1. OMG Mailing List
  2. Risk Analysis Modeling Language (RAML) 1.0 FTF mailing list

Open Issues

  • Issues not resolved
  • Name: raaml-ftf
  • Issues Count: 48

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
RAAML-102 Majority Vote Gate calculation error RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-97 Text in spec specifies only one cause is allowed where the model allows many RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-92 File FMEALib.xmi is not working RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-93 INHIBITConstraintBlock Javascript the same as for the ANDConstraintBlock RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-95 UnsafeControlAction should inherit from Situation Stereotype RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-49 Use of GSN without reference to SACM RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-56 Scope of GSN covered by RAAML RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-99 Use Action Priority Number instead of Risk Priority Number for the FMEA analysis RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-52 correct attribution of the GSN standard and derived material RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-57 Inconsistent/incompatible term for element RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-54 misleading/ambiguous term of abstract stereotype RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-55 Inappropriate notes in figure RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-98 Explanation of what previousRPNValues attribute means RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-25 Need identifiers (IDs) for all <> Elements RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-51 correct referencing of the GSN standard RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-29 Add property metatype to FTA profile Event and Gate Stereotypes RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-36 GSN concrete syntax definitions RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-43 FMEA described is suitable for Functional FMEA only RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-42 Inappropriate location of 'Undeveloped' in general section RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-28 Add STPA LossScenario stereotype RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-19 Descriptions Says SysML IBD Instead of BDD RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-9 STPA Inadequate Process Model Situations Have Spaces in Their Names RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-40 use of the term 'probability' RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-1 Gate.sourceEvent type needs to be widened to FTAElement RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-8 Diagram name has no spaces, but package name does RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-7 Spelling: Encompassing RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-6 The diagram name has no space between ISO and 26262, but the package name does. RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-4 S&R is Safety & Reliability? Should this be updated? RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-5 RAAML instead of S&R? RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-45 misleading diagram for Inhibit gate RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-32 Tool to Tool exchange of safety and reliability aspects of a system RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-33 RAAML UML library use and functionality RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-53 Choice of allocation of GSN fields to UML attributes RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-50 UML profile cf. Metamodel RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-46 Simplistic treatment of probability RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-44 Lack of consideration of Cut Sets RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-39 Clarity of concept of 'Event' RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-41 Relationship between Fault and Error RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-34 The treatment of GSN in RAAML RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-37 The ISO 26262 ASIL Definition RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-38 The ISO 26262 ASIL Decomposition RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-35 Concrete syntax definitions RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-30 Support for Risk Matrices RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-31 Issue/task tracking RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-10 Elements Should Have Unique Names to Improve Clarity and Implementation RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-11 Inability to import xmi profiles into Rhapsody RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-2 Why repeat AnySituation here from Figure 9.122? RAAML 1.0b1 open
RAAML-3 There is a lot on the diagram, why was everything merged? RAAML 1.0b1 open

Issues Descriptions

Majority Vote Gate calculation error

  • Key: RAAML-102
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Ford Motor Company ( Kyle Post)
  • Summary:

    The FTA Majority Vote Gate does not calculate as expected which was identified from usage of the imported FTA .xmi.

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Oct 2021 13:44 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 13:56 GMT

Text in spec specifies only one cause is allowed where the model allows many

  • Key: RAAML-97
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Andrius Armonas)
  • Summary:

    The spec has an inconsistency in it - the text says there is one (a) cause - but the graphic shows 1..*. Text:

    "An AbstractFMEAItem is a scenario (more specifically - AbstractRisk scenario) composed of a failure mode, a cause and
    (potentially multiple) effect(s). It stores assessed and mitigated risk priority numbers."

    Figure: 9.32

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Thu, 30 Sep 2021 13:02 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 16:59 GMT
  • Attachments:

File FMEALib.xmi is not working

  • Key: RAAML-92
  • Status: open   Implementation work Blocked
  • Source: CCASS Hochschule Darmstadt ( Nick Berezowski)
  • Summary:

    For some reasons, the Library of the FMEA Profile is not working. It's not possible to open it with and XMI-Viewer, with Magic Draw or any other tool.
    You can prove it with opening the file in the explorer.

    I try to implement the RAAML-Profiles in Papyrus, and it would be great if I can use this file, too.

    Best Regards

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Fri, 23 Jul 2021 09:25 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 16:59 GMT

INHIBITConstraintBlock Javascript the same as for the ANDConstraintBlock

  • Key: RAAML-93
  • Status: open   Implementation work Blocked
  • Source: KARL STORZ SE & Co. KG ( Marting Bohring)
  • Summary:

    It looks like a copy & paste error me.
    The Javascript used for the inihibit gate constraint block is the same as the Jvascript used for the AND constraint block.

    The control value input is not even used in the Javascript which triggered me to look more closely

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Mon, 9 Aug 2021 06:41 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 16:59 GMT

UnsafeControlAction should inherit from Situation Stereotype

  • Key: RAAML-95
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Ford Motor Company ( Kyle Post)
  • Summary:

    UnsafeControlAction should inherit from Situation Stereotype. It is currently inheriting from the FailureMode stereotype.

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Mon, 27 Sep 2021 16:48 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 16:59 GMT

Use of GSN without reference to SACM

  • Key: RAAML-49
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Juergen Boldt)
  • Summary:

    Use of GSN without reference to SACM
    Issue Description: We believe that it would be appropriate for an OMG standard to be referencing the definitive work on assurance modeling language published by OMG, and therefore suggest that SACM should be included.

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Tue, 11 May 2021 18:26 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 16:25 GMT

Scope of GSN covered by RAAML

  • Key: RAAML-56
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Juergen Boldt)
  • Summary:

    It is noted that the GSN profile only addresses the core GSN notation (e.g. it does not address patter or modular extensions). A note to this effect in 9.6.1 would be worthwhile for clarity

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Tue, 11 May 2021 18:39 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 16:21 GMT

Use Action Priority Number instead of Risk Priority Number for the FMEA analysis

  • Key: RAAML-99
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Method Park ( Hendrik Dahmke)
  • Summary:

    The Automotive Industry Action Group and the "Verband der deutschen Automobilindustrie" published a FMEA handbook in 2019 where they discourage the use of the Risk Priority Number (RPN) and instead suggest the use of an Action Priority to determine order and importance of identified failure modes and their effects.

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Tue, 28 Sep 2021 05:54 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 16:16 GMT

correct attribution of the GSN standard and derived material

  • Key: RAAML-52
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Juergen Boldt)
  • Summary:

    The GSN standard is made available under creative commons licence version 4. This allows free use but requires appropriate attribution, which could be accommodated in the reference in section 3.3, or in section 4.
    “GSN Standard V2 License: This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
    To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042, USA.
    You are free to share the material in any form and adapt the material for any purpose providing you attribute the material to the SCSC ACWG, include the license details above and indicate if any changes were made. See the license for full details.”

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Tue, 11 May 2021 18:29 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 16:04 GMT

Inconsistent/incompatible term for element

  • Key: RAAML-57
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Juergen Boldt)
  • Summary:

    ContextStatement has been used as an element name which is an odd choice given that the GSN standard uses <context statement> as the term for the <element statement> of a GSN context element. ‘Context’ would be more consistent with the selection of terms for other GSN elements

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Tue, 11 May 2021 18:40 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 16:34 GMT

misleading/ambiguous term of abstract stereotype

  • Key: RAAML-54
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Juergen Boldt)
  • Summary:

    An abstract stereotype ‘SupportingInformation’ is used to cover ContextStatement, Assumption and Justification. This is an odd choice since these 3 elements cannot be connected to the argument by the ‘SupportedBy’ relationship. This is therefore confusing and potentially misleading. Perhaps ‘ContextualInformation’ would be a better phrase (the GSN standard refers to Context, Assumption and Justification elements collectively as ‘contextual elements’

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Tue, 11 May 2021 18:31 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 16:33 GMT

Inappropriate notes in figure

  • Key: RAAML-55
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Juergen Boldt)
  • Summary:

    In figure 10.12 there is a note against ‘solution’ that states a solution could also be some artefact of the system. The GSN standard is clear that a solution presents a reference to evidence. It is not understood how this can be an artefact of the system. Similarly a statement in the note attached to ‘contexturalStatement’ states that context can be either context statement or some artifact of the system; this distorts the definition in the GSN standard which states that the <context statement> can be either an a reference to contextual information, or a statement. This implies that there is not a direct relationship between the modelling in RAAML and the GSN standard.

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Tue, 11 May 2021 18:32 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 16:08 GMT

Explanation of what previousRPNValues attribute means

  • Key: RAAML-98
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Andrius Armonas)
  • Summary:

    There should be an explanation of what the previousRPNValues attribute means.

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Thu, 30 Sep 2021 13:06 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 30 Sep 2021 13:06 GMT
  • Attachments:

Need identifiers (IDs) for all <> Elements

  • Key: RAAML-25
  • Status: open   Implementation work Blocked
  • Source: Ford Motor Company ( Kyle Post)
  • Summary:

    The current specification only provides an ID property for GSN elements. Hazard Analysis methods typically use the element names or unique identifiers and not having an explicit property in the specification will lead to inconsistencies across tools. The proposal is to add an ID property to the core <<Situation>> which would be inherited by all the RAAML method elements.

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Fri, 26 Mar 2021 13:45 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 30 Sep 2021 12:58 GMT

correct referencing of the GSN standard

  • Key: RAAML-51
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Juergen Boldt)
  • Summary:

    Section 3.3 cites www.goalstructuringnotation.info as the source of the GSN specification. In fact this location has not been the formal source of the GSN standard since Version 1 was superseded in January 2018. The formal source for version 2 is https://scsc.uk/scsc-141B. It should also be noted that this will be replaced by version 3 imminently (due to be released on 3rd May 2021, and available at https://scsc.uk/scsc-141C). A new information site for GSN is available at https://scsc.uk/gsn and the goalstructuringnotation.info domain will be remapped shortly to point to this new location

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Tue, 11 May 2021 18:28 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 29 Sep 2021 15:13 GMT

Add property metatype to FTA profile Event and Gate Stereotypes

  • Key: RAAML-29
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Ford Motor Company ( Kyle Post)
  • Summary:

    There is a user need to model FTA's in the IBD view directly, which may be covered by tool vendor implementation, but in addition there is the need to take elements from other analyses and tie them to elements in the FTA directly. RAAML allows this but the icons are lost from the initial FTA element when they are typed by other elements (for example: Failure Mode). This has been demonstrated in the FTA and FMEA cross analysis use case where FTA IBD elements are typed by FMEA elements.

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Thu, 15 Apr 2021 15:08 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 29 Sep 2021 15:10 GMT

GSN concrete syntax definitions

  • Key: RAAML-36
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MITRE ( Bob Martin)
  • Summary:

    In Figures 9.104 and 9.105 the RAAML specification makes suggestions on the concrete syntax (in this case the graphical notation) of GSN elements in which the metamodels (sets of abstract syntax) are defined. Defining concrete syntax for GSN elements would seem to be out of the scope, where SACM and GSN itself should be leveraged for these definitions rather than defining them in RAAML.

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Thu, 29 Apr 2021 21:41 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 29 Sep 2021 15:01 GMT

FMEA described is suitable for Functional FMEA only

  • Key: RAAML-43
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Engineer for Safety Limited ( Phil Williams)
  • Summary:

    The failure modes covered by this section are exclusively Functional failure modes, they are one of a number of taxonomies of functional failure and would not be suitable for component level FMEA, or FMEA integration to higher level items.
    This should be acknowledged in the introduction to this section.

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Fri, 30 Apr 2021 10:33 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 17:52 GMT

Inappropriate location of 'Undeveloped' in general section

  • Key: RAAML-42
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Engineer for Safety Limited ( Phil Williams)
  • Summary:

    'Undeveloped' seems to be defined for the exclusive use with the GSN profile, so it seems more appropriate to define it in 9.6.1.
    There are also some typographical corrections that should be considered ...express the fact that the goal or strategy is not fully developer... should be replaced with ...express the fact that support for the goal or strategy is not fully developed...

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Fri, 30 Apr 2021 10:30 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 17:41 GMT

Add STPA LossScenario stereotype

  • Key: RAAML-28
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Ford Motor Company ( Kyle Post)
  • Summary:

    Currently the LossScenario is only defined in the STPA library and does not include a defining stereotype. The LossScenario is similar in purpose to the FMEAItem where it is typically the focus of a line item in an analysis table. The proposal is to add a LossScenario stereotype to the STPA Profile to be consistent with the FMEA and give a handle for table generation.

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Thu, 15 Apr 2021 14:54 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 17:35 GMT

Descriptions Says SysML IBD Instead of BDD

  • Key: RAAML-19
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Gaphor Project ( Dan Yeaw)
  • Summary:

    There are 5 instances in the informative description that says the Functional Safety can be represented in a SysML IBD, but the diagrams are SysML BDDs.

    • Page 24: The conditions library can either be specified using a SysML IBD diagram (Figure 2.23)
    • Page 26: They can be represented using SysML IBD diagrams (see Figure 2.25)
    • Page 27: They can be represented using SysML IBD diagrams (see Figure 2.27 – Accident scenario in a SysML BDD diagram)
    • Page 28: Effects and hazards are either represented using SysML IBD diagrams (see Figure 2.29)
    • Page 30: HazardousEvents are specified either in SysML IBD diagrams (see Figure 2.32)

    I recommend changing the text to SysML BDD.

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Sun, 21 Mar 2021 17:57 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 17:20 GMT

STPA Inadequate Process Model Situations Have Spaces in Their Names

  • Key: RAAML-9
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Gaphor Project ( Dan Yeaw)
  • Summary:

    The following Process Model situations have spaces in their names:
    Inadequate Controller Decisions
    Inadequate Control Execution
    Inadequate Process Behavior
    Inadequate Feedback and Inputs

    They should be in upper camel case / Pascal case for consistency with the other elements in the specification.

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Sun, 28 Feb 2021 17:10 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 16:16 GMT

use of the term 'probability'

  • Key: RAAML-40
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Engineer for Safety Limited ( Phil Williams)
  • Summary:

    AbstractEvent uses the attribute 'probability' as a placeholder. The term 'probability' will intuitively be associated with a number between 0 and 1. ISO/IEC guide 73 uses the term 'likelihood' with the following note:
    "NOTE 2 The English term “likelihood” does not have a direct equivalent in some languages; instead, the equivalent of the term “probability” is often used. However, in English, “probability” is often narrowly interpreted as a mathematical term. Therefore, in risk management terminology, “likelihood” is used with the intent that it should have the same broad interpretation as the term “probability” has in many languages other than English"
    Given the abstract definition of AbstractEvent, and the attribute statement that method developers can derive more specialized ways to characterize probability, it may be helpful to use the subtlety of the difference in terms here to allow more clarity between the concept (likelihood) and its utilization (probability)

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Fri, 30 Apr 2021 10:23 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 15:50 GMT

Gate.sourceEvent type needs to be widened to FTAElement

  • Key: RAAML-1
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Dassault Systemes ( Tomas Juknevicius)
  • Summary:

    At the moment it is not possible to connect the transfer in to a gate with a connector properly-typed-by-association, because
    TransferIn type is FTATree, not the Event
    and gate source association currently connects Gate and Event;

    To address this, Gate.sourceEvent type needs to be widened to FTAElement (which allows both Event and FTATree)

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Wed, 17 Feb 2021 13:55 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 15:04 GMT
  • Attachments:

Diagram name has no spaces, but package name does

  • Key: RAAML-8
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Ford Motor Company ( Kyle Post)
  • Summary:

    Comment from Gaphor UML/SysML implementation reported by Dan Yeaw. Editorial comment: The figure name does not have a space after ISO. The following "Figure 10.16 - ISO26262 Profile" should be changed to "Figure 10.16 - ISO 26262 Profile".

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Thu, 25 Feb 2021 13:11 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 14:33 GMT

Spelling: Encompassing

  • Key: RAAML-7
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Ford Motor Company ( Kyle Post)
  • Summary:

    Comment from Gaphor UML/SysML implementation reported by Dan Yeaw. Editorial comment: Misspelled encompassing in figure title "Figure 10.14 - All-Encompasing Operational Situations"

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Thu, 25 Feb 2021 13:09 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 14:31 GMT

The diagram name has no space between ISO and 26262, but the package name does.

  • Key: RAAML-6
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Ford Motor Company ( Kyle Post)
  • Summary:

    Comment received from Gaphor UML/SysML implementation reported by Dan Yeaw. Editorial comment:
    The figure name "Figure 10.13 - ISO26262 Library" should have a space after ISO as the following "Figure 10.13 - ISO 26262 Library".

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Thu, 25 Feb 2021 13:06 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 14:27 GMT

S&R is Safety & Reliability? Should this be updated?

  • Key: RAAML-4
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Ford Motor Company ( Kyle Post)
  • Summary:

    Comment received from Gaphor UML/SysML implementation reported by Dan Yeaw. Figure 10.4 - General Concepts Profile. Editorial comment on note that the note should say "From RAAML Core" instead of "From S&R Core".

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Thu, 25 Feb 2021 13:01 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 14:24 GMT

RAAML instead of S&R?

  • Key: RAAML-5
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Ford Motor Company ( Kyle Post)
  • Summary:

    Comment received from Gaphor UML/SysML implementation reported by Dan Yeaw. Editorial comment. The note should read "From RAAML core" instead of "From S&R core".

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Thu, 25 Feb 2021 13:03 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 14:17 GMT

misleading diagram for Inhibit gate

  • Key: RAAML-45
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Engineer for Safety Limited ( Phil Williams)
  • Summary:

    The representation of Figure 9.59 could be taken to imply the conditioning event connects to the bottom of the gate. By convention the conditioning event connects to the side connector with the bottom connection used for the enabling condition.
    This confusion is also conveyed in Figure 10.8 (page 111)

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Fri, 30 Apr 2021 10:45 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 13:52 GMT

Tool to Tool exchange of safety and reliability aspects of a system

  • Key: RAAML-32
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MITRE ( Bob Martin)
  • Summary:

    While a UML profile can provide a mechanism for establishing the primitives and components for capturing the safety and reliability aspects of a system within a MBSE tool, the real goal would appear to be the exchange of MBSE models that include safety and reliability aspects. A metamodel would seem to be a more appropriate mechanism for capturing/conveying the details of what is to be exchanged. Any UML profile necessary could be derived from that metamodel when needed. How does RAAML support the exchange of safety and reliability aspects of a system?

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Thu, 29 Apr 2021 21:38 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 2 Jul 2021 14:53 GMT

RAAML UML library use and functionality

  • Key: RAAML-33
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MITRE ( Bob Martin)
  • Summary:

    What is the envisioned use and utility of the RAAML UML libraries with respect to exchanging safety and reliability aspects of a system from one MBSE modelling tool to another?

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Thu, 29 Apr 2021 21:39 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 2 Jul 2021 14:51 GMT

Choice of allocation of GSN fields to UML attributes

  • Key: RAAML-53
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Juergen Boldt)
  • Summary:

    Under ‘GSNNode’ it is stated that the ‘short phrase’ (referred to in the GSN standard as the <element statement>) shall be captured as the UML model element name, whilst the Human-readable identifier (referred to in the GSN standard as the <element identifier>) shall be stored as a separate tag. This appears an odd choice since the <element identifier> is assured to be unique, whilst the <element statement> is not. It may be appropriate to swap these allocations.

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Tue, 11 May 2021 18:30 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 2 Jul 2021 00:53 GMT

UML profile cf. Metamodel

  • Key: RAAML-50
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Juergen Boldt)
  • Summary:

    A relationship of GSN to the SACM metamodel has been developed and is publicly available. It is not clear why the GSN UML profile is required separately to this metamodel, what relationship or utility is intended

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Tue, 11 May 2021 18:27 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 2 Jul 2021 00:53 GMT

Simplistic treatment of probability

  • Key: RAAML-46
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Engineer for Safety Limited ( Phil Williams)
  • Summary:

    The acknowledged simplistic treatment of probability can easily be replaced with a more correct definition that addresses independence [P(a.b) = (P(a) - P(cc)) x (P(b) - P(cc)) + P(cc)] where cc represents the common/non-independent failure & [P(a+b) = P(a) + P(b) - P(a.b)]

    Any simplification should be taken by the modeler not by the profile.

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Fri, 30 Apr 2021 10:59 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 2 Jul 2021 00:53 GMT

Lack of consideration of Cut Sets

  • Key: RAAML-44
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Engineer for Safety Limited ( Phil Williams)
  • Summary:

    The section focusses on probability as an attribute from FTA elements.
    This is arguably the least important attribute from FTA, particularly in system modeling and given the simplistic treatment of probability in this section.
    A far more valuable attribute from FTA is the cut set, or minimal cut set at any gate within the FTA hierarchy.
    This is a major shortfall that I believes renders the use of these profiles within system modeling very limited, particularly in early system work before the base event probabilities can be known. Even in later lifecycle phases, the simplistic treatment of probabilities that ignores real world interdependence renders the results from such modeling misleading at best.

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Fri, 30 Apr 2021 10:41 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 2 Jul 2021 00:53 GMT

Clarity of concept of 'Event'

  • Key: RAAML-39
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Engineer for Safety Limited ( Phil Williams)
  • Summary:

    AbstractEvent is introduced as a derivative of AnySituation. 9.1 defines the situation concept based on state. It is not obvious how an event can be a state when interpreted from the perspective of the fault modeling techniques in scope of this document.

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Fri, 30 Apr 2021 10:06 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 2 Jul 2021 00:53 GMT

Relationship between Fault and Error

  • Key: RAAML-41
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Engineer for Safety Limited ( Phil Williams)
  • Summary:

    ErrorRealization is used to define the relationship between Error and Failure, however no such relationship between fault and error or failure appear to be described, leaving the concept unclear.

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Fri, 30 Apr 2021 10:25 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 2 Jul 2021 00:53 GMT

The treatment of GSN in RAAML

  • Key: RAAML-34
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MITRE ( Bob Martin)
  • Summary:

    The GSN Community standard and metamodel, as of version 2 of GSN, are based on extending OMG’s Structured Assurance Case Metamodel (SACM) version 2. In a sense, all GSN elements are sub-classes of elements defined in SACM so that tools supporting GSN can leverage the SACM metamodel for exchanging GSN content. The material in RAAML that discusses GSN and define RAAML GSN constructs does not reflect this approach and appears at odds to the GSN community standard and its use and leveraging of OMG’s SACM standard.

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Thu, 29 Apr 2021 21:40 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 2 Jul 2021 00:53 GMT

The ISO 26262 ASIL Definition

  • Key: RAAML-37
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MITRE ( Bob Martin)
  • Summary:

    In Figure 9.127 of the ISO-26262 part of RAAML the concept of ASIL was misread from the ISO-26262 2018 standard. In ISO-26262 Clause 1, it states that QM is not an ASIL. Therefore, it suggests that Figure 9.127 should be reviewed/revised to align with Clause 1 of ISO-26262.

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Thu, 29 Apr 2021 21:43 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 2 Jul 2021 00:53 GMT

The ISO 26262 ASIL Decomposition

  • Key: RAAML-38
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MITRE ( Bob Martin)
  • Summary:

    ASIL decomposition levels should not be included in the ASIL stereotype. Maybe ASIL decomposition belongs to a sub-type of ASIL in RAAML.

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Thu, 29 Apr 2021 21:44 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 2 Jul 2021 00:53 GMT

Concrete syntax definitions

  • Key: RAAML-35
  • Status: open  
  • Source: MITRE ( Bob Martin)
  • Summary:

    Does RAAML include the definition for concrete syntax?

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Thu, 29 Apr 2021 21:41 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 2 Jul 2021 00:53 GMT

Support for Risk Matrices

  • Key: RAAML-30
  • Status: open  
  • Source: KnowGravity Inc. ( Markus Schacher)
  • Summary:

    How are risk matrices supported that visually relate risks to the probability and severity of their occurrence as well as to the defined risk acceptance criteria levels (e.g. acceptable/tolerable/intolerable)?

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Sun, 25 Apr 2021 08:59 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 2 Jul 2021 00:53 GMT

Issue/task tracking

  • Key: RAAML-31
  • Status: open  
  • Source: KnowGravity Inc. ( Markus Schacher)
  • Summary:

    How is issue/task/responsibility tracking supported for an (unsatisfied) ISO 26262 safety case?

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Sun, 25 Apr 2021 09:08 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 2 Jul 2021 00:53 GMT

Elements Should Have Unique Names to Improve Clarity and Implementation

  • Key: RAAML-10
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Gaphor Project ( Dan Yeaw)
  • Summary:

    Many parts of RAAML are broken in to a Library and Profile. The Profile contains the Stereotypes, for example the definition of the <<AND>> stereotype for an AND gate. The Library contains a definition, for example that an AND Block with the <<AND>> stereotype is a type of Gate. In other words, RAAML often has two elements in the model in different namespaces but with the same name.

    In the Gaphor tool, we autocode the model in to a Python datamodel. So far while implementing UML and SysML, we didn't have to name each Python class with the full namespace because the element names were always unique. With RAAML this is no longer the case, there are often two elements with the same name.

    I think this can also cause confusion for users by duplicating names. For example, if someone is talking about the AND element, are they referring to the the stereotype or the block?

    SysML v2 is starting to use two similar names for the definition and the usage, but the definition includes "def" in the name. For example, the definition of a part is a "part def" and the usage is a "part". I would recommend we use something similar for RAAML. the definition of the AND gate could be "AND_Def", and the stereotype could be "AND".

    The duplicated names include:
    Gate, AND, BasicEvent, Cause, ConditionalEvent, DormantEvent, Early, FMEAItem, FailureMode, HouseEvent, INHIBIT, Late, MAJORITY_VOTE, NOT, OR, SEQ, TopEvent, UnsafeControlAction, XOR, ZeroEvent.

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Sun, 28 Feb 2021 17:30 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 00:42 GMT

Inability to import xmi profiles into Rhapsody

  • Key: RAAML-11
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Stellantis ( Jerry Hendler)
  • Summary:

    Hi folks, I am part of the Society of Automotive Engineers STPA workgroup with Kyle Post and others. I did reach out to Kyle and he didn't have a solution for my issue, thought I'd ask the group. I am using Rhapsody v8.4 developing SysML models (using their SysML profile) and trying to import these RAAML profiles, but the Rhapsody xmi importer doesn't get past the first step, saying 'Cannot determine uml version'. Wondered if this is an issue others have run into and whether there might be a simple solution, Thanks, Jerry

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Tue, 16 Mar 2021 14:01 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 00:42 GMT

Why repeat AnySituation here from Figure 9.122?

  • Key: RAAML-2
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Ford Motor Company ( Kyle Post)
  • Summary:

    Issue reported from Gaphor UML/SysML tool implementation notes by Dan Yeaw. Editorial comment is on Figure 9.122 referring to showing the AnySituation line on the document asking why the line is repeated here.

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Thu, 25 Feb 2021 12:55 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 00:42 GMT

There is a lot on the diagram, why was everything merged?

  • Key: RAAML-3
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Ford Motor Company ( Kyle Post)
  • Summary:

    Comment received from Gaphor UML/SysML implementation reported by Dan Yeaw. Figure 10.3 - General Concepts Library. Editorial comment. There is a lot on the diagram, why was everything merged?

  • Reported: RAAML 1.0b1 — Thu, 25 Feb 2021 12:59 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 00:42 GMT