UPR — There should be a semantic conformance point

The conformance clause only requires syntactic conformance with application of the profile. Since the whole point of the profile is to support the semantics of a specific analysis framework, the current conformance requirement seems lacking. While it is reasonable to separate syntactic from semantic conformance into different conformance points, there should still be a clear semantic conformance point.

• Adding a semantic conformance point*

The current conformance clause lacks a semantic conformance point. The proposed new conformance clause is restructured to clearly indicate the two conformance points: which are (1) the previous syntax conformance point; and (2) the new conformance point that requires a conforming tool must able to extract the information modeled by the stereotypes according to the domain models provided in the specification.

The purpose of introducing the domain models is to present the semantic knowledge (to be modelled by using UPR stereotypes) and structure of the semantic knowledge being supported by the ROSETTA framework. These knowledge are essential to facilitate trade-offs and analyses methods supported by ROSETTA framework, for example, UT-B and UT-R as described in subclauses 6.2.4 and 6.2.5 respectively. As such, the normative force for an implementation of the semantics of the domain model is to model the semantic knowledge, such as Constraints and Sensitivities specifically as defined in the specification, in a structured way to allow agile extraction of the information. The information can then be used by analysis tools to perform trade-offs and analyses methods such as UT-R and UT-B. It is important to note that the actual analyses are not within the scope of the normative force of the domain models. The last sentence added in the new Semantic Conformance reflects the above normative force.