Essence Avatar
  1. OMG Specification

Essence — Closed Issues

  • Acronym: Essence
  • Issues Count: 42
  • Description: Issues resolved by a task force and approved by Board
Closed All
Issues resolved by a task force and approved by Board

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
ESSENCE-223 New Section on Competency Detail Level Card Essence 1.0b1 Essence 1.0 Resolved closed
ESSENCE-207 Wrong reference in OCL expression on kernel Essence 1.0b1 Essence 1.0 Resolved closed
ESSENCE-208 Wrong reference in OCL expression on LanguageElement Essence 1.0b1 Essence 1.0 Resolved closed
ESSENCE-204 Diagram Interchange Metamodel missing in Essence Metamodel Essence 1.0b1 Essence 1.0 Resolved closed
ESSENCE-205 In element Action, change attribute kind from type String to Enumeration Essence 1.0b1 Essence 1.0 Resolved closed
ESSENCE-202 Change Requested to Activity Space Symbol Essence 1.0b1 Essence 1.0 Deferred closed
ESSENCE-203 Request to change phrase "completion criteria" to "prmary goals" Essence 1.0b1 Essence 1.0 Deferred closed
ESSENCE-201 Wrong reference in OCL expression on practices Essence 1.0b1 Essence 1.0 Resolved closed
ESSENCE-191 Lifecycle Diagram for Multi-Phase Waterfall Requirements State Mislabeled Essence 1.0b1 Essence 1.0 Resolved closed
ESSENCE-189 Inconsistency of definitions for Bounded/Scoped requirements Alpha State. Essence 1.0b1 Essence 1.0 Resolved closed
ESSENCE-176 Name of Requirements Alpha state between Conceived and Coherent Essence 1.0b1 Essence 1.0 Closed; No Change closed
ESSENCE-177 Attribute “approach” on Activities should be promoted to a first class citizen Essence 1.0b1 Essence 1.0 Resolved closed
ESSENCE-167 Entry Criteria on Abstract Activities Essence 1.0b1 Essence 1.0 Resolved closed
ESSENCE-170 Consistency of definitions in the specification Essence 1.0b1 Essence 1.0 Resolved closed
ESSENCE-168 CRUD on Activities Essence 1.0b1 Essence 1.0 Closed; No Change closed
ESSENCE-173 Substitute Method's property name Completeness by Sufficiency Essence 1.0b1 Essence 1.0 Closed; No Change closed
ESSENCE-169 Alpha: Essential Qualities Essence 1.0b1 Essence 1.0 Resolved closed
ESSENCE-172 Practices has objectives not purposes Essence 1.0b1 Essence 1.0 Resolved closed
ESSENCE-166 Enhancements on competency levels and cards Essence 1.0b1 Essence 1.0 Resolved closed
ESSENCE-171 Missing reference for a subclause in Method definition Essence 1.0b1 Essence 1.0 Resolved closed
ESSENCE-174 Coherency vs. Coherence usage Essence 1.0b1 Essence 1.0 Resolved closed
ESSENCE-175 Acknowledgment missing Essence 1.0b1 Essence 1.0 Resolved closed
ESSENCE-164 Level of detail diagram is counter intuitive Essence 1.0b1 Essence 1.0 Resolved closed
ESSENCE-165 Introduction of level of detail cards Essence 1.0b1 Essence 1.0 Deferred closed
ESSENCE-163 Enhancements on attributes and card layout for checkpoints Essence 1.0b1 Essence 1.0 Deferred closed
ESSENCE-160 Enhancements on Competencies and Competency level definition Essence 1.0b1 Essence 1.0 Deferred closed
ESSENCE-162 There are two errors in the listed Activity Space Completion Criteria Essence 1.0b1 Essence 1.0 Resolved closed
ESSENCE-158 Subclause: A.3.2.3 System Element Essence 1.0b1 Essence 1.0 Resolved closed
ESSENCE-161 Missing checklist item on key technical risks Essence 1.0b1 Essence 1.0 Resolved closed
ESSENCE-156 Subclause: 8.3.4.2 Development Essence 1.0b1 Essence 1.0 Closed; No Change closed
ESSENCE-159 Figure 132 – SPEM Taxonomy of Core Describable Elements is hard to read. Essence 1.0b1 Essence 1.0 Closed; No Change closed
ESSENCE-157 Subclause: 8.2.4.3 Testing Essence 1.0b1 Essence 1.0 Closed; No Change closed
ESSENCE-155 Subclause: 8.1.4 Alphas: The Things to Work With Essence 1.0b1 Essence 1.0 Resolved closed
ESSENCE-154 Subclause 8.1.2 Essence 1.0b1 Essence 1.0 Resolved closed
ESSENCE-153 The definition of "Alpha" is confusing to me Essence 1.0b1 Essence 1.0 Resolved closed
ESSENCE-152 Subclause: 7.4.2 Essence 1.0b1 Essence 1.0 Closed; No Change closed
ESSENCE-150 Formal definition of Practice, Alpha and other terms Essence 1.0b1 Essence 1.0 Resolved closed
ESSENCE-151 There are no symbols defined in this specification Essence 1.0b1 Essence 1.0 Resolved closed
ESSENCE-147 stakeholders in section 8.1.4 Essence 1.0b1 Essence 1.0 Resolved closed
ESSENCE-149 In figure 9, what is the consequence of a stakeholder not being involved? Essence 1.0b1 Essence 1.0 Closed; No Change closed
ESSENCE-148 It is not clear what a customer area of concern is Essence 1.0b1 Essence 1.0 Resolved closed
ESSENCE-146 The XML namespace URI for xmi is incorrect Essence 1.0b1 Essence 1.0 Resolved closed

Issues Descriptions

New Section on Competency Detail Level Card

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Ed Seidewitz)
  • Summary:

    The resolution to ESSENCE-166, adopted in Ballot 3 did not include the following part of the proposed solution given by the issue submitters:

    Add new section “9.7.6.8.4 Competency Level Detail Card” similar to section “9.7.4.7.5 Alpha State Detail Card”.

  • Reported: Essence 1.0b1 — Wed, 5 Mar 2014 04:44 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — Essence 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add subclause 9.7.7.8.4 as requested.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Wrong reference in OCL expression on kernel

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19258
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Ivar Jacobson International AB ( Michael Striewe)
  • Summary:

    Problem to be solved: The first OCL expression on kernel starts with "self.elements" which is undefined on kernel.

    Proposed solution: Replace "self.elements" by "self.referredElements->union(self.ownedElements)".

  • Reported: Essence 1.0b1 — Tue, 25 Feb 2014 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — Essence 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agreed.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Wrong reference in OCL expression on LanguageElement

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19259
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Ivar Jacobson International AB ( Michael Striewe)
  • Summary:

    Problem to be solved: The OCL invariant on LanguageElement uses incorrect references to "owningAssociation" towards its end. This is incorrect, because owningAssociation will never point to e1 or e2, which are LanguageElements.

    Moreover, it uses reference "a.member", which is undefined.

    Proposed solution: Replace "p1.owningAssociation" by "p1.languageElement" and "p2.owningAssociation" by "p2.languageElement".

    In addition, replace "a.member" by "a.memberEnd".

  • Reported: Essence 1.0b1 — Tue, 25 Feb 2014 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — Essence 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agreed.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Diagram Interchange Metamodel missing in Essence Metamodel

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19256
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: 88solutions ( Manfred Koethe)
  • Summary:

    In clause 9.7.2 on page 112, Figure 36 shows the Graphical Syntax, or Diagram Interchange Metamodel, residing in Package DiagramInterchange. This package and its content is missing from the metamodel in the XMI file (as well as from the ancillary MagicDraw model).

    Proposed Solution:
    Add Package DiagramInterchange and its content as shown in Figure 36 to the model.

  • Reported: Essence 1.0b1 — Sat, 22 Feb 2014 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — Essence 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Update the model with elements shown in Figure 36 and replace Figure 36 with a version (from the model) that has the UML errors corrected.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

In element Action, change attribute kind from type String to Enumeration

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19257
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: 88solutions ( Manfred Koethe)
  • Summary:

    Element Action in package ActivitySpaceAndActivity is specified to perform "create, read, update, delete". Therefore attribute "kind" should be of type Enumeration instead of type String.

    Proposed Solution:
    in ActivitySpaceAndActivity::Action,
    change the type of attribute "kind" to ActionKind.

    Define a new Enumeration ActionKind with enumeration literals "create, read, update, delete".

  • Reported: Essence 1.0b1 — Sat, 22 Feb 2014 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — Essence 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agreed, accept the proposed change. The transition from a String to an Enumeration improves the precision and expressiveness of the model.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Change Requested to Activity Space Symbol

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19243
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Request a change to the symbol used for Activity Spaces from the current rectangle with a "pointie head" to a basic rectangle with NO pointie head similar to the Areas of Concern symbol.

    Rationale: The symbol is causing confusion to people leading them to think this is an activity rather than a generic container for activities and leading them to believe their is an implied sequential order which is not the case.

  • Reported: Essence 1.0b1 — Tue, 18 Feb 2014 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — Essence 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Request to change phrase "completion criteria" to "prmary goals"

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19244
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Request a change be made to the phrase "completion criteria" under Kernel Activity Spaces, to "primary goals".

    Rationale: Phrase "Completion criteria" is leading people to the wrong understanding, such as the wrong belief that activities will end when "completion criteria" met.

    "primary goals" is a more accurate phrase for the intent.

  • Reported: Essence 1.0b1 — Tue, 18 Feb 2014 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — Essence 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Wrong reference in OCL expression on practices

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19240
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Ivar Jacobson International AB ( Michael Striewe)
  • Summary:

    Problem to be solved: The fourth OCL expression on practices makes two illegal references to "cc.workProduct". In addition, there is a typo in a reference to "self.allEments".

    Proposed solution: Replace both occurences of "cc.workProduct" by "cc.levelOfDetail" and correct the typo by writing "self.allElements".

  • Reported: Essence 1.0b1 — Thu, 13 Feb 2014 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — Essence 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agreed.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Lifecycle Diagram for Multi-Phase Waterfall Requirements State Mislabeled

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    In Figure 154, the Lifecycle Diagram for "Multi-Phase Waterfall Requirements Alpha Extensions" the requirements state labeled "Described" should be labeled "Acceptable".

    Attached is a corrected figure which has change the state "Described" to "Acceptable"

  • Reported: Essence 1.0b1 — Sat, 22 Feb 2014 21:28 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — Essence 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agreed.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT
  • Attachments:

Inconsistency of definitions for Bounded/Scoped requirements Alpha State.

  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Fujitsu ( Tom Rutt)
  • Summary:

    Issue 176 has a proposed resolution to change the name of the Bounded Requirements alpha state to Scoped.

    However there is still a need to change the definition to better reflect the checklist and the concept of scoping with respect to its making the extent of the system clear.

    We need to have a high level definition which captures the concept of clear extent and purpose.

    the current definition in 8.2.3.1 does not capture the extent concept of scoping or boundedness properly.

    "Bounded: The purpose and theme of the new system are clear."

    Also, if you look at clause 9.8.3 in the examples of the textual notation there is a another definition which is different than the one in the alpha section, but it uses the "extent" concept

    "state Bounded

    {"The theme and extent of the new system is clear"}

    This is adds extent concept but keeps the "theme" concept.

    The concept of "theme" seems too loose for a proper definition.

    Proposed Resolution

    I suggest that we resolve this issue by replacing the definition in
    8.2.3.1 and in 9.2.3 for the new
    named state "Scoped" with the following:

    "Scoped: The purpose and extent of the new system are clear"

  • Reported: Essence 1.0b1 — Tue, 18 Feb 2014 15:44 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — Essence 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Updated the definition of the Bounded state as suggested (independent of the resolution to Issue 176). (Note, however, that the subclause references given in the issue description are incorrect. They should be 8.3.2.1 and 9.8.3.)

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Name of Requirements Alpha state between Conceived and Coherent

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19097
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: omg.org ( OMG System User)
  • Summary:

    There is definitely a useful state between conceived and coherent. Some people think bounded is too waterfall but accept the need for a state between Conceived and Coherent. We offer the following list for their consideration as possible, but not necessarily better, alternatives to “bounded”.
    The candidate list of potential alternatives is (in no particular order):
    Understood, Clarified, Themed, Scoped, Profiled, Envisioned
    None of the new proposals are considered obviously superior to “bounded”

  • Reported: Essence 1.0b1 — Tue, 19 Nov 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — Essence 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    It has not been possible to reach a consensus on an alternative name. So the name will remain "Bounded".

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT
  • Attachments:

Attribute “approach” on Activities should be promoted to a first class citizen

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19116
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Ivar Jacobson International AB ( Michael Striewe)
  • Summary:

    Problem to be solved:

    It is currently not possible to attach resources, patterns or anything else to approaches or refer to approaches in patterns, as they are a plain string attribute of Activities instead of being a language element.

    This makes it difficult to complement an approach with step-by-step instructions, scripts, tool mentors, examples or any other forms of guidance.

    Proposed solution:

    Replace attribute “approach” on langage element “Activity” by a new language element “Approach” (direct subclass of “LanguageElement”) with attribute “name” of type String. Add an association from “Activity” to “Approach” with multiplicity 1..* at the “Approach” end.

  • Reported: Essence 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Nov 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — Essence 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agreed. Accept the proposed resolution.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Entry Criteria on Abstract Activities

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19029
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Ivar Jacobson International AB ( Michael Striewe)
  • Summary:

    Problem to be solved: It can be considered useful in practice to have not only completion criteria for activities, but also entry criteria. While the spec supports the former, it does not support the latter.

    Proposed solution: Add optional entry criteria. Language element “CompletionCriterion” can be renamed to “Criterion” and be reused for that purpose. Possibly card updates in section 9.7.6.8 (pages 132-133) are necessary to make clear how entry criteria are shown on the cards.

  • Reported: Essence 1.0b1 — Fri, 25 Oct 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — Essence 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    The issue author raises a valid point. Change the preexisting CompletionCriterion into an abstract and neutral Criterion, which then can be specialized into an EntryCriterion and CompletionCriterion.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Consistency of definitions in the specification

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19086
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: omg.org ( OMG System User)
  • Summary:

    Problem to be solved:
    The terms and definitions, presented in section 4, must be consistent with the ones used in the specification, particularly:

    • Activity
    • Competency
    • Method
    • Practice

    Proposed solution:
    Replace the definitions of those terms in section 4 by the definitions presented respectively in:
    9.3.4.4 Activity
    9.3.5.2 Competency
    9.3.2.11 Method
    9.3.2.14 Practice

  • Reported: Essence 1.0b1 — Fri, 15 Nov 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — Essence 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Replace the first sentence of each of the four definitions in clause 4, with the first sentence of the corresponding description subclause in clause 9 for that term.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

CRUD on Activities

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19030
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Ivar Jacobson International AB ( Michael Striewe)
  • Summary:

    Problem to be solved: The spec allows Activities to perform four operations (create, read, update, delete) on a Work Product or an Alpha. The card just names input and output, which is less specific. Activity Spaces just allow input, which seems very limited. In general, the language spec seems unbalanced with respect to this aspect.

    Proposed solution:

    • Remove association “input” from language element “ActivitySpace”.
    • Remove language element “Action” and all its associations.
    • Add associations “input” and “output” from language element “AbstractActivity” to “Alpha”.
    • Add associations “input” and “output” from language element “Activity” to “WorkProduct”.
  • Reported: Essence 1.0b1 — Fri, 25 Oct 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — Essence 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    ActivitySpace is not in the position to create Alphas, it is merely importing them, acting like a containment, not a factory. Activities, on the other hand, are capable to influence the lifecycle of Alphas. Rearranging the Associations would distort this distinction. Also, the suggested removal of Action would remove the ability to specify the intended action on Aplhas and WorkProducts. The model as it stands is correct and shall not be changed.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Substitute Method's property name Completeness by Sufficiency

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19089
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: omg.org ( OMG System User)
  • Summary:

    Problem to be solved:
    The word "completeness" has a very specific meaning in mathematics and formal languages and needs a formal demonstration, while the word "sufficiency" is enough to describe this particular method property.

    Proposed solution:
    Replace word "completeness" by "sufficiency" in:

    • page 83 section 9.3.2.11 (twice)
    • page 200 section B.1.2.3 (twice) in: Description and States subsections
    • page 201 Figure 113
    • page 202 section B.1.2.3 Progressing the Method Authoring
    • page 203 section B.1.2.3 (thrice) Progressing the Method Authoring
    • page 203 Figure 116
    • page 204 Table 48, third row, first bullet
    • page 206 Table 49, second row, second column, first paragraph
    • page 206 Table 49, second row, third column, first paragraph
    • page 206 Progressing the Method Enactment
    • page 220 subsection How Method Enactment drives the Work, fourth paragraph
  • Reported: Essence 1.0b1 — Fri, 15 Nov 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — Essence 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    A lot of words have specific meanings in "mathematics and formal language", but they also have clear meanings in less formal language. Further, in the context of the use in question, "sufficiency" does not have the same connotation as "completeness" for the usual reader. The definition of the "completeness" property currently is that a method "is complete if the achievement of all practice objectives fulfills entirely the method purpose and produces expected output". The alternative of saying that a method is "sufficient" does not seem to capture nearly as well as "complete" the idea of "fulfilling entirely the method purpose".

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Alpha: Essential Qualities

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19082
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Ivar Jacobson International AB ( Michael Striewe)
  • Summary:

    Problem to be solved: The Alpha class does not capture the essential qualities of an Alpha in a particular attribute. Thus section 9.7.4.7.3 should stop referring to, and displaying, essential qualities as though they were a referencable property of an Alpha. For example, they are shown on the sample Alpha card, Figure 53 in Section 9.7.4.7.3 Alpha Definition Card on page 118.

    Proposed solution: The offending references are removed and the card shown is replaced by one that is conformant with the language.

  • Reported: Essence 1.0b1 — Wed, 13 Nov 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — Essence 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    The proposed solution is agreed to.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Practices has objectives not purposes

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19088
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: omg.org ( OMG System User)
  • Summary:

    Problem to be solved:
    The definition of a practice establishes that it has a purpose.
    According to the Practice definition, it has an objective, not a purpose. The method is the one that has a purpose.

    Proposed solution:
    Replace the word "purpose" by "objective" in pages 20 (section 4) and 24 (section 7.3).

  • Reported: Essence 1.0b1 — Fri, 15 Nov 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — Essence 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agreed.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Enhancements on competency levels and cards

  • Legacy Issue Number: 18979
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Ivar Jacobson International AB ( Michael Striewe)
  • Summary:

    Problem to be solved:

    The spec does not allow for checklists on a competency level or the creation of a competency level detail card.

    Proposed solution:

    Add an association “checkListItem” of type “Checkpoint [*]” to language element “Competency level”. For architectural clearness, move language element “Checkpoint” from package “AlphaAndWorkProduct” to package “Foundation”.
    Add new section “9.7.6.8.4 Competency Level Detail Card” similar to section “9.7.4.7.5 Alpha State Detail Card”.

  • Reported: Essence 1.0b1 — Wed, 25 Sep 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — Essence 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agreed. Accept proposal.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Missing reference for a subclause in Method definition

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19087
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: omg.org ( OMG System User)
  • Summary:

    Problem to be solved:
    The subclause reference of the Method definition is missing.

    Proposed solution:
    Since other terms have a reference to their respective subclauses, (See subclause 9.3.2.11.) should be added.

  • Reported: Essence 1.0b1 — Fri, 15 Nov 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — Essence 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agreed.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Coherency vs. Coherence usage

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19090
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: omg.org ( OMG System User)
  • Summary:

    Problem to be solved:
    Both words are correct, however the word "coherency" is more common and more used in the specification.

    Proposed solution:
    Replace word "coherence" by "coherency" in:

    • page 204 Table 48, third row, first bullet
    • page 206 Table 49, second row, third column, first paragraph
    • page 220 subsection How Method Enactment drives the Work, fourth paragraph
  • Reported: Essence 1.0b1 — Fri, 15 Nov 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — Essence 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    (Note: The page numbers in the issue description are the sequential page numbers from the cover page of the document, not the page numbers as given in the page footers.)

    It is not agreed that "coherency" is more common than "coherence". Indeed, online dictionary definitions seem to consistently define "coherency" as meaning "coherence", indicating that "coherence" is the primary term.

    However, the document current uses both "coherence" and "coherency". For consistency, only one should be used, and that should be the primary term "coherence", not "coherency".

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Acknowledgment missing

  • Legacy Issue Number: 19091
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: omg.org ( OMG System User)
  • Summary:

    Problem to be solved:
    Acknowledgement missing in page 192 section B.1.1

    Proposed solution:
    Complete the following paragraph:
    Hanna J. Oktaba and Miguel Ehécatl Morales Trujillo lead the work on the KUALI-BEH Kernel extension, which was based on the KUALI-BEH 1.1 revised submission guided by Hanna J. Oktaba

    Adding:
    ... and Miguel Ehécatl Morales Trujillo, and on the KUALI-BEH 1.0 initial submission with participation of Magdalena Dávila Muñoz.

  • Reported: Essence 1.0b1 — Fri, 15 Nov 2013 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — Essence 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agreed.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Level of detail diagram is counter intuitive

  • Legacy Issue Number: 18977
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Ivar Jacobson International AB ( Michael Striewe)
  • Summary:

    Problem to be solved:

    The visualization is counter intuitive as the shape seems to point from bottom to top while the arrows run from top to bottom.

    Proposed solution:

    Invert the shape

  • Reported: Essence 1.0b1 — Wed, 25 Sep 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — Essence 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agreed.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Introduction of level of detail cards

  • Legacy Issue Number: 18978
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Ivar Jacobson International AB ( Michael Striewe)
  • Summary:

    Problem to be solved:

    The spec supports state cards but not level of detail cards.

    Proposed solution:

    Add new section “9.7.5.8.2 Level of Detail Card” similar to section “9.7.4.7.5 Alpha State Detail Card”.

  • Reported: Essence 1.0b1 — Wed, 25 Sep 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — Essence 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Enhancements on attributes and card layout for checkpoints

  • Legacy Issue Number: 18976
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Ivar Jacobson International AB ( Michael Striewe)
  • Summary:

    Problem to be solved:

    The cards may not have enough space to display the full descriptions of all checkpoint in all cases. The language only defines one property “description” for checkpoints and does not support abbreviated descriptions. On the other hand, it declares attribute “name” which is not used on the cards or anywhere else.

    Proposed solution:

    The attribute “name” in language element “Checkpoint” is renamed to “shortDescription” for an optional abbreviated version of the full description. An OCL constraint is added to ensure that "shortDescription" is not empty only if “description” is not empty.
    The definition of a card body (page 119) is extended by: “If provided, the abbreviated description of a checkpoint is used as a default.”

  • Reported: Essence 1.0b1 — Wed, 25 Sep 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — Essence 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Enhancements on Competencies and Competency level definition

  • Legacy Issue Number: 18870
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Ivar Jacobson International AB ( Michael Striewe)
  • Summary:

    Problem to be solved: The definition of five generic competency levels in section 8.1.6 (pages 16 to 19) is not supported in that detail by the definition of the language elements in section 9.3.5 (pages 86 to 88). Mismatches are in particular:
    - Section 8.1.6 states “Each competency has five levels of achievement. These are standard across all the kernel competencies […]”, while section 9.3.5.2 allows zero to many levels and does not enforce any standard instantiations.

    • Table 1 in section 8.1.6 summarizes the proposed competency levels in checklist style, while section 9.3.5.3 does only allow free text properties for that purpose.

    Proposed solution: It is proposed to enhance section 9.3.5 as follows:

    • Change section 8.1.6 to say “across all competencies”
    • Add a clarifying note in section 9.3.5 that each tool claiming conformance to the standard must implement the kernel and therefore has to provide the standard instantiations for competencies as defined in table 1 in section 8.1.6. To enforce this partially via the language directly, change multiplicity on association “possibleLevel” in section 9.3.5.2 from * to 5.
    • Add an association “checkListItem [*]” in section 9.3.5.3 that targets model element “Checkpoint”. For architectural clearness, move this element from package “AlphaAndWorkProduct” to “Foundation”.
  • Reported: Essence 1.0b1 — Tue, 13 Aug 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — Essence 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

There are two errors in the listed Activity Space Completion Criteria

  • Legacy Issue Number: 18975
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Ivar Jacobson International AB ( Paul McMahon)
  • Summary:

    Problem to be solved: In both places the Completion Criteria: Requirements: Sufficient is wrong

    Proposed solution: In both referenced cases change Completion Criteria: Requirements Sufficient to Requirements: Acceptable

  • Reported: Essence 1.0b1 — Tue, 24 Sep 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — Essence 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agreed.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Subclause: A.3.2.3 System Element

  • Legacy Issue Number: 18775
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: INCOSE ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    Specification: Essence – Kernel and Language for Software Engineering Methods (ad/2013-02-01)

    Subclause: A.3.2.3 System Element

    I strongly object to the term System Element used in A.3.2.3 System Element. I think it is a poorly defined term and seems to imply that a system is part of a software system. In systems engineering and in industry in practice, system is used to describe the larger component. INCOSE describes a system in the following way: "An interacting combination of elements viewed in relation to function (INCOSE)". It then goes on to say: "The elements, or parts, can include people, hardware, software, facilities, policies, and documents; that is, all things required to produce systems-level results. The results include system level qualities, properties, characteristics, functions, behavior and performance." The subsequent definition in this specification only includes software, hardware and date. I think this is shortsighted. I recommend that a new term should be found such as software system element.

    (From an evaluation comment by Matthew Hause.)

  • Reported: Essence 1.0b1 — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — Essence 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Even though, in Essence, a "Software System" is defined to include "software, hardware and data". this is still not as expansive as the INCOSE definition of "system" and the elements it includes. Therefore, it is reasonable to make it clear in A.3.2.3 that the elements being considered are specifically "Software System Elements".

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Missing checklist item on key technical risks

  • Legacy Issue Number: 18974
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Ivar Jacobson International AB ( Paul McMahon)
  • Summary:

    Problem to be solved: There is no checklist item in the Architecture Selected state that ensures the key technical risks are agreed to that are referred to in the name of the state.

    Proposed solution: Need to add one more checklist item to Software System Alpha, Architecture Selected State. Proposed wording for new checklist item is: Key technical risks agreed to.

  • Reported: Essence 1.0b1 — Tue, 24 Sep 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — Essence 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    The proposed solution is agreed to.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Subclause: 8.3.4.2 Development

  • Legacy Issue Number: 18773
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: INCOSE ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    Specification: Essence – Kernel and Language for Software Engineering Methods (ad/2013-02-01)

    Subclause: 8.3.4.2 Development

    I couldn’t help but notice the emphasis on coding and programming in this section, with very little mention of design and no mention at all on modeling. Is Essence not meant to support MDA or MBD at all? If so, it should be specifically mentioned.

    (From an evaluation comment by Matthew Hause.)

  • Reported: Essence 1.0b1 — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — Essence 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Essence as such is completely agnostic to MDA or MDD. The Development competency covers design, and modeling code be a practice used by those with this competency.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Figure 132 – SPEM Taxonomy of Core Describable Elements is hard to read.

  • Legacy Issue Number: 18776
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: INCOSE ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    Specification: Essence – Kernel and Language for Software Engineering Methods (ad/2013-02-01)

    Figure 132 – SPEM Taxonomy of Core Describable Elements is hard to read. Recommend that the diagram should be cleaned up.

    (From an evaluation comment by Matthew Hause.)

  • Reported: Essence 1.0b1 — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — Essence 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    This diagram is simply copied from the SPEM spec, for purposes of reference. The resolution is similar to what is in the SPEM spec.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Subclause: 8.2.4.3 Testing

  • Legacy Issue Number: 18774
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: INCOSE ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    Specification: Essence – Kernel and Language for Software Engineering Methods (ad/2013-02-01)

    Subclause: 8.2.4.3 Testing

    Destructive testing concepts should be added to the following statement. It is mentioned above as a competency and should be repeated here as well.
    "The testing competency encapsulates the ability to conceive and execute tests to demonstrate that the system is fit for purpose, usable, meets one or more of its requirements and constitutes an appropriate solution to the stakeholders needs."
    (From an evaluation comment by Matthew Hause.)

  • Reported: Essence 1.0b1 — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — Essence 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    The earlier part of the subclause does not refer to "destructive testing", but to the ability to "think destructively".

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Subclause: 8.1.4 Alphas: The Things to Work With

  • Legacy Issue Number: 18772
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: INCOSE ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    Specification: Essence – Kernel and Language for Software Engineering Methods (ad/2013-02-01)

    Subclause: 8.1.4 Alphas: The Things to Work With

    The following sentence does not make sense: "For example, the team performs and plans work does not imply any specific order in that they perform and plan the work. "

    (From an evaluation comment by Matthew Hause.)

  • Reported: Essence 1.0b1 — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — Essence 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agreed that the sentence needs to be edited.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Subclause 8.1.2

  • Legacy Issue Number: 18771
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: INCOSE ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    Specification: Essence – Kernel and Language for Software Engineering Methods (ad/2013-02-01)

    Subclause 8.1.2

    The definition of Competencies is self-referential: "Competencies –representations of the key competencies required to do software engineering."

    (From an evaluation comment by Matthew Hause.)

  • Reported: Essence 1.0b1 — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — Essence 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    In Clause 4, "Competency" is defined as "a characteristic of a stakeholder or team member that reflects the ability to do work" and "a capability to do a certain job". The description of "Competencies" in 8.1.2 should follow this definition, which would be non-circular.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

The definition of "Alpha" is confusing to me

  • Legacy Issue Number: 18770
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: INCOSE ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    Specification: Essence – Kernel and Language for Software Engineering Methods (ad/2013-02-01)

    The definition of "Alpha" is confusing to me. The following two definitions are contained in the spec and are radically different:

    Section 4.1 Alpha An essential element of the software engineering endeavor that is relevant to an assessment of the progress and health of the endeavor. Alpha is an acronym for an Abstract-Level Progress Health Attribute.

    Section 8.1.2 What is in the Kernel? Alphas – representations of the essential things to work with. The Alphas provide descriptions of the kind of things that a team will manage, produce, and use in the process of developing, maintaining and supporting software. They also act as the anchor for any additional sub-alphas and work products required by the software engineering practices.

    Also, an Alpha is far more that simply an “attribute” as defined in the name. The term "Progress Health Attribute" implies that it is a simple metric. Clearly it is far more than that.

    (From an evaluation comment by Matthew Hause.)

  • Reported: Essence 1.0b1 — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — Essence 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agreed that this is confusing.

    I would suggest that the best way to do that is to update the bullet on alphas in 8.1.2, to adding to the end of the first sentence something like " and, as such, are relevant to assessing the progress and health of a software endeavor."

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Subclause: 7.4.2

  • Legacy Issue Number: 18769
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: INCOSE ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    Specification: Essence – Kernel and Language for Software Engineering Methods (ad/2013-02-01)

    Subclause: 7.4.2

    "The Essence Language emphasizes intuitive and concrete graphical syntax over formal semantics. This does not mean that the semantics are not as important or necessary. However, the description should be provided in a language that can be easily understood by the vast developer community whose interests are to quickly understand and use the language, rather than caring about the beauty of the language design. Hence, Essence pays extreme attention to syntax."

    Reading the specification it is obvious that much care and attention was put into the definition of the language and its semantics. Also, making the statement that how things are arranged (syntax) is more important that what the mean (semantics) is an inappropriate selling point for a language. Both are equally important.

    (From an evaluation comment by Matthew Hause.)

  • Reported: Essence 1.0b1 — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — Essence 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    The quoted statement, as currently written, accurately reflects the intent of the designers of the Essence language.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Formal definition of Practice, Alpha and other terms

  • Legacy Issue Number: 18767
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: INCOSE ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    Specification: Essence – Kernel and Language for Software Engineering Methods (ad/2013-02-01)

    I would have preferred a formal definition of Practice, Alpha and other terms prior to a discussion of the different levels of conformance and rigor of these elements. It would make it easier to understand what is meant, especially since the word practice is previously in several different contexts. Possibly referencing section 4 at the beginning would help. It was also difficult to tell when the terms were referring to parts of the Essence language or just using the terms in normal English. Also, the fact that Alpha is in fact an acronym but is used throughout the specification as the proper noun is also confusing.
    (From an evaluation comment by Matthew Hause.)

  • Reported: Essence 1.0b1 — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — Essence 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    The fact that there are terms used in a specific technical sense in the Essence specification is unavoidable – it is a large part of the purpose of any specification document to make exactly such definitions, and understanding this is necessary to understand the specification. The extensive set of definitions provided in Clause 4 is intended to help with this for Essence. The fact that the term "Alpha" was originally coined as an acronym does not seem particularly important in understanding its technical definition as given in Clause 4 and later use in the main body of the specification.

    Placing the definition of conformance in Clause 2 before the definitions in Clause 4 is as required by the OMG and ISO specification document template, and this organization is true of all current OMG specifications. Nevertheless, it would not hurt if, as suggested, a reference is made at the beginning of Clause 2 to the definitions in Clause 4.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

There are no symbols defined in this specification

  • Legacy Issue Number: 18768
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: INCOSE ( Matthew Hause)
  • Summary:

    Specification: Essence – Kernel and Language for Software Engineering Methods (ad/2013-02-01)

    Subclause: 5.1 Symbols

    "There are no symbols defined in this specification"
    I found this somewhat confusing, as the specification is full of symbols. Possibly I do not understand what is meant by this section.

    (From an evaluation comment by Matthew Hause.)

  • Reported: Essence 1.0b1 — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — Essence 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Clause 5 is an optional clause anyway. Since there are no symbols, it seems to make the most sense to just remove subclause 5.1 and make the clause include only the abbreviation currently under 5.2.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

stakeholders in section 8.1.4

  • Legacy Issue Number: 18764
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Ed Seidewitz)
  • Summary:

    Specification: Essence – Kernel and Language for Software Engineering Methods (ad/2013-02-01)

    In defining stakeholders in section 8.1.4, the spec states "All stakeholders must be involved throughout the software engineering endeavor to support the team and ensure that an acceptable software system is produced." Keeping all stakeholders involved throughout any project is an ideal but in my experience, never happens, at least not in large projects. Is this a key factor in Essence or just highly desirable from a method/process perspective?

    (From an evaluation comment by JD Baker.)

  • Reported: Essence 1.0b1 — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — Essence 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Saying "must" here is awfully prescriptive and, as indicated in the submitted issue, not always realistic. It is also stronger than the more detailed discussion on the Stakeholder alpha later in 9.2.2.1 would seem to support.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

In figure 9, what is the consequence of a stakeholder not being involved?

  • Legacy Issue Number: 18766
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Sparx Systems Pty Ltd ( J.D. Baker)
  • Summary:

    Specification: Essence – Kernel and Language for Software Engineering Methods (ad/2013-02-01)

    In figure 9, what is the consequence of a stakeholder not being involved? Can I add that to the state machine if for example the person assigned to answer questions for a key organization refuses to respond to those questions?
    (From an evaluation comment by JD Baker.)

  • Reported: Essence 1.0b1 — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — Essence 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    This issue is on what is now Figure 6, the "States of the Stakeholders" in 8.2.2.1. Some endeavors may never progress the Stakeholder alpha to the Involved state. The main consequence of this would be that you could not then get to the Agreed state and it is likely that the endeavor will not meet Stakeholder expectations.

    This is not necessarily something that needs to be explained in the specification, though. Perhaps it is more a users guide issue.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

It is not clear what a customer area of concern is

  • Legacy Issue Number: 18765
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Sparx Systems Pty Ltd ( J.D. Baker)
  • Summary:

    Specification: Essence – Kernel and Language for Software Engineering Methods (ad/2013-02-01)

    It is not clear what a customer area of concern is. In section 8.1.4 it appears that the customer area of concern includes stakeholders. In section 8.2 that statement is made that "Software engineering always involves at least on customer" which begs the question, what is a customer? Is it a set of stakeholders and opportunities? In that case it would be a customer are of concern. Is customer an alias for Customer Area of Concern?

    (From an evaluation comment by JD Baker.)

  • Reported: Essence 1.0b1 — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — Essence 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Regardless of what a "customer" is, the area of concern is defined in 8.2.1 as "This area of concern contains everything to do with the actual use and exploitation of the software system to be produced." In the sentence "Software engineering always involved one customer", the colloquial sense of "customer" seems largely sufficient – i.e., there is always some intended consumer expected to actually "use and exploit" what the software engineering endeavor produces. However, perhaps a small clarification on what a customer is could be helpful.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

The XML namespace URI for xmi is incorrect

  • Legacy Issue Number: 18763
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Model Driven Solutions ( Ed Seidewitz)
  • Summary:

    File: Essence Metamodel XMI (ad/2012-11-02)

    The XML namespace URI for xmi is incorrect. It should be “http://www.omg.org/spec/XMI/20110701”.

  • Reported: Essence 1.0b1 — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — Essence 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agreed.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT