UTP11 — Restructuring of chapters

The structure of the specification is erroneous in a way, that is not clear why some parts, belonging to the same topic, have been extracted into an own subsection:

Issues with section 6.4 and 6.5:
Section 6.4 “MOF-based Metamodel” consists of the subsection 6.4.1 “Test Architecture and Behavior” solely. Except that using a single, numbered subsection is not a good style, the sibling section 6.5 “Test Data” must belong to section 6.4, henceforth referred as subsection 6.4.2 “Test Data”.
Additionally, the subsection 6.5.1 “Time Concepts” is rather a sibling subsection to 6.4.1 and 6.4.2, resulting in 6.4.3 “Time Concepts”, so that the logically more correct structure is like:
6.4 “MOF-based Metamodel”
-6.4.1 Test Architecture and Test Behavior
-6.4.2 Test Data
-6.4.3 Timer Concepts

Issues with section 6.6 and 6.7:
Section 6.6 “Examples” describes a comprehensive usage example of UTP. Since chapter 6 should be dedicated to the definition of the profile’s concepts solely, section 6.6 should be extracted either to a new chapter 7 or to the appendix (as it is often done in other MOF-related specifications).
Section 6.7 “Mapping” should remain as section 6.6, since it definitely belongs to the specification of the profile.

The RTF agreed on that the current outline of the specification is not ideal to read and to maintain. In order to improve both, a new structure for the UTP 1.1 specification was proposed, targeting

• the elimination of redundant sections
• a clear numbering of the sections so that they can be directly and precisely referred
• to shift any accompanying material in the specification from the normative sections into the non-normative sections (Annexes)
• the introduction of a common schema for the meta element descriptions, like it is done in UML, SysML or MARTE, which is used for each meta element