Business Architecture Core Metamodel Avatar
  1. OMG Specification

Business Architecture Core Metamodel — Open Issues

  • Acronym: BACM
  • Issues Count: 47
  • Description: Issues not resolved
Open Closed All
Issues not resolved

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
BACM-41 Rewrite the second paragraph of section 7.2.1 to clarify the relationship between the specification document and the normative XMI BACM 1.0a1 open
BACM-81 ValueProposition aggregates ValueProposition - owns vs aggregates BACM 1.0a1 open
BACM-74 Inconsistent ownedEnd quantification in special associations (owns, ...) BACM 1.0a1 open
BACM-79 Regenerate the specification document from the EA model BACM 1.0a1 open
BACM-77 Corrections to EA model to fix definitions and glossary BACM 1.0a1 open
BACM-21 Provide an OWL 2 ontology as a machine readable file BACM 1.0a1 open
BACM-75 The BACM specification does not document XML for interoperability BACM 1.0a1 open
BACM-76 "owns" and "generalizes" associations missing from ProductOffering BACM 1.0a1 open
BACM-43 The 3rd paragraph of 7.2 is unclear BACM 1.0a1 open
BACM-36 Meaning of "generalization" of instances BACM 1.0a1 open
BACM-45 Rewrite section 7.2.2 for clarification BACM 1.0a1 open
BACM-68 The BACM metamodel does not have a domain of individuals BACM 1.0a1 open
BACM-31 BACM semantic specification unclear BACM 1.0a1 open
BACM-32 Use of "leg" terminology to describe relationships BACM 1.0a1 open
BACM-35 Unclear specification of instantiation of variable arity relationships BACM 1.0a1 open
BACM-33 Usage of "leg target" terminology unclear BACM 1.0a1 open
BACM-16 Incomplete description of association reification BACM 1.0a1 open
BACM-73 ResourceRole AssignTo association in Organization diagram 7.3.4.1 reversed BACM 1.0a1 open
BACM-72 Remove category and categorization from the specification BACM 1.0a1 open
BACM-71 Can other property names in this specification be “modified”? BACM 1.0a1 open
BACM-34 The term "user" is imprecise BACM 1.0a1 open
BACM-28 Section 3 reference to SIMF BACM 1.0a1 open
BACM-13 Abstract Process missing from Diagram 7.3.7.3 and following text BACM 1.0a1 open
BACM-55 Determine compliance requirement for MEF BACM 1.0a1 open
BACM-37 Semantic treatment of n-ary associations as tuples BACM 1.0a1 open
BACM-26 Compliance statements for shortcuts and touchpoints hard to evaluate BACM 1.0a1 open
BACM-38 Entry- and Exit-Criteria missing BACM 1.0b1 open
BACM-23 Touchpoint notion does not require query capability BACM 1.0a1 open
BACM-25 Material in Section 0.6 that should be in the specification BACM 1.0a1 open
BACM-20 Failure to meet RFP requirement 6.5.2.4 regarding specification alignment BACM 1.0a1 open
BACM-66 Dispose of content from Section 9 BACM 1.0a1 open
BACM-6 Remove Section 9 and republish as a separate, informative adjunct document BACM 1.0a1 open
BACM-30 Use of term "parent" confusing BACM 1.0a1 open
BACM-29 Metamodel level terminology obsolete BACM 1.0a1 open
BACM-27 Mix of version specific and non-specific references BACM 1.0a1 open
BACM-17 Remove or replace mentions of category and categorization BACM 1.0a1 open
BACM-14 Import SMM and specialize some SMM classes for integration BACM 1.0a1 open
BACM-22 Section 1 - Scope should describe the submission, not the RFP BACM 1.0a1 open
BACM-24 The term "class association" is an improper use BACM 1.0a1 open
BACM-19 No glossary in the package descriptions BACM 1.0a1 open
BACM-18 Beta document does not address all the RFP perspectives BACM 1.0a1 open
BACM-15 Incomplete Symbols and Abbreviations - section 5 BACM 1.0a1 open
BACM-1 Make changes to the spec to enable the production of MOF compliant XMI BACM 1.0b1 open
BACM-5 Remove Annex B from the specification document BACM 1.0a1 open
BACM-11 Deliver MOF compliant XMI for specification BACM 1.0b1 open
BACM-9 Dispose of the content from Annex B BACM 1.0a1 open
BACM-2 Replace diagram 7.3.1.1.3 and following text BACM 1.0a1 open

Issues Descriptions

Rewrite the second paragraph of section 7.2.1 to clarify the relationship between the specification document and the normative XMI

  • Key: BACM-41
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Rhyne)
  • Summary:

    The paragraph state:
    For an implementation of the metamodel, the normative XMI that is part of this specification is intended to be an unambiguous and precise way to create an implementation that is equivalent to the underlying graphical predicate model. The non-normative XMI that is provided with the specification must be interpreted according to a set of rules to create a conforming implementation that is not based on MOF.
    This paragraph is unclear and refers to a non-normative XMI that is NOT part of the specification.

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Thu, 17 Nov 2022 18:16 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 6 Feb 2023 03:38 GMT

ValueProposition aggregates ValueProposition - owns vs aggregates

  • Key: BACM-81
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Rhyne)
  • Summary:

    The specification has this as an aggregates association but the quantification suggests ownership. Resolve whether owns or aggregates and change owned end quantification to match.

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Fri, 3 Feb 2023 18:55 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 3 Feb 2023 18:55 GMT

Inconsistent ownedEnd quantification in special associations (owns, ...)

  • Key: BACM-74
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Rhyne)
  • Summary:

    The quantification patterns for the special associations (owns, generalizes, aggregates) are inconsistent in the specification and the MOF XMI file.

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Thu, 5 Jan 2023 18:21 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 2 Feb 2023 17:45 GMT

Regenerate the specification document from the EA model

  • Key: BACM-79
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Rhyne)
  • Summary:

    Following vote #3, the specification document was not completely updated as the result of an editing mistake. Consequently, some elements that were deleted in the BACM_Model package are referenced in the diagrams and prose of other packages.

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Thu, 2 Feb 2023 16:53 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 2 Feb 2023 16:53 GMT

Corrections to EA model to fix definitions and glossary

  • Key: BACM-77
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Rhyne)
  • Summary:

    Element notes fields for BACMEntity, BACMRelation, BACMPlainEntity and BACMShortcut have Usage Notes: instead of Usage:. This causes the glossary generation tool to operate incorrectly.
    IRI notes lack the Definition: bold prefix

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Wed, 1 Feb 2023 19:52 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 2 Feb 2023 16:35 GMT

Provide an OWL 2 ontology as a machine readable file

  • Key: BACM-21
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Rhyne)
  • Summary:

    Section 0.5 - It would be nice to have the OWL 2 ontology provided as a machine readable file, even if only informative. Did the generation use MOF2RDF?

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Wed, 19 Oct 2022 20:50 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 23 Jan 2023 18:19 GMT

The BACM specification does not document XML for interoperability

  • Key: BACM-75
  • Status: open   Implementation work Blocked
  • Source: Agile Enterprise Design ( Fred Cummins)
  • Summary:

    The BACM specification, diagrams and text, specifies the BACM model using stereotypes that are not consistent with MOF. Consequently, the XML of the specified model is translated to a MOF-compliant XML as required by the RFP and interoperability of implementations. Both XML models are unnecessarily complex since there is no need to use stereotypes. MOF associations are sufficient, and the model would be more straightforward. The implementation Intent can be adequately specified in text with constraints, if necessary. The intent appears to be an effort to over-specify the expected method for development of an application of the model.

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Mon, 9 Jan 2023 01:04 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 19 Jan 2023 16:58 GMT

"owns" and "generalizes" associations missing from ProductOffering

  • Key: BACM-76
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Rhyne)
  • Summary:

    ProductOfferings can be aggregated by not contained or generalized. This appears to be an omission that would compromise the usefulness of the specification. It would be a minor change to the Product diagram.

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Wed, 11 Jan 2023 22:24 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 22:24 GMT

The 3rd paragraph of 7.2 is unclear

  • Key: BACM-43
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Rhyne)
  • Summary:

    This paragraph states:
    "In general, metamodel classes in the diagrams in this document will become meta-classes (class prototypes or templates) in an implementation. However, classes stereotyped as “association” will become associationclasses. These entities are binary or n-ary associations that can be specialized (from other meta-associationclasses), have features, and participate in other associations. UML binary associations with a <<class>> stereotype should be implemented as binary meta-associationclasses."
    This description is unclear. It mentions association classes that are not part of MOF. It does not adequately describe how to interpret the stereotypes <<class>>, <<association>>, <<shortcut>> and <<individual>>

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Thu, 17 Nov 2022 18:59 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 00:47 GMT
  • Attachments:

Meaning of "generalization" of instances

  • Key: BACM-36
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Rhyne)
  • Summary:

    Likewise “The user may also indicate that one instance generalizes another, but the implementation is not obligated to determine that the instance model is consistent.“ - what does generalization even mean between instances and won’t it depend on the metaclass? E.g. what would it mean to be a generalization of LegalEntity IBM Corp?

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Thu, 20 Oct 2022 17:39 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 00:47 GMT

Rewrite section 7.2.2 for clarification

  • Key: BACM-45
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Rhyne)
  • Summary:

    The prose of this section is difficult to understand. It needs to explain how an instance of a class can be a class and how individuals are represented as singleton sets. It is unclear that the singleton set interpretation can be imposed in the MOF model without a change to the metamodel to add an Individual abstract metaclass that is specialized by the MOF classes resulting from the translation of <<individual>> stereotyped EA classes.

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Thu, 17 Nov 2022 21:03 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 00:47 GMT
  • Attachments:

The BACM metamodel does not have a domain of individuals

  • Key: BACM-68
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Rhyne)
  • Summary:

    This issue arises from the resolution of BACM-45 and BACM-43. Taken together these proposals create an interpretation of the BACM model elements that does not syntactically distinguish elements representing sets from elements representing individuals. Rather, it represents individuals by an OCL constraint that allows only a single model element to have a given metaclass. This solution works for the only case in the current BACM spec, but does not resolve the underlying issue of the inability to represent individuals and make assertions about them.

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Thu, 8 Dec 2022 21:14 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 00:47 GMT

BACM semantic specification unclear

  • Key: BACM-31
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Rhyne)
  • Summary:

    7.2.1 states the following “UML visual modeling is used in this specification as a visual notation for an underlying graphical predicate model. The underlying model can be given a concrete form in RDF* (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.3399.pdf) or a property graph language (e.g. Cypher openCypher_V9). Most of the semantics of the metamodel (except for shortcuts and co-occurrence constraints) can be specified in OWL 2.” Which is not really true since those forms are not actually provided and what is specified is a MOF metamodel, which has different semantics than UML. Though the ODM specification does provide an interpretation and a profile for use of UML for RDF, this has not been referenced in this specification.

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Thu, 20 Oct 2022 16:20 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 00:47 GMT

Use of "leg" terminology to describe relationships

  • Key: BACM-32
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Rhyne)
  • Summary:

    It’s not clear why the “leg” construct is introduced when association classes already exist in UML and have properties instead of legs. As do n-ary associations. Though neither are part of MOF officially, I don’t see the justification of the “leg” terminology.

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Thu, 20 Oct 2022 16:32 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 00:47 GMT

Unclear specification of instantiation of variable arity relationships

  • Key: BACM-35
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Rhyne)
  • Summary:

    The last para says “In this case, instances may be created with an arity specified by the user and with instance leg names specified by the user.” but no indication as to how this might be done (such dynamic meta-level property renaming or multiplicity changing is not even part of SMOF).

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Thu, 20 Oct 2022 17:19 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 00:47 GMT

Usage of "leg target" terminology unclear

  • Key: BACM-33
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Rhyne)
  • Summary:

    It gets further confusing in “the target end of a leg” when early it says that a leg itself can be a “target” (or source).

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Thu, 20 Oct 2022 16:56 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 00:47 GMT

Incomplete description of association reification

  • Key: BACM-16
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Rhyne)
  • Summary:

    · Section 7.2.1 Interpreting… “src” and “tgt” are introduced, but not defined. Relatively trivial as they are not referenced again, but specifying what they stand for in the first instance is a best practice.

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Wed, 19 Oct 2022 16:53 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 00:47 GMT

ResourceRole AssignTo association in Organization diagram 7.3.4.1 reversed

  • Key: BACM-73
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Rhyne)
  • Summary:

    The text definition of the AssignTo association between Resource and ResourceRole clearly states that the Resource is AssignedTo the ResourceRole, defining the direction of the association as being from Resource to ResourceRole. However, in the diagram and the generated test, the direction of this association is reversed.

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Wed, 4 Jan 2023 17:55 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 4 Jan 2023 17:55 GMT

Remove category and categorization from the specification

  • Key: BACM-72
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Rhyne)
  • Summary:

    This issue was originally raised in BACM-17 which was proposed to be closed by BACM-54. However, the specification still references meta-classes no longer in the model (e.g. ValueCategory in 7.2.3.1). These references should be replaced.

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Wed, 28 Dec 2022 18:26 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 28 Dec 2022 18:26 GMT

Can other property names in this specification be “modified”?

  • Key: BACM-71
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Rhyne)
  • Summary:

    The issue refers to the metamodel schema for instancing n-ary associations that are represented in the metamodel by an association stereotyped class and a single association named "related". The specification text states that when an instance is created, the legs of the instance instantiate the "related" meta-association but may be assigned distinct (role) names. The UML specification uses a similar device to allow n-ary associations from its MOF metamodel. In BACM, such n-ary associations are typically restricted to instances of a specific meta-class (e.g. AbstractBusinessObject). NOTE: this issue was accidentally combined with BACM-34 and is separated with this issue.

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Wed, 28 Dec 2022 18:01 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 28 Dec 2022 18:03 GMT

The term "user" is imprecise

  • Key: BACM-34
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Rhyne)
  • Summary:

    It’s not clear who “the user” is at the end of para 4 and elsewhere. Can other property names in this specification be “modified”?

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Thu, 20 Oct 2022 17:14 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 28 Dec 2022 18:03 GMT

Section 3 reference to SIMF

  • Key: BACM-28
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Rhyne)
  • Summary:

    SIMF does have a RFP, though that does not seem to be proceeding.

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Thu, 20 Oct 2022 15:51 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 28 Dec 2022 02:02 GMT

Abstract Process missing from Diagram 7.3.7.3 and following text

  • Key: BACM-13
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Rhyne)
  • Summary:

    This diagram represents the capabilities that would be required to carry out a means or initiative. Often, these capabilities are not a part of the organization and must be added, e.g. by contract. The issue is that abstract process should be included because it represents a perspective that abstractly represents the operations of the business that is distinct from the capability perspective but at the same level of abstraction.

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Wed, 19 Oct 2022 16:30 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 8 Dec 2022 18:32 GMT

Determine compliance requirement for MEF

  • Key: BACM-55
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Rhyne)
  • Summary:

    MEF replaced the categorization mechanism per request from the AB reviewers. The beta specification document does not define the compliance requirement for MEF.

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Mon, 5 Dec 2022 18:54 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 8 Dec 2022 18:29 GMT

Semantic treatment of n-ary associations as tuples

  • Key: BACM-37
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Rhyne)
  • Summary:

    The treatment of n-ary associations as a set of distinct tuples seems unnecessary and logically suspect.

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Thu, 20 Oct 2022 17:53 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 8 Dec 2022 18:15 GMT

Compliance statements for shortcuts and touchpoints hard to evaluate

  • Key: BACM-26
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Rhyne)
  • Summary:

    Compliance statements for shortcuts and touchpoints, while these are optional compliance points, seem hard to evaluate.

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Thu, 20 Oct 2022 15:40 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 8 Dec 2022 18:08 GMT

Entry- and Exit-Criteria missing

  • Key: BACM-38
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Business Architecture Guild ( Hermann Schlamann)
  • Summary:

    Metamodel of Business Architecture Guild defines two relationships between Value Stream Stages and Value Item labeled as Entry Criteria and Exit Criteria. These relationships are missing in the BACM.

  • Reported: BACM 1.0b1 — Sun, 30 Oct 2022 09:13 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 7 Dec 2022 23:09 GMT

Touchpoint notion does not require query capability

  • Key: BACM-23
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Rhyne)
  • Summary:

    The notion of Touchpoint as defined in the RFP does not IMO require the open-ended query capability included here. Which is completely under-specified. On the other hand it does not seem to provide the Though it does say (in 8.2) “2) the modeling tool can integrate the BACM model with another model using a supplementary metamodel to join the concepts in the BACM metamodel to the concepts in the other model;” it does not provide that metamodel or any more details. It seems to me that this is what the RFP was looking for.specific links between classes in different metamodels that the RFP seemed to have in mind. Rather than allowing modelers to link specific elements from different models, it requires them to formulate some sort of query.

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Thu, 20 Oct 2022 15:21 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 7 Dec 2022 22:22 GMT

Material in Section 0.6 that should be in the specification

  • Key: BACM-25
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Rhyne)
  • Summary:

    Section 0.6 has a very useful description that would be better in the body of the spec - section 0 will get stripped off after adoption.

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Thu, 20 Oct 2022 15:35 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 7 Dec 2022 21:57 GMT

Failure to meet RFP requirement 6.5.2.4 regarding specification alignment

  • Key: BACM-20
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Rhyne)
  • Summary:

    There seems no attempt to meet requirement 6.5.2.4 “Submitters shall identify shared terms and clarify any differences in definitions in UPDM/UAF, VDML, ArchiMate™, TOGAF Content Metamodel, BPMN, DMN, and CMMN.“

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Wed, 19 Oct 2022 17:31 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 7 Dec 2022 21:56 GMT

Dispose of content from Section 9

  • Key: BACM-66
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Rhyne)
  • Summary:

    A prior vote of the FTF approved the removal of this content from the specification. The FTF must now decide what to do with this content.

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Tue, 6 Dec 2022 17:21 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 7 Dec 2022 21:45 GMT

Remove Section 9 and republish as a separate, informative adjunct document

  • Key: BACM-6
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Rhyne)
  • Summary:

    Section 9 consisted of responses to RFP requirements to address alignment with other OMG specifications. This information should probably have been placed in Section 0 of the submission and be deleted prior to publication as a beta specification. Moreover, the information in this section is informative and is expected to evolve rapidly as the BACM specification is used by architects. Consequently, the recommended action is to delete Section 9 and republish it as an informative adjunct to the normative specification.

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Tue, 21 Jun 2022 20:08 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 6 Dec 2022 17:10 GMT

Use of term "parent" confusing

  • Key: BACM-30
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Rhyne)
  • Summary:

    The use of “parent” to mean not a superclass but the class of an instance is unconventional and likely to confuse.

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Thu, 20 Oct 2022 15:57 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 23:43 GMT

Metamodel level terminology obsolete

  • Key: BACM-29
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Rhyne)
  • Summary:

    There is extensive use of “M1” which is terminology that is no longer part of MOF (it was dropped at MOF 2.0). “M1” should therefore be explained/included in the Terms.

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Thu, 20 Oct 2022 15:54 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 23:34 GMT

Mix of version specific and non-specific references

  • Key: BACM-27
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Rhyne)
  • Summary:

    It’s odd that some references are version-specific, others are not - was that intentional?

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Thu, 20 Oct 2022 15:49 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 23:20 GMT

Remove or replace mentions of category and categorization

  • Key: BACM-17
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Rhyne)
  • Summary:

    The categorization mechanism was removed from the specification draft and replaced by requiring MEF, which effectively allows the specification of stereotypes in a conforming tool. As in UML, these stereotypes may carry properties not present in the model instances. Mentions of category and categorization remain present in the beta specification document.

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Wed, 19 Oct 2022 17:00 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 25 Oct 2022 20:46 GMT

Import SMM and specialize some SMM classes for integration

  • Key: BACM-14
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Rhyne)
  • Summary:

    The specification displays classes with SMM:: namespace designations, but the model does not explicitly import SMM and it does not explicitly specialize the corresponding SMM metaclasses. By formally importing SMM, the BACM metamodel would be coupled with a particular version of SMM and would have to be revised to accommodate integration with other versions of SMM. On the other hand, the current normative text may not be sufficiently precise to allow an implementer to create a conforming implementation of this integration.

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Wed, 19 Oct 2022 16:42 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 25 Oct 2022 20:38 GMT

Section 1 - Scope should describe the submission, not the RFP

  • Key: BACM-22
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Rhyne)
  • Summary:

    This important Scope section should describe the spec in its own right and not reference the RFP. Nor, indeed, what other OMG models may or may not exist.

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Wed, 19 Oct 2022 21:00 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 20 Oct 2022 15:45 GMT

The term "class association" is an improper use

  • Key: BACM-24
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Rhyne)
  • Summary:

    The term “class association” is used in several places - it should be “association class”.

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Thu, 20 Oct 2022 15:27 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 20 Oct 2022 15:28 GMT

No glossary in the package descriptions

  • Key: BACM-19
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Rhyne)
  • Summary:

    There is no Glossary in the perspectives as required in 6.5.2.2 of the RFP: only a combined glossary of camelcased metaclass names.

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Wed, 19 Oct 2022 17:25 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 19 Oct 2022 17:28 GMT

Beta document does not address all the RFP perspectives

  • Key: BACM-18
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Rhyne)
  • Summary:

    The RFP says “This RFP defines scope in terms of a collection of perspectives”, however the submission only seems to be addressing 6 of the 10 perspectives in the RFP (Policy, Information, Initiatives, Value seem to be missing) in addition to the declared omission of an IT alignment.

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Wed, 19 Oct 2022 17:08 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 19 Oct 2022 17:09 GMT

Incomplete Symbols and Abbreviations - section 5

  • Key: BACM-15
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Rhyne)
  • Summary:

    Section 5 Symbols and Abbreviations is largely empty. There are, however, a number of acronyms used within the submission that should be specified there. The acronyms present in the listing of Normative References is fine as is, but “SPARQL”, “OWL” or “OWL 2” perhaps, and “RDF” (RDF* is listed in the normative references, but the citation does not spell out the acronym).

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Wed, 19 Oct 2022 16:46 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 19 Oct 2022 16:46 GMT

Make changes to the spec to enable the production of MOF compliant XMI


Remove Annex B from the specification document

  • Key: BACM-5
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Rhyne)
  • Summary:

    The first part of Annex B (B1) is irrelevant given the changes made to the implementation of the <<shortcut>> stereotype in both the model and the MOF-compliant XMI. These changes were approved by the Architecture Board and accepted by the DTC. But the required changes to the specification were not made prior to publication.
    The second part of Annex B (B2) while technically correct, does not match the model shown in the diagrams. It is planned that this part will be rewritten and submitted as an informative document associated with the specification.
    The recommendation is to remove Annex B in its entirety

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Tue, 21 Jun 2022 19:58 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 18 Oct 2022 00:37 GMT

Deliver MOF compliant XMI for specification

  • Key: BACM-11
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Rhyne)
  • Summary:

    The XMI file exported from the EA model is not MOF compliant. It includes class-associations and a profile with stereotypes that effectively define cass associations. Additionally, the semantics of "shortcut" stereotypes on associations must be expressed in OCL.

  • Reported: BACM 1.0b1 — Sun, 2 Oct 2022 16:46 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 18 Oct 2022 00:37 GMT
  • Attachments:

Dispose of the content from Annex B

  • Key: BACM-9
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Rhyne)
  • Summary:

    This issue depends on acceptance of the proposal BACM_5 to remove Annex B from the specification document. It seeks proposals to dispose of this content.

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Wed, 22 Jun 2022 17:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 17:00 GMT

Replace diagram 7.3.1.1.3 and following text

  • Key: BACM-2
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( James Rhyne)
  • Summary:

    During the AB approval process, the BACM_Model package diagram was changed to eliminate imports of the other packages. The submitters failed to include these changes in the final document that was sent to the OMG publications team for re-publication as dtc-22-06-01.

  • Reported: BACM 1.0a1 — Tue, 21 Jun 2022 16:46 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 21 Jun 2022 16:49 GMT
  • Attachments: