-
Key: UAF14-138
-
Status: open
-
Source: Eclectica Systems Ltd ( Nic Plum)
-
Summary:
7.2 Viewpoint Interrealtionships p 16
The errors in this section are:-
1) title - consistency 'Viewpoint' here is MODAF::Viewpoint NOT ISO42010::Architecture Viewpoint (or indeed the casual meaning of 'viewpoint'). None of this is clear. This is the UAF not the MoDAF - there is no need to use MODAF::Viewpoint and it's confuysing when the text uses 'viewpoint' to mean different things without defining terms. The section doesn't identify relationships between (MODAF) Viewpoints either.2) '...relationship between the Viewpoints, Aspects and View Specifications,' should be 'Architecture Perspectives, Aspects and Architecture Viewpoints'. There is no such thing as 'view specification' - if you mean the mechanism to specify an architecture view content etc the standard term is 'architecture viewpoint'.
'two-dimensional nature it is not adequate to explain the abstract interrelationships that exist between the viewpoints. The following diagram is an indication of the how the viewpoints are interrelated'
3) Figure 7:2 has no axis into the page - it has just as much '2-dimensional nature' (whatever this means) as the grid.
4) Figure 7:2 neither shows nor explains any relationships between 'MODAF::viewpoints' in the UAF. It describes a set of levels with no explanation or rationale in terms of the order. In any case this ordering seems to be more associated with an order of describing things i.e. process and therefore shouldn't be in the DMM at all. The DMM isn't a process document - it defines metamodel elements, the triples formed and is supposed then to define the which architecture views (via ISO 42010::architecture viewpoints) allow the triples to be shown. Why, for example, is 'Projects' at the bottom? Why is 'Standards' on its own on the right hand side?
5) '...the Viewpoint is a cross cutting concern' - is not true a (MODAF) Viewpoint is not a concern. No (MODAF) viewpoint is a concern. Do you mean than any element in the 'Architecture Management' (MODAF) Viewpoint may appear in any other 'viewpoint'? Probably not. I suspect it means that architecture views within the Architecture Management Perspective may be developed throughout the process of creating an AD. This isn't clear and it's not the correct document.
6) 'the Viewpoint exists in a layer of abstraction between the Viewpoints above and below it' - (MODAF) viewpoints are not abstractions of each other. At best you can say that the metamodel elements in a particular 'viewpoint' represent concepts that are more abstract than ... but it is incorrect to say that a Viewpoint has any abstraction - it hasn't.
The idea that this diagram describes any relationships is simply not true. The easiest solution is to delete section 7.2 - it isn't used anywhere within the DMM. All you need is 'the grid'.
-
Reported: UAF 1.2 — Mon, 22 Apr 2024 11:17 GMT
-
Updated: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 14:57 GMT
UAF14 — 7.2 Viewpoint Interraltionships - Incorrect Termininology, Doesn't Show Any Relationships. (MODAF) Viewpoints Do Not Have any Abstraction
- Key: UAF14-138
- OMG Task Force: Unified Architecture Framework (UAF) 1.4 RTF