TEX 1.0 FTF Avatar
  1. OMG Issue

TEX — [AB comment] UML misuse

  • Key: TEX-1
  • Status: open  
  • Source: THALES ( Hugues Vincent)
  • Summary:

    1. Why the hand drawings for section 6? It should certainly possible to do this in a drawing tool or PPT.
    2. Figure 6.5
    I am not familiar with the notation of connection interfaces to interfaces to interfaces. I think that this needs some explanation.
    3. Diagram inconsistency:
    I am a little puzzled about the diagrams contained in the specification on two fronts: 1. The diagrams in sections 6.x and section 7 are stylistically different. I trust that this is intentional as one reflects "Additional Information" and the other is the actual model, but this is only an assumption. This is not a problem, but it seems odd and unnecessary. 2. The quality of the diagrams differs significantly. The diagrams in 7 are clear at significant magnification whereas the diagrams in 6.x are not. In the publication process, this should be rectified.
    4. Also, there is a use of color in the diagrams with no explanation as to what each color means.
    5. Figure 6.6
    What are the dashed boxes meant to represent? Not namespaces as stated in the text, but as they 6 packages are contained within the TACSIT package, what is the relationship with TCI and TEX?
    6. Figure 6.11 – The 'TEX and TCI' Use pattern
    What are the green and blue boxes under the TACSIT and other box? I am not familiar with this notation.
    7. 7 Data Payload Platform-Independent Model
    The word “gather” is used a few times in this section and other places. I think that “contain” would be better.

  • Reported: TEX 1.0b1 — Thu, 3 Jan 2019 12:59 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 14 May 2019 00:09 GMT
  • Attachments: