "From". There are two points of inconvenience (or even confusion ?) related to measure(ment) relationship: 1) Consider RescaledMeasure(ment) ("RSC") on one hand and BinaryMeasure(ment) ("BIN"), CollectiveMeasure(ment) ("COL"), RankingMeasure(ment) ("RNK") and GradeMeasure(ment) ("GRD") on the other hand. They all aggregate "from" a DimensionalMeasure(ment) ("DIM"). However, RSC looks to DIM as "from", whereas BIN, COL, RNK and GRD all look at DIM as "to". Isn't that confusing ? Is it inconsistent ? Or is there a good reason for it ? 2) When I think of aggregating from DIM (regardless of whether I do that by rescaling, or binary functor or accumulation or grading or ranking), I always think of aggregating "from" a DIM and "to" an aggregated one (RSC, BIN, COL, RNK, GRD). The “from” association of all SmmRelationship is defined as the origin element and the “to” association is defined as the target element which implies that the associations between BIN, COL, RNK and GRD to DIM are backwards. The “from” should in each case be the DIM measure(ment)s and the “to” should be the aggregating measure(ment)s.

  • Reported: SMM 1.0 — Thu, 18 Sep 2014 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 1 Jan 2016 05:12 GMT

Add a non-normative Clause to the SMM specification which demonstrates an SMM Library of basic Unit conversions

  • Key: SMM12-77
  • Legacy Issue Number: 19453
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Micro Focus ( Larry Hines)
  • Summary:

    Add a non-normative clause to the SMM document which demonstrates a SMM library of basic unit conversions including currency conversion.

  • Reported: SMM 1.0 — Thu, 5 Jun 2014 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 1 Jan 2016 05:12 GMT

Modeling names of model elements

  • Key: SMM12-79
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15015
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Fraunhofer FOKUS ( Marcus Engelhardt)
  • Summary:

    The chosen way of modeling names for model elements is not done straightforward and hampers the practical usage of the meta model. The SMM meta model contains several classes having an attribute called name. Moreover, all meta classes are derived from the abstract meta class SMM_Element, which should possess such an attribute according to the specification. Hence, this attribute can be considered of being modeled redundantly.
    Regarding the provided EMOF model, the SMM_Element does not have any attribute so that the specified attributes name, short_description and description are missing.

    According to best practices, we recommend to introduce a new class called SMM_NamedElement as a subclass of SMM_Element and as the base class of all meta classes having a name attribute. This facilitates to determine the name of a model element.

  • Reported: SMM 1.0b2 — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 1 Jan 2016 05:12 GMT

Threshold values for dimensional measures

  • Key: SMM12-80
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15016
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Fraunhofer FOKUS ( Marcus Engelhardt)
  • Summary:

    It is not stated clear how to assign threshold values to dimensional measures. On page 9 of the specification document, it is mentioned that a measure has a range which can be interpreted as “the set of possible measurement results”. However, there is no corresponding attribute mentioned in the specification or meta model.

    We suggest to add two attributes lowerThreshold and upperThreshold to the DimensionalMeasure meta class to model a measure’s range.

  • Reported: SMM 1.0b2 — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 1 Jan 2016 05:12 GMT