UML Profile for Modeling QoS and FT Avatar
  1. OMG Specification

UML Profile for Modeling QoS and FT — Open Issues

  • Acronym: QFTP
  • Issues Count: 17
  • Description: Issues not resolved
Open Closed All
Issues not resolved

Issues Descriptions

Page 19 Paragraph 5

  • Key: QFTP11-4
  • Legacy Issue Number: 10404
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Universidad Politecnica de Madrid ( Miguel de Miguel)
  • Summary:

    The base class of stereotype <<QoSCharacteristic>> is Class. Properties and Structural Features with stereotype

    <<QoSDimension>> provide support for the quantification of characteristics. The base classes of

    <<QoSDimension>> are StructuralFeature and Property. The types for QoSDimensions are UML 2.0 primitive types,

    enumerations, or QoS Characteristics. The metaclass Class included *Change in un* metamodel:

  • Reported: QFTP 1.0 — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:15 GMT

Section 8.3 QoS Constraint, page 14

  • Key: QFTP11-1
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9587
  • Status: open  
  • Source: nContext ( Jeff Smith)
  • Summary:

    Qos Contract: second sentence is not a complete sentence.

  • Reported: QFTP 1.0 — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:15 GMT

UML2 metamodel includes a non-existent Ecore metamodel reference

  • Key: QFTP11-5
  • Legacy Issue Number: 17543
  • Status: open  
  • Source: UFPE ( Fabrío Teles)
  • Summary:

    The non-normative OMG document ptc/06-11-04 (06-11-04.uml2) includes a reference to a non-existent document (ecore.uml2).

    In the "uml:Package" named "uml2", we have a "uml:Class" named "Element" that have a generalization reference to a "uml:Class"
    href="../../eclipse/workspace2/MetaModels2/model/ecore.uml2#_Ui5E27hiEdqpTJOL-CJ2eQ".

    This reference seems to be specific to a particular environment where the document 06-11-04.uml2 was exported. The reference needs to be updated to an existent one.

  • Reported: QFTP 1.0 — Wed, 8 Aug 2012 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:15 GMT

Figure 11-13 Value Definitions, page 57

  • Key: QFTP11-3
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9589
  • Status: open  
  • Source: nContext ( Jeff Smith)
  • Summary:

    catastrophic is misspelled. Cannot edit the figure as is, needs to be fixed in the original figure.

  • Reported: QFTP 1.0 — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:15 GMT

Section 11.2.2 SWOT, page 54

  • Key: QFTP11-2
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9588
  • Status: open  
  • Source: nContext ( Jeff Smith)
  • Summary:

    Figure 11-9 SWOT Profile
    Use Case is not listed in the figure.

  • Reported: QFTP 1.0 — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:15 GMT

time/utility functions (TUFs) and TUF-based assurance analysis techniques

  • Key: QFTP-17
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7852
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Virginia Polytechnic Institute ( Binoy Ravindran)
  • Summary:

    think it would be good to include (at least mention) time/utility functions (TUFs) and TUF-based assurance analysis techniques. TUFs generalizes deadline constraints and TUF scheduling algorithms encompass deadline-based scheduling algorithms such as EDF/RMA in terms of timeliness behavior. Thus, I think including TUFs/TUF algorithms will increase the discussion's scope

  • Reported: QFTP 1.0b1 — Thu, 14 Oct 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

obsession with use cases

  • Key: QFTP-16
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7822
  • Status: open  
  • Source: BAE SYSTEMS ( Kevin Dockerill)
  • Summary:

    don't understand the obsession with use cases here. A SWOT Element should not be a specialisation of a use case. A SWOT is performed for a system, not necessarily how you use it. I suggest we look for something equivalent to a Requirement (e.g. textual element), like there is in SysML

  • Reported: QFTP 1.0b1 — Thu, 30 Sep 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Section 10.1

  • Key: QFTP-15
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7808
  • Status: open  
  • Source: BAE SYSTEMS ( Kevin Dockerill)
  • Summary:

    This comment is listed as minor on the assumption that the QoS Categories listed are examples (see comment above). The QoS Categories listed seem to mix different concepts, namely Software Quality Factors (SQF), Design Characteristics and general QoS (or bucket!). Examples of SQF's and design characteristics are attached to these comments. Also, we have promoted three sub-categories of Performance, namely Timing, Accuracy and Resource. The comment here is that projects will have different views on categories and it is unlikely there will be a strong consensus. I don't think the profile does this because the QoS Categories listed are not specifically in the profile, but examples. You should include these examples, but structure the lists of QoS Categories - I suggest SQF and Design Characteristics at least.

  • Reported: QFTP 1.0b1 — Thu, 30 Sep 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Section 10 3rd paragraph

  • Key: QFTP-14
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7807
  • Status: open  
  • Source: BAE SYSTEMS ( Kevin Dockerill)
  • Summary:

    3rd Paragraph - "A quality model is easy to reuse in the specification of non-functional properties .." You should have a QoS for a requirement. This raises the question "Why have Categories?". Surely a model will contain packages of requirements (as being defined in SysML) and the QoS would be applied to them.

  • Reported: QFTP 1.0b1 — Thu, 30 Sep 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Section 10

  • Key: QFTP-13
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7806
  • Status: open  
  • Source: BAE SYSTEMS ( Kevin Dockerill)
  • Summary:

    It is unclear what we are trying to achieve with this section. It seems that the section contains a lot of definitions (e.g. throughput), but the figures suggest that these are only examples. Examples are good and hence the section should be reorganised to clearly state all the categories as examples

  • Reported: QFTP 1.0b1 — Thu, 30 Sep 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

How do we show the QoS for operations and attributes?

  • Key: QFTP-12
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7805
  • Status: open  
  • Source: BAE SYSTEMS ( Kevin Dockerill)
  • Summary:

    QoSConstraint is defined as a dependency. How do we show the QoS for operations and attributes? I think this may be important since components provide services using operations and attributes. Thus the constraints are applied to these (and possibly the data sent within operations).

  • Reported: QFTP 1.0b1 — Thu, 30 Sep 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

include the rationale for not declaring QoSDimension as tagged values

  • Key: QFTP-11
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7804
  • Status: open  
  • Source: BAE SYSTEMS ( Kevin Dockerill)
  • Summary:

    The profile requires two stereotypes to be applied simultaneously (QoSDimension and QoSCharacteristic). This is untidy, although I can see from the examples later in the document that QoSDimension is applied to attributes when QoSCharacteristic is applied to a class. The document, at least, should include the rationale for not declaring QoSDimension as tagged values (fig 8-3 on page 11).

  • Reported: QFTP 1.0b1 — Thu, 30 Sep 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

The term "QoS Level" doesn't seem right

  • Key: QFTP-10
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7800
  • Status: open  
  • Source: BAE SYSTEMS ( Kevin Dockerill)
  • Summary:

    The term "QoS Level" doesn't seem right. Maybe "QoS Configuration" is better.

  • Reported: QFTP 1.0b1 — Thu, 30 Sep 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

call "GlobalConstraint" something like "CompoundConstraint"

  • Key: QFTP-9
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7799
  • Status: open  
  • Source: BAE SYSTEMS ( Kevin Dockerill)
  • Summary:

    It may be better to call "GlobalConstraint" something like "CompoundConstraint" to avoid implications of the term 'global'.

  • Reported: QFTP 1.0b1 — Thu, 30 Sep 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

notion of a constraint

  • Key: QFTP-8
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7798
  • Status: open  
  • Source: BAE SYSTEMS ( Kevin Dockerill)
  • Summary:

    I am struggling with the notion of a constraint, whereby operators (e.g. >, < and =) are used within an expression containing QoS characteristics and class attributes. I can see that QoSCharacteristic is a specialisation of QoSContext, although QoSDimensionSlot seems an odd place to declare operators. Should the model look like: Diagram Alternatively, I assume there is a pattern within the SysML parametric model.

  • Reported: QFTP 1.0b1 — Thu, 30 Sep 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Section 8, 9.4 and Appendix A

  • Key: QFTP-7
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7791
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Universita di Torino ( Simona)
  • Summary:

    Specification of preemptive memory policy QoS annotated UML model characterized by stochastic-timing annotations allow to derive evaluation stochastic models that can be used to carry out verification and validation activities by means of the application of analytical methods and/or simulation techniques. When a stochastic model is characterized by activities whose duration is specified by general distributions (i.e., non negative exponential) it is necessary to associate to them memory policies that allow to decide in case of preemption whether or not to take into account of the amount of work carried out from the starting of the activity until the activity interruption.

  • Reported: QFTP 1.0b1 — Thu, 30 Sep 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Section: Section 8.2

  • Key: QFTP-6
  • Legacy Issue Number: 7790
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Universita di Torino ( Simona)
  • Summary:

    For performance/dependability analysis the models are usually stochastics. How to specify distributions ? The "statisticalQualifier" attribute associated to a <<QoS dimension>> attribute allows to declare that the type of value of the attribute is a distribution but not the "type of distribution". On the other hand, a syntax is not given for the specification of the type of distribution as well as, in general, for complex timing values. To illustrate a possible solution let us consider a system UML model in which we want to specify the service time for two resources COM and MEM as random variables distributed according to the uniform PdF and to the negative exponential PdF, respectively. The annotation has to be as simple as possible but at the same time detailed enough to be useful for the construction of a stochastic model.

  • Reported: QFTP 1.0b1 — Thu, 30 Sep 2004 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT