Automated Enhancement Points Avatar
  1. OMG Specification

Automated Enhancement Points — All Issues

  • Acronym: AEP
  • Issues Count: 17
  • Description: All Issues
Open Closed All
All Issues

Issues Descriptions

Too many References sections

  • Key: AEP-15
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Andrew Watson)
  • Summary:

    There are two references sections (sections 3 and 9). All the references should be moved to section 3, and section 9 eliminated.

  • Reported: AEP 1.0b1 — Wed, 6 Apr 2016 07:20 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AEP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    References moved to Clause 3

    Move references to clause 3 and eliminate clause 9

  • Updated: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 14:46 GMT

Conformance section needs hardening up

  • Key: AEP-16
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Andrew Watson)
  • Summary:

    Conformance section (Section 2) needs hardening up, mainly by using ISO Part 2 language (e.g. "Implementations of this specification should be able to demonstrate all four of the following attributes in order to claim conformance" -> "Implementations of this specification shall demonstrate all four of the following attributes in order to claim conformance").

  • Reported: AEP 1.0b1 — Wed, 6 Apr 2016 07:17 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AEP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Hardened comformance

    add hardening

  • Updated: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 14:46 GMT

Specification should be more prescriptive

  • Key: AEP-17
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Andrew Watson)
  • Summary:

    The specification should be more prescriptive. A document like this must tell implementers exactly what they must do to create a conforming implementation. Mandatory parts of the specification shall therefore use the word "shall". Words like "should", "can" or "will" are too vague, and do not comply with the ISO directives that OMG follows; as the OMG RFP template says (section 4.9.1):

    'The key words "shall", "shall not", "should", "should not", "may"
    and "need not" shall be used as described in Part 2 of the ISO/IEC
    Directives [ISO2]. These ISO terms are compatible with the same terms in
    IETF RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. However, the RFC 2119 terms "must", "must
    not", "optional", "required", "recommended" and "not recommended"
    shall not be used (even though they are permitted under RFC2119).'

    Those ISO directives can be found here:

    [ISO2] ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2 – Rules for the structure and drafting of
    International Standards
    http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink?func=ll&objId=4230456

    Please check every instance of the words "will" (41 instances), "must" (6 instances), "could" (2 instances) to see if they should be replaced by "shall", and check every "should" (7 instances) and "may" (21 instances) to see if they're being used as per ISO Directives Part 2.

  • Reported: AEP 1.0b1 — Wed, 6 Apr 2016 07:14 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AEP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Made spec more prescriptive

    make wording more prescriptive throughout spec

  • Updated: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 14:46 GMT

What does "resp" mean?

  • Key: AEP-1
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Andrew Watson)
  • Summary:

    On PDF pages 24 & 30 (pages 23 & 29), what does "resp." mean? (4 instances)

  • Reported: AEP 1.0b1 — Wed, 6 Apr 2016 08:03 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AEP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Replaced "resp" by "respectively"

    Replaced "resp" by "respectively" in all instances where it occurred

  • Updated: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 14:46 GMT

Definitions should be sentences

  • Key: AEP-2
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Andrew Watson)
  • Summary:

    Each definition in section 4 should be a complete sentence, starting with a capital letter.

  • Reported: AEP 1.0b1 — Wed, 6 Apr 2016 08:01 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AEP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Definitions made into sentences

    All definitions were turned into sentences.

  • Updated: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 14:46 GMT

CISQ status mis-described

  • Key: AEP-3
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Andrew Watson)
  • Summary:

    On PDF page 15 (page 14): "The Consortium for IT Software Quality (CISQ) was formed as a special interest group of OMG". Not so. "Special Interest Group" has a specific meaning under OMG's P&P (see http://doc.omg.org/pp), and CISQ isn't one. Instead, it's a separate organisation with its own governance (http://it-cisq.org/).

  • Reported: AEP 1.0b1 — Wed, 6 Apr 2016 07:59 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AEP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    CISQ status clarified

    "The Consortium for IT Software Quality (CISQ) is a program of the OMG", because it can be found in the "Programs" menu of the OMG web site

  • Updated: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 14:46 GMT

Fuzzy Bitmap Diagrams (and a table too)

  • Key: AEP-4
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Andrew Watson)
  • Summary:

    All the figures except Figure 6.1 are bitmaps that look fuzzy at high magnification. Please replace them with vector graphics (preferably in SVG). In addition, Table 1 (bottom of PDF page 14) is a Fuzzy Bitmap Table (a new innovation!). Please replace it with a real table.

  • Reported: AEP 1.0b1 — Wed, 6 Apr 2016 07:58 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AEP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Fuzzy pictures replaced

    Replace fuzzy bitmaps and table

  • Updated: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 14:46 GMT
  • Attachments:

Add "Table of Figures" and "Table of Tables"

  • Key: AEP-5
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Andrew Watson)
  • Summary:

    The specification needs a "Table of Figures" and "Table of Tables" alongside the "Table of Contents".

  • Reported: AEP 1.0b1 — Wed, 6 Apr 2016 07:57 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AEP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Added Tables of Figures and Tables

    Add tables

  • Updated: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 14:46 GMT

Wherefore art thou, Table 1?

  • Key: AEP-6
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Andrew Watson)
  • Summary:

    Table at the bottom of PDF page 14 (page 13) has no caption. Is it, in fact, Table 1?

  • Reported: AEP 1.0b1 — Wed, 6 Apr 2016 07:56 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AEP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Figure 1 caption added

    caption added

  • Updated: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 14:46 GMT

IIC mis-named and status mis-described

  • Key: AEP-7
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Andrew Watson)
  • Summary:

    In Section 1 (Scope), PDF page 11 "OMG initiatives such as the Internet of Things Consortium". There is an independent organisation called the "Industrial Internet Consortium" for which OMG Inc provides administrative services - but this is not an "OMG initiative".

  • Reported: AEP 1.0b1 — Wed, 6 Apr 2016 07:53 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AEP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    reword IoT Consortium

    reword description of IoT Consortium

  • Updated: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 14:46 GMT

Typo on page 11

  • Key: AEP-8
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Andrew Watson)
  • Summary:

    On PDF page 12 (page 11): "The problem describe in clause 1.2.1 is summarized visually in Figure 1.3, where LOC = Lines Of Code." describe -> described.

  • Reported: AEP 1.0b1 — Wed, 6 Apr 2016 07:52 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AEP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Corrected spelling

    correct spelling

  • Updated: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 14:46 GMT

Mising word?

  • Key: AEP-9
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Andrew Watson)
  • Summary:

    On PDF page 12 (page 11): "The software unaddressed by traditional functional size measures are designated as non

  • Reported: AEP 1.0b1 — Wed, 6 Apr 2016 07:50 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AEP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Added word

    add word

  • Updated: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 14:46 GMT

Hard to parse sentence

  • Key: AEP-10
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Andrew Watson)
  • Summary:

    On PDF page 12 (page 11): "In addition, modifying code may not change the number of manually counted or Automated Function Points if it changes the attributes of, but not the number of functional elements counted." Needs another comma to be readable: "In addition, modifying code may not change the number of manually counted or Automated Function Points if it changes the attributes of, but not the number of, functional elements counted."

  • Reported: AEP 1.0b1 — Wed, 6 Apr 2016 07:49 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AEP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add comma for clarity

    add comma

  • Updated: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 14:46 GMT

Word missing, page 10

  • Key: AEP-11
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Andrew Watson)
  • Summary:

    On page 10 (PDF page 11), is there a word missing in this sentence? "When the number of Automated Function Points does not differ between two different levels of change complexity, the effort required to the more complex change can be severely underrepresented."

  • Reported: AEP 1.0b1 — Wed, 6 Apr 2016 07:47 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AEP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add word

    add "implement"

  • Updated: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 14:46 GMT

Appendix B is about CISQ, not AEP

  • Key: AEP-12
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Andrew Watson)
  • Summary:

    It's hard to see how Appendix B belongs in a specification. Some of the material about the background to the specification should be moved to section 1.4, the rest should probably be eliminated.

  • Reported: AEP 1.0b1 — Wed, 6 Apr 2016 07:43 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AEP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Eliminate Appexdix B

    Eliminate Appendix B

  • Updated: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 14:46 GMT

Relationship between Section 6 & 7 unclear

  • Key: AEP-13
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Andrew Watson)
  • Summary:

    The relationship between sections 6 & 7 isn't clear. Are they two alternative descriptions of the same thing? Or two specifications of two different things? Please clarify.

    The whole of section 6 is a natural language specification of a complex calculation to be undertaken to compute an Automated Enhancement Points value for a program. If this isn't specified formally elsewhere (e.g. using SMM & OCL or ALF, then it should be).

    On the other hand, if (as I suspect) section 7 is the formal specification in SMM of the algorithm informally described in Section 6, then more description is needed of how the two relate to each other.

    Section 7 also needs to be made more human-readable. This human reader couldn't extract any meaning at all from PDF pages 35 to 147 (although I'm sure there's plenty of meaning there!). If this is just a formatted dump of the contents of admtf/15-10-02 (the XMI file), then including it doesn't add much value to the specification. It's only worth including if it can be related to the contents of Section 6 and/or it includes extra explanatory text to help implementers understand the XMI file.

  • Reported: AEP 1.0b1 — Wed, 6 Apr 2016 07:38 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AEP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    relationship between clauses 6 & 7 clarified

    Discarding §7 and beefing up §6•beefing up §6 is two-fold: more details in plain text and inclusion of references to XMI content, from discarded §7, in framed boxes
    Alignment of §6 on normative content as requested by AEP-14 , including references from XMI content in text boxes

  • Updated: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 14:46 GMT

Should Section 6 be Normative?

  • Key: AEP-14
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Andrew Watson)
  • Summary:

    Why is Section 6 "Informative"? This seems to be a key part of the specification. Why is it not therefore Normative?

  • Reported: AEP 1.0b1 — Wed, 6 Apr 2016 07:22 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — AEP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Made Section 6 normative

    Discarding §7 and beefing up §6. Beefing up §6 is two-fold:
    1) more details in plain text and 2) inclusion of references to XMI content, from discarded §7, in framed boxes

    Alignment of §6 on normative content as requested by AEP-14 , including references from XMI content in text boxes

  • Updated: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 14:46 GMT