UML Profile for Schedulability, Performance, & Time Avatar
  1. OMG Specification

UML Profile for Schedulability, Performance, & Time — Closed Issues

  • Acronym: SPTP
  • Issues Count: 159
  • 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
SPTP-189 Appendix B- Logical Resource SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-178 Scheduling and Performance sub-profiles do not give details SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-177 clarification SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-176 fourth column of the tags specification table in the UML viewpoint SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-166 Fig 7-3 SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-165 Fig 7-1 SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-164 Bibliography SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-175 "Position regarding Action Language Semantics Work SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-174 domain viewpoint are not present in the UML viewpoint SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-173 Chapters 7 and 8 clarification SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-172 Clarification of the term 'Analysis' SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-171 General conventions used in the profile SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-170 clarification regarding UML extensibility mechanisms as proposed for UML1.4 SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-159 Section 7,Page 7-8 SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-158 Section 7, Figure 7-1 SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-157 Section 4, Page 4-38, SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-163 Section 8, Page 8-15 SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-162 Section 7, Page 7-10 SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-161 Section 7, Page 7-8 (02) SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-160 Section 7, Page 7-8, SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-169 Relate different refinements of the same thing, e.g. protocol stacks SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-168 Section 5, Page 5-2: Tag definitions SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-167 use of multiple stereotype SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-153 Section 4, Page 4-10, Line 6 section 4.1.6 and figure 4.9. SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-152 Section 4, Page 4-4, Line 6. SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-156 Section 4,Page 4-31, definition of synchronous SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-155 Section 4, Page 4-21, SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-154 Section 4, figure 4-9. SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-141 relation of RTtimeEvent in Figure 27 with UML 1.3 metaclass TimeEvent SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-140 Figure 27 SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-139 The names of tagged values can create confusion SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-138 How do we map months/years to seconds SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-144 The properties of timing devices SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-143 Delay stereotype needed SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-142 RTtimeString issue in chapter 5 SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-147 The capitilzation of stereotype and tag names should be consistent SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-146 example on page 6-11 SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-145 First example, on page 6-10 - SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-149 < SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-148 potential problems with name clashes SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-151 <>, <> SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-150 <>: this stereotype should be inherited from <> SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP11-12 section 8.2.2.3 SPTP 1.0 SPTP 1.1 Resolved closed
SPTP11-11 : error in the table describing the stereotype «GRMrelease» SPTP 1.0 SPTP 1.1 Resolved closed
SPTP11-10 Extensions should be minimized in order to clarify resulting model SPTP 1.0 SPTP 1.1 Resolved closed
SPTP11-9 PAoccurrence has wrong type SPTP 1.0 SPTP 1.1 Resolved closed
SPTP11-8 PAstep should apply to more model elements SPTP 1.0 SPTP 1.1 Resolved closed
SPTP-130 Page 8-17,"PAHost" SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-129 Page 7-20, "Sascheduler" SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-128 Page 7-17,"Saengine" SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-137 Chapter 5: support for scaling of time and clocks SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-136 Page 9-9, "RSAserver" SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-135 Page 9-9, "RSAorb" SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-134 Page 9-8, "RSAserver" SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-133 Page 9-7, "RSAConnection" SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-132 Page 9-7, "RSAcleint" SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-131 Page 8-18, "PAresource" SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-127 Page 7-16,"Saengine" (issue 2) SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-126 Page 7-16,"Saengine" SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-109 RT CORBA models do not identifies network resources SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-108 Section 9.2.3 Modeling Guidelines and Example, Figure 9-2 SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-107 How do I model the response time for the entire scenario SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-111 how are the association from the initial class model reflected in the stere SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-110 Chapter 10: Material presented in this chapetr is too general SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-125 Page 7-15, "SAaction" SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-124 Page 5-29,"Rttimeout" SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-123 Page 5-25,"RtnewTimer" SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-122 Page 5-25, "Rtinterval" (issue 2) SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-121 Page 5-25, "Rtinterval" SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-120 Page 5-23, "Rtdelay" SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-114 How do we formalize stereotypes and tag value constraints SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-113 It is not clear how a QoS characteristic can be attached to a Resource SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-117 Page 4-36, "GRMAcquire" (issue 1) SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-116 link between the already existing UML elements that target time aspects SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-119 Page 5-22, "RtclkInterrupt" SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-118 Page 5-21, "RTaction" SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-112 The limits of the use of stereotypes are sometimes ambiguous SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-115 App. C, p. 200 SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-94 Section 6.1.1 SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-93 Figure 43 you include a QoS, needs clarification SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-92 SAStep issue SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-91 SA Profile Example (SAStep) SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-84 Section 6.1.3 SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-83 Timing Mechanisms, page 65 SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-82 Chap. 5, p. 91 SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-97 section 6.1.2 SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-96 6.1.3 Schedulable Entity SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-95 Section 6.1.1 issue SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-100 Section 7.1.2 Types of Analysis Methods, Dynamic Scheduling paragraph, page SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-99 Chap. 7, p. 110 • Section 7.1.1, second paragraph: SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-98 section 6.1.3 SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-106 Worst-case Response time and Worst-case Completion time SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-105 Definition of Abs Deadline=Release-time + Rel Deadline SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-104 best way of representing end-to-end times across several schedulable entiti SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-90 sequence diagrams of Figure 43 and 42 SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-89 SA Profile Example SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-88 Diagrams of Figures 40 and 41 include messages that only include a LinkEnd SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-103 Definition of 'duration' in TimedAction is confusing SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-102 TimedAction and SAction SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-101 Figure 7-2 SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-87 SA Profile issue SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-86 The stereotypes of the others profiles are in alphabetic order. SA Profile SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-85 The scheduling analysis does not consider some UML concurrency parameters SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-81 Chap. 5, p. 66: remove footnote SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-80 concept of stimulus of UML metamodels SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-73 p. 26/27: SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-72 Chap. 4, p.61 SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-71 Chap. 4, p. 50 SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-59 Figure 20 issue SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-58 Section 4.1.5 issue related to model of service description SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-57 reappointed ToleranceLevel into ConcurrencyPolicy SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-61 4.1.6- Excusive Service SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-60 4.1.6 - Access Control Policy SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-70 Figure 22 SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-69 End of page 4.25 and page 4.26. SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-68 Page 4.23 paragraph 5 SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-67 Page 4.23 SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-66 Section 4.1.4 SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-65 Figure 15. SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-64 Figure 14 SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-63 Problem of ref number SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-62 Resource Broker SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-78 p. 84/85: SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-77 p. 84 SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-76 p. 72, 80 and 82: SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-75 p 70 SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-74 p. 36 SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-79 approach of application of QoS characteristics SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-56 Section 4.1.5 issue SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-55 Section 4.1.4 -- clarification SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-54 Section 4.1.4 Are threads and processes (at UNIX meaning) active resources SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-45 The term “Analysis” is very ambiguous SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-44 Suggested insertion at the beginning of the section 3.1 SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-51 GRM Profile issue SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-50 section 4.2.2 item labeled "GRMscenarioStep SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-53 GRM Profile issue (03) SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-52 GRM Profile issue (02) SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-47 composition relationship between ScenarioStep and Scenario SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-46 Chapter 3.2 SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-49 Section 4.1.6 SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-48 Section 4.1.4 2nd paragraph SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-43 Appendix B- Physical Resource SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-42 Appendix B- Physical Model SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-41 Appendix B- Thread SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-40 Appendix B- Execution Engine SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-39 Section 15.1; Appendix B- Clock SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-36 tagged values to reference modeling elements SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-35 engineering model” introduced on page 34 SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-34 Modeling Resources, 2nd paragraph, page 14 SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-27 Cclarify what is meant by "hard" real-time SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-33 Section 3.3: paradigm SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-32 Make the notion of return values from Model Processing more explicit SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-31 example of priorities not being relevant to availability analysis SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-30 “engineering” is a too much general term SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-29 difference between layered and peer interpretations SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-28 concurrency package SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-38 Chapter 14.2 SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-37 Chapter 14.1, reference 10 issue SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed
SPTP-3 Appendix B SPTP 1.0b1 SPTP 1.0 Resolved closed

Issues Descriptions

Appendix B- Logical Resource

  • Key: SPTP-189
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5002
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    we think this term is too vague

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Thu, 20 Jul 2000 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

  • Updated: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 04:16 GMT

Scheduling and Performance sub-profiles do not give details

  • Key: SPTP-178
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4845
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Universidad Politecnica de Madrid ( Miguel de Miguel)
  • Summary:

    Scheduling and Performance sub-profiles do not give details for the identification of behaviors from UML models. This is especially important in performance and scheduling analysis. They do not restrict the UML behavior models (e.g. collaboration diagrams, activity diagrams and state diagrams, sequence diagrams), and sometimes some types of models are not analyzable (e.g. loops in state and activity diagrams are not directly analyzable with scheduling analysis methods). Because of this, different mappings from UML models to analysis domain models can provide different analysis results or not classify consistent the same models. The profile do not provides restrictions and guidelines of mappings from message sequences, stimulus sequences, and state and activity transitions to scheduling domain models.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Thu, 7 Feb 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

clarification

  • Key: SPTP-177
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4844
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Universidad Politecnica de Madrid ( Miguel de Miguel)
  • Summary:

    The profiles proposed, but CORBA RT sub-profile, are real-time platform and language independent. The extensions are independent of specific analysis methods, specially the performance and scheduling analysis sub-profiles. To identify some parameters of specific methods new extensions must be introduced. The analysis of platform specific models requires the definition of new sub-profiles based on the profiles of the standard, and this process requires a very good knowledge of this standard.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Thu, 7 Feb 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

fourth column of the tags specification table in the UML viewpoint

  • Key: SPTP-176
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4843
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    The fourth column of the tags specification table in the UML viewpoint should be “Domain Attribute/Association Name” instead of “Domain Attribute Name” because sometimes the tags match an attribute of the corresponding domain element but it can also match to an association.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Thu, 7 Feb 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

Fig 7-3

  • Key: SPTP-166
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5722
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    Fig 7-3 An Execution Engine may have one to many Scheduling Policies - this
    seems clear if you follow the relationship from Execution Engine through
    Scheduler to Scheduling Policy. Julio Medina [medinajl@unican.es]

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Thu, 24 Oct 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    see below

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

Fig 7-1

  • Key: SPTP-165
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5721
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    Fig 7-1 In order to better support analysis of distributed scheduling
    problems, we need to weaken some of the multiplicities: A (distrubuted)
    Scheduling Job should be related to one or more Execution Engines; An
    SAction has an optional host. Julio Medina [medinajl@unican.es]

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Thu, 24 Oct 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    see below

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

Bibliography

  • Key: SPTP-164
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5719
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    Reference 10, "Guiterrez" should read "Gutierrez"

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Thu, 24 Oct 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Use suggested text

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

"Position regarding Action Language Semantics Work

  • Key: SPTP-175
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4842
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    "Position regarding Action Language Semantics Work
    I think that some concepts introduced in the SPT profile are closed, even similar, to ones introduced in the Action Semantics Language profile. For example: Is the concept of action introduced in SPT consistent with this one introduced in ASL? In fact, action definition is the core issue of ASL profile. So my opinion is that it would be better to reuse the ASL concepts as much as possible instead of introducing additional one?
    These two profiles are know almost mature and then are going to be standardized. Moreover, both are going to be very useful for real-time system area: SPT by nature, and ASL because it will allow to build full executable UML models. So it is very important these two profiles to be coherent. Then I think it could be a good think to take some times to synchronize both woks before standardizing them.
    "

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Thu, 7 Feb 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

domain viewpoint are not present in the UML viewpoint

  • Key: SPTP-174
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4841
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    I am very surprised by the fact that very often concepts specified in the domain viewpoint are not present in the UML viewpoint. Some examples can be extracted from the GRM model: the main concept introduced in this package, i.e. Ressource, is not translated in the UML viewpoint.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Thu, 7 Feb 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

Chapters 7 and 8 clarification

  • Key: SPTP-173
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4840
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Esterel Technologies ( Jean-Paul Rigault)
  • Summary:

    "
    • I am certainly not a specialist in Schedulability and Performance Analyses. Thus I can
    only give a general impression. These two chapters appeared to me as the most diffi-cult
    to read and understand. The risk (clearly faced by the authors themselves) is that
    the concepts presented be biased toward existing tools. Another risk is that these con-cepts
    rely on the new Time and resource modeling, and that the corresponding notions
    need to be somewhat broken in before being applied."

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Thu, 7 Feb 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed, no change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

Clarification of the term 'Analysis'

  • Key: SPTP-172
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4839
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    Below in the text, the term “Analysis” is used alone (i.e. without reference with objective of the anaysis, i.e. Performance, Scheduling, … which are real-time properties analysis) in association with “model” without and then become very ambiguous because if it is well understood by the majority of real-time system analysts I think it could be misunderstood by non real-time specialist modelers. Indeed, this terms is often used in process definition too as being the development stage where the modeler specify what the system has to do. And yet, this document will be certainly read by non real-time specialists too. To avoid such confusion, I propose to explicitly write “real-time properties analysis” or something closed to that.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Thu, 7 Feb 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

General conventions used in the profile

  • Key: SPTP-171
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4838
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    A general convention used in the profile is to use prefix GRM, RT and SA for the names of the profiles. RT does not respect this and SA has not respect at tagged value value of stereotype SAArrivalPatternString

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Thu, 7 Feb 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

clarification regarding UML extensibility mechanisms as proposed for UML1.4

  • Key: SPTP-170
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4837
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    The document has been developed assuming the UML extensibility mechanisms as proposed for UML 1.4, but this is not said until section 4.2.3. This assumption is done in the rest of the document, and the rest of the sections do not clarify this. We propose include this clarification in earlier chapters

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Thu, 7 Feb 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

Section 7,Page 7-8

  • Key: SPTP-159
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5714
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    Suggest the following definition Execution Engine: "An execution engine is an active, protected, executing-type resource that is allocated to the execution of schedulable resources, and hence any actions that use those schedulable resources to execute. In general, they are processor, network or device." See issue with page 30 in section 4. This modification takes in to account the scheduling policies in networks and devices (not only processors)

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Thu, 24 Oct 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    AM - I agree with the suggestion

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

Section 7, Figure 7-1

  • Key: SPTP-158
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5713
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    We suggest changing some multiplicities to avoid some problems. The association ExecutionEngine-SchedulingJob imposes a single ExecutionEngine to SchedulingJob. In distributed systems an schedulingjob will execute in mode than one execution engine (the modification of page 118 description of Scheduling Jobs is because of this). Some scheduling analysis techniques support alternative of responses (more than one response for each scheduling job), and more than one trigger event can generate the execution of the scheduling job.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Thu, 24 Oct 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    see abopve

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

Section 4, Page 4-38,

  • Key: SPTP-157
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5710
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    GRMrelase stereotype there is a spelling error.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Thu, 24 Oct 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

Section 8, Page 8-15

  • Key: SPTP-163
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5718
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    some spelling errors and remote references in second title and first line of second paragraph.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Thu, 24 Oct 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

Section 7, Page 7-10

  • Key: SPTP-162
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5717
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    definition of role "executionEngine" should be "the execution engines which realizes this scheduling job" (the same reason as modification page 113 figure 7-1).

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Thu, 24 Oct 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    AM - I agree with the suggestion

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

Section 7, Page 7-8 (02)

  • Key: SPTP-161
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5716
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    definition Processing Rate. We are talking about percents and we use probabilities as numbers, so suggest normative value is 100%.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Thu, 24 Oct 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    AM - I agree with the suggestion

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

Section 7, Page 7-8,

  • Key: SPTP-160
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5715
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    Suggest this as first sentence for definition of host "the schedulable resource that the action executes on; this is only defined if all the internal SActions that constitute the SAction execute on the same schedulable resource". This modification tries to clarify the same details that include the same definition in page 140.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Thu, 24 Oct 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    AM - I agree with the suggestion

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

Relate different refinements of the same thing, e.g. protocol stacks

  • Key: SPTP-169
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4836
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Relate different refinements of the same thing, e.g. protocol stacks

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Thu, 7 Feb 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

Section 5, Page 5-2: Tag definitions

  • Key: SPTP-168
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5725
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    Tag definitions. The domain attribute name of RTduration is wrong.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Fri, 25 Oct 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 5039 for disposition

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

use of multiple stereotype

  • Key: SPTP-167
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5724
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Bruce Douglass)
  • Summary:

    I find the use of multiple stereotypes just to get the tags required to do a simple global RMA analysis, plus all the indirection necessary. ugly, ugly, ugly. A thought occurred to me - why not highly-specific analysis subprofiles, where we would define a set of stereotypes like <<RMAG_Task>> which would be <<CRConcurrnent>>, <<SASchedulable>> and <<SAAction>> all bundled together? (RMA Global is where I got RMAG). Thus we could stereotype elements such as active objects and resources very simply. A small set of internally consistent tags with the right properties that map specifically to the kind of analysis to be perform would make the profile much easier to use.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Thu, 24 Oct 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

Section 4, Page 4-10, Line 6 section 4.1.6 and figure 4.9.

  • Key: SPTP-153
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5706
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    We suggest you introduce a new superclass (Executing Resource), with the following descritpion "executing resources represent any type of resource that support services for the execution of actions", to generalize the executing resources that can be included in an analysis (specially to associate this new type to the scheduling analysis metamodels, to consider the scheduling policies not only of processor resources). This affects section 7 figure 7-2.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Thu, 24 Oct 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

Section 4, Page 4-4, Line 6.

  • Key: SPTP-152
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5705
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    Suggest adding " In this case, the QoS characteristics and QoS value of descriptors and instance must be compatible". This addition tries to clarify that the annotations on classifier is a good technique to reuse the annotations but can create inconsistencies be-cause of inheritance (subclass and superclass have annotations incompatibles; the type of an instance in the scenarios is the superclass, but the class in exe-cution is the subclass). The same problem appears when the annotations are attached to interfaces (the interface and its implementations can have incon-sistent annotations and the real type of the instance, classified with the inter-face, is not known when we do the analysis).

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Thu, 24 Oct 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed, no change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

Section 4,Page 4-31, definition of synchronous

  • Key: SPTP-156
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5709
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    We think that client and supplier are interchanged.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Thu, 24 Oct 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

Section 4, Page 4-21,

  • Key: SPTP-155
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5708
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    description of protected resource. Suggest this for the first 3 sentences of the definition: "This is an instance of a resource that provides one or more exclusive services—services that can only be accessed according to an access control policy administered by an associated resource broker. (The resource broker is a role that may be played by the resource itself.) The number of concurrent services executed in the resource is bounded and in general 1". SResource in section 7 inherits of protected resource, but has associated the capacity attribute (number of permissible concurrent users). Both definitions are inconsistent.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Thu, 24 Oct 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

Section 4, figure 4-9.

  • Key: SPTP-154
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5707
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    Spelling error in the title of figure

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Thu, 24 Oct 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

relation of RTtimeEvent in Figure 27 with UML 1.3 metaclass TimeEvent

  • Key: SPTP-141
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5310
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    What is the relation of stereotype RTtimeEvent in Figure 27 with UML 1.3 metaclass TimeEvent?

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 22 May 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    see below

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

Figure 27

  • Key: SPTP-140
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5309
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    What is the relation of Figure 27 with UML 1.3 DataType package and the metaclass TimeExpression

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 22 May 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    see below

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

The names of tagged values can create confusion

  • Key: SPTP-139
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5308
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    The names of tagged values can create confusion, especially when we want to combine this profile with other profiles. Tagged value names as value and arg can be repeated in the profiles for the same element and this can create collisions of tagged values

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 22 May 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

How do we map months/years to seconds

  • Key: SPTP-138
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5307
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    How do we map months/years to seconds

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 22 May 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

The properties of timing devices

  • Key: SPTP-144
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5320
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    "• The properties of timing devices are listed, but some of them are not explained, and
    no clue is given as to measure or represent them. This is the case for stability and skew.
    In particular, the relationship between skew and offset should be explicit.
    • Last paragraph but one, last sentence, definition of drift: the definition does not appear
    very clear to me: what can be the relative frequency of a clock between two successive
    ticks? Is not the drift simply measured by (the absolute value of) the difference of fre-quencies?
    (Frequency taken with the usual definition, one over the period.)
    • Last paragraph, last sentence: It says that a timer is always associated with a particular
    clock; this is not explicit on the diagram of fig. 5-3; in fact, according to this diagram,
    a timer is indirectly and implicitly associated with (at least) two clocks, one coming
    through inheritance from TimingMechanism (the reference clock) and the other com-ing
    through the association with TimeValue, which is itself associated with a refer-ence
    clock; there is no constraint to express that these two clocks should be the same.
    Should they?"

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 22 May 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

Delay stereotype needed

  • Key: SPTP-143
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5312
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    A critical delay may begin at one event and end at a different one which is in a different place in the system. Time at the moment is represented in tagged values associated with stereotypes. What may be needed is a Delay stereotype, which points to the initiating event and the terminating event, and has time tags.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 22 May 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

RTtimeString issue in chapter 5

  • Key: SPTP-142
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5311
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    RTtimeString should be able to represent a percentile requirement (for soft real-time systems)...a value and a percentage of responses that should meet it.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 22 May 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

The capitilzation of stereotype and tag names should be consistent

  • Key: SPTP-147
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5334
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    The capitilzation of stereotype and tag names should be consistent
    throughout the profile.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 5 Jun 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

example on page 6-11

  • Key: SPTP-146
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5324
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    Second, in the example on page 6-11

    "there is a notational difference that I don't get. <<CRAsync>> is put on
    the receiving instance (on TelemDataDisplay) but for the synch. invocations
    <<CRSynch>> is put on the client side (TelemetryDisplayer).

    'jaol@enea.se

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Thu, 23 May 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

First example, on page 6-10 -

  • Key: SPTP-145
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5323
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    First example, on page 6-10 -

    "The clock main scenario executes a MessageAction that is a <<CRImmediate>>
    invocation of the TelemDataGather operation in DataGatherer. What I wonder:
    Why is TG clock's life line stereotyped <<CRAsynch>>? Is it an indication
    that nobody is blocking on the main scenario of TGClock?

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Thu, 23 May 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

<
  • Key: SPTP-149
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5698
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    <<RTaction» This stereotype should also be associated with operations.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Thu, 24 Oct 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Agreed. Add Operation to the RTaction Base Class column in section 5.2.2.3.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT


potential problems with name clashes

  • Key: SPTP-148
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5675
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    There is a stereotype
    called<<SAschedulable>> and a tag
    definition called SAschedulable in the SAprofile package

    • to avoid potential problems with name clashes (UML is unclear
      > whether this is > > allowed) the stereotype should be renamed <<SAschedRes>>.
  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Mon, 7 Oct 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    see below

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

<>, <>

  • Key: SPTP-151
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5702
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    <<CRasync>>, <<CRsync>>: In my understanding, UML already includes means to represent sync
    and async invocations (through the arrow shape - e.g. in RTS one can
    edit the 'Timing' folder in the methods properties). Therefore, I would
    consider these stereotypes as alternative to the already existing UML
    notation. Nevertheless, such stereotypes are associated with the UML
    notion of action (e.g. OSD::Step), what forbids combining them directly
    with the methods invocations (or operations). To be more exact, I
    suggest allowing these stereotypes to be associated also with operations
    (see attached item 2 in (Leandro Diagrams.doc)

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Thu, 24 Oct 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    see below

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

<>: this stereotype should be inherited from <>

  • Key: SPTP-150
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5701
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    <<CRaction>>: this stereotype should be inherited from <<RTaction>>

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Thu, 24 Oct 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed no change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

section 8.2.2.3

  • Key: SPTP11-12
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6272
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    The stereotype given in the stereotype column for PAopenLoad is PAclosedLoad

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0 — Wed, 24 Sep 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see below

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

: error in the table describing the stereotype «GRMrelease»

  • Key: SPTP11-11
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6271
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    p4-37 : error in the table describing the stereotype «GRMrelease»
    should be «GRMacquire» instead of «GRMrelease»

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0 — Wed, 24 Sep 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see below

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

Extensions should be minimized in order to clarify resulting model

  • Key: SPTP11-10
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5999
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    2 - the name of extessions should be minimized in order to clarify
    > resulting model. I propose to omit the prefix of every extenssion and to
    > use the oncept of namespace in case of possible naming conflict. Moreover
    > Package name describing the various sub-profile should be also reduced

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0 — Fri, 18 Jul 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed, no change

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

PAoccurrence has wrong type

  • Key: SPTP11-9
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5988
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Carleton University ( Murray Woodside)
  • Summary:

    In the PAopenLoad stereotype, the tag PAoccurrence attribute name should not
    be
    population, but a name standing for arrival pattern.
    OpenWorkload::arrivalPattern would do.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0 — Thu, 3 Jul 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see below

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

PAstep should apply to more model elements

  • Key: SPTP11-8
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5987
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Carleton University ( Murray Woodside)
  • Summary:

    The PAstep stereotype should apply also to Action and ActionExecution
    (similar to
    SAaction). This is needed for modeling.

    • In fact the software sense of PAstep and SAaction are identical
      for steps
      which are primitive (not decomposed into a sub-scenario). Thus the
      stereotype should
      perhaps apply to Transition as well.
  • Reported: SPTP 1.0 — Thu, 3 Jul 2003 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see below

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:59 GMT

Page 8-17,"PAHost"

  • Key: SPTP-130
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5288
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    PaschdPolicy uses acronyms whereas scheduling policy in theSAprofile uses full names - consider harmonizing

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Mon, 13 May 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Page 7-20, "Sascheduler"

  • Key: SPTP-129
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5287
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    SaschedulingPolicy references a similarly named tag - isn't this really the same tag?

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Mon, 13 May 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

Page 7-17,"Saengine"

  • Key: SPTP-128
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5286
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    Should SaschedulingPolicy include a value of FIFO?

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Mon, 13 May 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add FIFO to enumeration for SAschedulingPolicy on page 7-18.

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

Chapter 5: support for scaling of time and clocks

  • Key: SPTP-137
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5306
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    there should be support for scaling of time and clocks so that models can work with heterogeneous time scales (e.g., microseconds as well as days all in the same model and diagrams)

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 22 May 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

Page 9-9, "RSAserver"

  • Key: SPTP-136
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5295
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    Why have RSAsrvPrio when the parent supports a priority?

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Mon, 13 May 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

Page 9-9, "RSAorb"

  • Key: SPTP-135
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5294
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    The tag Saschedulingpolicy seems to be related to SchedulingPolicy::timeout

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Mon, 13 May 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Page 9-8, "RSAserver"

  • Key: SPTP-134
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5293
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    The tag name is SaaccessControl, but the enumeration values are different, so should be different tag.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Mon, 13 May 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    see below

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

Page 9-7, "RSAConnection"

  • Key: SPTP-133
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5292
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    In the Paprofile and Saprofile we've used Priority Range whereas here we've used High and Low priorities - consider harmonising

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Mon, 13 May 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

Page 9-7, "RSAcleint"

  • Key: SPTP-132
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5291
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    Why have RSAclPrio when the parent supports a priority?

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Mon, 13 May 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

Page 8-18, "PAresource"

  • Key: SPTP-131
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5289
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    Shouldn't a resource have an access policy, not a scheduling policy?

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Mon, 13 May 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

Page 7-16,"Saengine" (issue 2)

  • Key: SPTP-127
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5285
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    SacontextSwitch has a tag type of Time Function - should this be RttimeValue?

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Mon, 13 May 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Make tag type of SAcontextSwitch RTtimeValue on page 7-17.

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

Page 7-16,"Saengine"

  • Key: SPTP-126
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5284
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    Both this and resource have an access policy - are they in fact the same and so should have the same tag definition - if so, how do we show this?

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Mon, 13 May 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

RT CORBA models do not identifies network resources

  • Key: SPTP-109
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5076
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Universidad Politecnica de Madrid ( Miguel de Miguel)
  • Summary:

    10. RT CORBA models do not identifies network resources. RT CORBA standard does not pay special attention to communication transport times (like operating system support), but an scheduling analysis that does not take into account network resources (e.g. ATM, CAN networks, or RSVP protocols) provide scheduling analysis non realistic. The profile includes comments about the operating systems dependencies but not communication transport.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section 9.2.3 Modeling Guidelines and Example, Figure 9-2

  • Key: SPTP-108
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5075
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U.S. Army Cecom-CSE ( Tom Wheeler)
  • Summary:

    This example figure shows several active objects and two node instances in the same diagram. Is there a UML view that allows this? If not, perhaps the response should include this as part of a change to UML.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

How do I model the response time for the entire scenario

  • Key: SPTP-107
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5074
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    How do I model the response time for the entire scenario when there are three independent triggers and all the messages are sent asynchronously?

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

how are the association from the initial class model reflected in the stere

  • Key: SPTP-111
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5079
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Morgan Bjorkander)
  • Summary:

    The concepts described in the beginning of each section in terms of a class model are later transposed in terms of stereotypes. But how are the association from the initial class model reflected in the stereotypes (which are, as I understand, the only normative part of the profile)?For example, a Resource has a set of offered QoS characteristics. How is the connection between a user <<GRMressource>> class and its corresponding <<GRMqosCharacteristics>> made in the user's model?The same question holds for all other associations. In some cases the connection is obvious informally: for example in case of a user class stereotyped with <<GRMresource>>, whose operations are stereotyped with<<GRMresourceService>>, it is clear that the operations represent the services of the resource represented by the user class. But that link is not captured formally by the metamodel / stereotype definition

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    see below

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

Chapter 10: Material presented in this chapetr is too general

  • Key: SPTP-110
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5077
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Esterel Technologies ( Jean-Paul Rigault)
  • Summary:

    Most of the material presented in this chapter appears to me as rather general and
    applicable to almost all kinds of UML models. Thus I do not clearly understand why
    it belongs here."

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

Page 7-15, "SAaction"

  • Key: SPTP-125
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5283
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    SAActualPty is not in the domain model, or in the tag table - is it actually needed - perhaps it is the Sapriority tag applied to a specific instance

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Mon, 13 May 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Not needed - remove

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

Page 5-29,"Rttimeout"

  • Key: SPTP-124
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5282
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    Again, RTStimulus doesn't have a timestamp tag.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Mon, 13 May 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Page 5-25,"RtnewTimer"

  • Key: SPTP-123
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5281
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    RttimerPar is an RttimeValue, but presumably that only applies to instances of the service, not to the description of the service - presumably in that case, it is a reference to the formal parameter that is used to convey the new time. How should we model this?

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Mon, 13 May 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Page 5-25, "Rtinterval" (issue 2)

  • Key: SPTP-122
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5280
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    In the domain concepts for TimedInterval, we say that duration is not explicitly modelling and yet it is.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Mon, 13 May 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Incorrect text in section 5.1.5.5 removed

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

Page 5-25, "Rtinterval"

  • Key: SPTP-121
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5279
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    It seems odd that we have two sets of tags that model the same thing - RtintStart/Rtstart, RtintEnd/Rtend etc. Consider harmonising them

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Mon, 13 May 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

Page 5-23, "Rtdelay"

  • Key: SPTP-120
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5278
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    It seems odd that a sub-type "Rtdelay" is more constrained than the super-type, "Rtaction", consider addressing this.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Mon, 13 May 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    constraint on the use of RTstart and RTend has been removed

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

How do we formalize stereotypes and tag value constraints

  • Key: SPTP-114
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5082
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Morgan Bjorkander)
  • Summary:

    How do we formalize stereotypes and tag value constraints (e.g. Limited To) in the UML

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

It is not clear how a QoS characteristic can be attached to a Resource

  • Key: SPTP-113
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5081
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Morgan Bjorkander)
  • Summary:

    It is not clear how a QoS characteristic can be attached to a Resource. The example given throughout Chapter 4 is

    {qosDeadline = 5ms}

    , which leaves the reader with the idea that QoS characteristics will be attached as tagged values. But later QoS characteristics are defined to be stereotyped Packages, Values, Instances or Classifiers (stereotyped with <<GRMqosCharacteristic>>), and qosDeadline turns out to be a predefined tag value without connection to the <<GRMqosCharacteristic>> stereotype. Furthermore, in Fig. 28, the QoS characteristics of a clock are defined as required tags of the RTtimingMechanism stereotype, with no mention to <<GRMqosCharacteristic>>.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed no change

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

Page 4-36, "GRMAcquire" (issue 1)

  • Key: SPTP-117
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5274
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    Why is GRMexclServ a tag of GRMAqcuire, is this because this particular acquire only gives access to this set of services?

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Mon, 13 May 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

link between the already existing UML elements that target time aspects

  • Key: SPTP-116
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5084
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    "Position regarding to existing UML concepts pertaining to time aspects
    In the proposal, I have not really seen something about a link between the already existing UML elements that target time aspects (e.g. TimeEvent, active/passive objects, concurrent states…) and the concepts proposed by the SPT profile. I think the proposal does not position enough itself regarding to UML elements.
    "

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

Page 5-22, "RtclkInterrupt"

  • Key: SPTP-119
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5277
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    Stimulus doesn't appear to have a Rttimestamp tag.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Mon, 13 May 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    fixed; added proper inherited tags (RTstart and Rtend)

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

Page 5-21, "RTaction"

  • Key: SPTP-118
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5276
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    The domain attribute name of the Rtduration tag is TimedAction::probability - should be TimedAction::duration I think.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Mon, 13 May 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

The limits of the use of stereotypes are sometimes ambiguous

  • Key: SPTP-112
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5080
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Morgan Bjorkander)
  • Summary:

    The limits of the use of stereotypes are sometimes ambiguous. For example, in Fig. 28 there is a composition drawn between two stereotypes. This is not supported in UML (stereotypes are not classifiers). Inheritance between stereotypes imposes constraints on the set of metaclasses on which the stereotypes are defined. For example, how is it possible for GRMaccessControlPolicy to be defined for ActivityGraphs, while its ancestor GRMqosCharacteristic is not valid on ActivityGraphs

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    closed, no change

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

App. C, p. 200

  • Key: SPTP-115
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5083
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Esterel Technologies ( Jean-Paul Rigault)
  • Summary:

    Response to RFP 6.5.6: this response is short. The model of concurrency presented in
    chapter 6 is only a partial answer to 6.5.6; to complete it, it could be added that syn-chronization
    mechanisms are mentioned in chapter 4 (protected resource and access
    control policy). Even with this addition, we are far from the specifics of 6.5.6. At this
    point a (short) sentence might be needed to justify the gap."

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

Section 6.1.1

  • Key: SPTP-94
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5061
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    the schedulable entity used at modeling stage may be some times not a concrete entity, It may depend on the modeling stage the modeler/user is working.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

Figure 43 you include a QoS, needs clarification

  • Key: SPTP-93
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5060
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    In Figure 43 you include a QoS constraint to represent end-to-end response times. But it is not clear how you do this. If WCRT:80 is a tagged value, this cannot be represented in UML 1.3 because we can only associate a tagged value to a single element, and we cannot associate it to two messages, and if we do the association to the object we cannot identify the end points. Another alternative would be use constraints to represent the WCRT:80 condition (we can associate the constraint to more than one UML element), but you do not clarify this

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

SAStep issue

  • Key: SPTP-92
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5059
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    If we include SAStep in the objects to represent the messages sequences we will not respect the method used in UML 1.3, because the element stereotyped are the objects and not the messages, and we can not use the sequence activator-predecessor to define the response sequence with steps associated to objects. Another problem: If we associate more than one SAStep to the object, who defines the order? we need some kind of tagged value in the stereotype to do this.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

SA Profile Example (SAStep)

  • Key: SPTP-91
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5058
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    When we use SAStep intern to the objects instances (like step DD1 in diagram Figure 40) we need to identify the message sequence, and define its order. The SAStep stereotype has not associated tagged values to do this. In UML 1.3 this is represented with the associations predecessor and activator of metaclass Message.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

Section 6.1.3

  • Key: SPTP-84
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5051
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    it is said that the schedulability analysis is inherently instance-based. The instance-based description is required to identify the system load (identify the active objects and their execution distributions) and data resources (objects that can be used for synchronization purposes). But the non-blocking passive objects can be analyzed description-based, and their dynamic instantiation do not affect to the analysis because their responses do not depend on the instance (but some polymorpic behaviors). The instance-based analysis does not allow analyze systems where passive objects are created dynamically (the static analysis of systems with dynamic creation of active and resource objects is a different problem).

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

Timing Mechanisms, page 65

  • Key: SPTP-83
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5046
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U.S. Army Cecom-CSE ( Tom Wheeler)
  • Summary:

    Timing Mechanisms, page 65. Typo. There is a missing word in the first line of the second-to-last paragraph.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

Chap. 5, p. 91

  • Key: SPTP-82
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5045
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Esterel Technologies ( Jean-Paul Rigault)
  • Summary:

    The grammar for expressing time values, and especially dates, is very much Western
    time oriented. It may appear as regressive compared to time internationalization
    found in modern programming languages like Java, or even C! Although what is pre-sented
    here is certainly sufficient for most real time applications, it cannot serve as a
    general notion of time, usable by all sorts of UML models throughout many types of
    application domains.
    By the way, there was not a year 0, there will be hopefully a year 10000, and there
    were negative years!

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Valid comment but definitely outside the scope of the RTF, closed no change

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

section 6.1.2

  • Key: SPTP-97
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5064
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Universidad Politecnica de Madrid ( Miguel de Miguel)
  • Summary:

    we need to clarify what the term "value-based scheduling" means (there was some disagreement on this point)

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Rewrote the sentence

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

6.1.3 Schedulable Entity

  • Key: SPTP-96
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5063
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Francois Terrier)
  • Summary:

    in fact the whole sentence could be suppressed, because it has been described in these terms before

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

Section 6.1.1 issue

  • Key: SPTP-95
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5062
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    to be consistent with previous § where “thread” is only one possible example of the “schedulable entities”

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

Section 7.1.2 Types of Analysis Methods, Dynamic Scheduling paragraph, page

  • Key: SPTP-100
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5067
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U.S. Army Cecom-CSE ( Tom Wheeler)
  • Summary:

    This paragraph mentions “value based scheduling”. This phrase however, does not appear in following pages where tag – value pairs are defined for scheduling policies. Is the “MaxizeAccruedUtility” policy meant to cover value based scheduling? If so, I recommend the phrase “value based scheduling” be replaced with “utility-based scheduling”.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add reference to utility-based scheduling as alternative nomenclature

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

Chap. 7, p. 110 • Section 7.1.1, second paragraph:

  • Key: SPTP-99
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5066
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U.S. Army Cecom-CSE ( Tom Wheeler)
  • Summary:

    "The schedule is the result of a scheduler implementing a scheduling policy
    across a set of scheduling jobs on the execution engines that it schedules.
    This sentence appears rather tautological to me and little informative. Note that it is
    repeated (without increasing the information) on top of p. 114:
    A scheduler is responsible for generating a schedule which is used to sched-ule
    one or more scheduling jobs."

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Removed offending sentence

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

section 6.1.3

  • Key: SPTP-98
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5065
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Universidad Politecnica de Madrid ( Miguel de Miguel)
  • Summary:

    The item labeled as "Schedulable Entity"; the sub-item "isSchedulable" may be too simplistic as a result and should perhaps support something more sophisticated (e.g., an ordered list of alternative conclusions?)

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

Worst-case Response time and Worst-case Completion time

  • Key: SPTP-106
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5073
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    "Is there any difference between Worst-case Response time and
    Worst-case Completion time, or are the terms synonymous?"

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

Definition of Abs Deadline=Release-time + Rel Deadline

  • Key: SPTP-105
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5072
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    "One definition of Abs Deadline=Release-time + Rel Deadline,
    whereas we seem to mean something else in the spec, i.e abs is used when
    laxity is hard, rel is when laxity is soft"

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

best way of representing end-to-end times across several schedulable entiti

  • Key: SPTP-104
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5071
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    "What's the best way of representing end-to-end times across several schedulable entities;
    "

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

sequence diagrams of Figure 43 and 42

  • Key: SPTP-90
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5057
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    The sequence diagrams of Figure 43 and 42 (the Figure numbers are incorrect) include similar problems because the use pseudo sender object for the initial stimulus.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

SA Profile Example

  • Key: SPTP-89
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5056
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    In these examples, the links represent the initial events, and we could represent this concept linking an actor instance to the SAEvent Link. But if we want to represent events that are not originated by external actors (for example a cyclic object executed periodically) other solutions are need (for example a classifier stereotype like SACyclic with a tagged value that identifies the sequence message generated periodically [2]).

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    see below

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

Diagrams of Figures 40 and 41 include messages that only include a LinkEnd

  • Key: SPTP-88
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5055
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Diagrams of Figures 40 and 41 include messages that only include a LinkEnd. UML 1.3 specifies two or more LinkEnd associated to the Link. Next Figure is part of UML 1.3 metamodel

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

Definition of 'duration' in TimedAction is confusing

  • Key: SPTP-103
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5070
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Universidad Politecnica de Madrid ( Miguel de Miguel)
  • Summary:

    9. TimedAction defines ‘duration’ as “the time interval during which the action is occurring”. This creates confusion when is reused in SAction because I suppose that duration defines the amount of time that preemptable resources will be used in the execution of the action. ‘duration’ definitions looks like the definition of “Worst-case Completion Time” (“the overall time taken to execute the action, including all overheads”). ‘duration’ includes the overheads too? When the action is blocked or preempted, is it occurring?

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

TimedAction and SAction

  • Key: SPTP-102
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5069
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Universidad Politecnica de Madrid ( Miguel de Miguel)
  • Summary:

    8. TimedAction and SAction are introduced as actions that can include subactions. In that case the priority of an action can be variable (subactions can vary their priority). Because of this, the description of priority in page 115 can create confusion.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

Figure 7-2

  • Key: SPTP-101
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5068
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Universidad Politecnica de Madrid ( Miguel de Miguel)
  • Summary:

    Figure 7-2 includes a direct and indirect inheritance from SAction to Scenario. Why two inheritances?

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

SA Profile issue

  • Key: SPTP-87
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5054
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    The stereotype SARealTimeSituation makes reference to stereotype GRMAAnalysisContext that has been named GRMcontext

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

The stereotypes of the others profiles are in alphabetic order. SA Profile

  • Key: SPTP-86
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5053
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    The stereotypes of the others profiles are in alphabetic order.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Fix - Done

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

The scheduling analysis does not consider some UML concurrency parameters

  • Key: SPTP-85
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5052
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    The scheduling analysis does not consider some UML concurrency parameters. Will the analyzers take in to account these attributes? Examples of these parameters are the concurrency attribute of metaclass Operation and attribute isActive of metaclass Class.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

Chap. 5, p. 66: remove footnote

  • Key: SPTP-81
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5044
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Esterel Technologies ( Jean-Paul Rigault)
  • Summary:

    Footnote: the reference to Einstein appear rather pompous to me.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    reference removed

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

concept of stimulus of UML metamodels

  • Key: SPTP-80
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5043
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Universidad Politecnica de Madrid ( Miguel de Miguel)
  • Summary:

    Most of behavior concepts are based on the stimulus concept that is used in UML metamodels for the description of sequence diagrams semantics, but not for other diagrams like collaboration diagrams. This creates confusion because we can think that we are talking about the concept of stimulus of UML metamodels, and I suppose that this is not the intention of the authors.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

p. 26/27:

  • Key: SPTP-73
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5036
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    This is a misunderstanding: there is no first and last event being modeled here. It has to do with the difference between reception and generation – these are two distinct concepts. (Bran)

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

Chap. 4, p.61

  • Key: SPTP-72
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5034
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Esterel Technologies ( Jean-Paul Rigault)
  • Summary:

    Second introductory paragraph: I agree with the idea of limiting this submission to
    metric time (as opposed to logical time), but I find a little too short the justification for
    the restriction. After all, real time system are also concerned by correction wrt logical
    time. Moreover, at run time, logical time (as represented by interrupt events) is often
    the only time of which the system is aware and that it may manipulate. This deserves
    certainly consideration, even at modeling level.
    Of course take this remark as from somebody whose real-time background deals
    mostly with logical time!"

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

Chap. 4, p. 50

  • Key: SPTP-71
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5033
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Esterel Technologies ( Jean-Paul Rigault)
  • Summary:

    Bullets for the definitions of Exclusive static and Exclusive dynamic: the use of the verb
    to support in this context brings trouble (to me at least); it has not been used so far to
    describe the relationship between clients and suppliers, and its meaning appears con-fuse
    (in fact, what supports what?); May be we should stick to using the verb to real-ize."

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Change made in section 4.2.1.1. "supports" replaced by "realizes"

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

Figure 20 issue

  • Key: SPTP-59
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5021
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    We propose to add a link between the concepts “Service” and “Resource” (I have reappointed “RessourceService” into “Service” because it is evident due to the link). Moreover, I have reappointed also “AcquireRessource” into “AcquireService” and “ReleaseResource” into “ReleaseService” because I think it is more natural due to the fact we are describing services. Moreover, I think that a service typed “ReleaseService” is an exclusive service. Indeed, I do not think it can be executed concurrently with another “ReleaseService”.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

Section 4.1.5 issue related to model of service description

  • Key: SPTP-58
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5020
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Previous model of service description allow release operation to performed concurrently and thus as being without side-effect on the resource state. For example, if you consider the Semaphore resource defind in POSIX, it get a release service so-called sem_post that modifies the resource state incrementing the semaphore value. So a release service may involve side-effect on its resource. (see. New model proposed below).

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

reappointed ToleranceLevel into ConcurrencyPolicy

  • Key: SPTP-57
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5019
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    have reappointed “ToleranceLevel” into “ConcurrencyPolicy” because I think this concept is more relative to concurrency issues between different services provided by a given resource. Moreover ToleranceLevel may be give indication about fault tolerance.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

4.1.6- Excusive Service

  • Key: SPTP-61
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5023
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    We propose to suppress this association for following reason: It has been demonstrated (REF. MCH 94: C. McHale, “Synchronization in concurrent, object oriented languages: expressive power, genericity and inheritance.”, PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland, October 1994) that specifying mutual exclusion constraint among services by listing explicitly conflicting services penalizes maintainability, evolutivity of the system. Namely, this point leads to the question of inheritance anomaly. Indeed, it does not allow to change the interface (i.e. set of service it provides to clients) without reanalyzing whole concurrency issues. herefore, specifying concurrency constraints of services by declaring the set of used resource and their using mode (modifying, querying, …) ensures that the specification of each services remains independent. And thus it will remove the drawbacks mentioned before.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

4.1.6 - Access Control Policy

  • Key: SPTP-60
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5022
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    There is certainly a link to do between this concept and the ”ConcurrencyPolicy” concept managing concurrent execution of services of a given a resource. But I did not find it…

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

Figure 22

  • Key: SPTP-70
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5032
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    The hierarchy of Figure 22 creates problems when we combine protection and activeness in the same resource (this is very common). An alternative is to use two tagged values in GSMResource to distinguish protection and activeness

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

End of page 4.25 and page 4.26.

  • Key: SPTP-69
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5031
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    At the beginning of page 4.24 it is said “It is often useful to group sets of QoS characteristics that are related…» The ideas included in page 4.25 proposes distinguish “which annotations represent required QoS and which ones are offered QoS”. The stereotype SAResource includes the tagged value SAPriorityCeiling that is an output result of some scheduling analysis tools, and the stereotype includes other required tagged values

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

Page 4.23 paragraph 5

  • Key: SPTP-68
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5030
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Page 4.23 paragraph 5. UML 1.3 does not describe how to refer a Model Element with tagged values (I do not know if this will be included in UML 1.4). CASE tools have problems to maintain consistencies, when we use tagged value references. Modification names are not updated in the tagged values.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

Page 4.23

  • Key: SPTP-67
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5029
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    end of paragraph 3 two point

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

Section 4.1.4

  • Key: SPTP-66
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5028
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    introduces the dimension protection, “which identifies whether the device is protected against concurrent access or not”. Some resources can be qualified as protected and concurrent at the same time if the resource capacity is limited. The attribute Capacity in page 6.5 introduces the Multi-Unit objects. A good example of these kind of resources are the multi-thread objects of RT-CORBA [9]. The access is controlled with specific policies, but the concurrent access is limited. In page 4.18 the class ProtectedResource includes the attribute AccessControlPolicy ”that control access to the exclusive services

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

Figure 15.

  • Key: SPTP-65
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5027
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    According to previous remark, I change also in the Figure “Engineering Model” into “ExecutionModel”.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 4990 for disposition

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

Figure 14

  • Key: SPTP-64
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5026
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    in this Figure, change of “Engineering” into “Execution”

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 4990 for disposition

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

Problem of ref number

  • Key: SPTP-63
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5025
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    Problem of ref number, 3.3, last para

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

Resource Broker

  • Key: SPTP-62
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5024
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    I do not well understand the difference between the concept of “Resource Broker” and this one of “Access Control Policy”. According to me, it is the same thing and moreover if you attache a “Resource broker” to one or more unprotected resources they become protected and are no more unprotected resource. It is the reason I propose to suppress this concept in the Figure 19.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 5016 for disposition

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

p. 84/85:

  • Key: SPTP-78
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5041
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    The fourth column of the table describing the tags of «RTnewTimer» and «RTset» is not consistent with others. It is a description instead of the domain attribute name specification.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    descriptions updated

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

p. 84

  • Key: SPTP-77
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5040
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    I see no compelling reason to support this feature – it strikes me as being too detailed for the kinds of analyses envisaged by the profile (Bran)

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

p. 72, 80 and 82:

  • Key: SPTP-76
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5039
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    see document (don't know, what the issue is)

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

p 70

  • Key: SPTP-75
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5038
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    A time interval is always relative; it makes no sense to talk about an absolute time interval (Bran)

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

p. 36

  • Key: SPTP-74
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5037
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    See document (???? what is the issue?)

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

approach of application of QoS characteristics

  • Key: SPTP-79
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5042
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Universidad Politecnica de Madrid ( Miguel de Miguel)
  • Summary:

    The approach of application of QoS characteristics from the descriptor to instances can have associated problems, when the descriptor is an interface and the interface is implemented by multiples classifiers with different implementations of methods (the descriptor of the instance can be the interface and the classes can have associated different QoS characteristics and we cannot identify the characteristics of the instances).

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section 4.1.5 issue

  • Key: SPTP-56
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5018
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    We introduce the term “query” in order to fit to the isQuery meta-attribute of BehavioralFeature in UML specifying when true that the execution of a feature leaves the state of the system unchanged and conversely we introduce the term “modifying” to fit to the case where the isQuery value is false that is involving side-effects. This point is similar to the one pertaining to read and write operations. This new terms are just propositions and may be of course changed

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

Section 4.1.4 -- clarification

  • Key: SPTP-55
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5017
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    I do not well understand the differency between the concept of “Ressource Broker” and this one of “Access Control Policy”. As described in the sentence, it seems to me that it designates the same thing. Moreover if you attache a “Ressource broker” to one or more unprotected resources they become protected. It is the reason I propose to suppress this concept in the Figure 19.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Additional explanatory text added in section 4.1.7

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

Section 4.1.4 Are threads and processes (at UNIX meaning) active resources

  • Key: SPTP-54
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5016
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    Are threads and processes (at UNIX meaning) active resources? If yes (I think yes), I suggest to add an example which do not come from hardware area.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Appropriate examples were added to the text in section 4.1.6.

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

The term “Analysis” is very ambiguous

  • Key: SPTP-45
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5007
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    The term “Analysis” is very ambiguous because if it is well understood by the majority of real-time system analysts I think it could be misunderstood by non real-time specialist modelers. Indeed, this terms is often used in process definition too as being the development stage where the modeler specify what the system has to do. And yet, this document will be certainly read by non real-time specialists too. To avoid such confusion, I propose to explicitly write “real-time analysis”.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 4839 for disposition

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

Suggested insertion at the beginning of the section 3.1

  • Key: SPTP-44
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5006
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    "Suggested insertion at the beginning of the section:Extracted from [5]:
    « May be qualified as « real-time » every application operating a computing system which working is liable for the dynamic evolution of the environment state (so-called technique) that is linked to and which it has to control the behavior. ».
    Extracted from [38]:
    « Real-Time systems are those systems in which correctness of the system depends not only on the logical results of computations, but also on the time at which results are produced. ».
    Both previous definitions of the term “real-time” give us following features of real-time system:

    • A real-time system is tied up with its environment because it has to supervise its behavior via sensors and actuators;
    • Its computations has to be of course right, but also has to be delivered at the right
      "
  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

GRM Profile issue

  • Key: SPTP-51
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5013
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    The profile some concepts as stereotypes when they are concepts that could be represented with other types of UML extensions, especially constraints. Some examples are GRMqosCharacteristic and GRMaccesControlPolicy. [1,4,8] use extensively constraint to represent these concepts, the represent the concepts like response times, and control policies as constraints. The problem is the formal language for the description of these concepts in the constraints, but we can use stereotyped constraints. This mean stereotypes for constraints, these stereotypes can include the tagged values that represent the constraint parameters and the constraint can represent the characteristic [3]. We can use the stereotype inheritance to represent the inheritance of these types of constraints.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

section 4.2.2 item labeled "GRMscenarioStep

  • Key: SPTP-50
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5012
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    item labeled "GRMscenarioStep: should the stereotype also apply to Activity?

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

GRM Profile issue (03)

  • Key: SPTP-53
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5015
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    The stereotype GRMresourceUsage could be associate to BehavioralFeature to represent the resource usage in all messages or stimulus to the same operation

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

GRM Profile issue (02)

  • Key: SPTP-52
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5014
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    The stereotype GRMconxtet is limited to collaboration, package and instance, but most of examples included in the proposal associate a diagram to collaborations or packages and stereotype the collaboration or package. An alternative would be to stereotype the diagrams, but it is not possible in UML 1.3. May be in UML 1.4. An alternative would be a configuration based on diagrams. If we represent the same collaboration with two alternative collaboration diagrams (two possible solutions) we can configure the analysis for a specific solution. If we stereotype the collaboration, what are we going to do? do we include both diagrams with all its elements?

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

composition relationship between ScenarioStep and Scenario

  • Key: SPTP-47
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5009
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    the composition relationship between ScenarioStep and Scenario is shown as ordered. It is not clear how this is specified in the profile.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

Chapter 3.2

  • Key: SPTP-46
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5008
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    Do you plan to provide an example of that (e.g. for Rate-Monotonic Analysis)? This could be an help for further reader of the profile to understand the mechanism.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

Section 4.1.6

  • Key: SPTP-49
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5011
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    item labeled "ReleaseResource" should be defined as a "non-exclusive" service rather than an "exclusive" service

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

Section 4.1.4 2nd paragraph

  • Key: SPTP-48
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5010
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    This should be expanded to identify what other taxonomies exist and guidelines should be added to help modelers identify how to classify specific resource types

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Wed, 20 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

Appendix B- Physical Resource

  • Key: SPTP-43
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5004
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Francois Terrier)
  • Summary:

    physical resource is same think that “execution engine”. Moreover, the expression “execution engine” is not present in the content of the preceding text whereas physical model it is.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Tue, 19 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

Appendix B- Physical Model

  • Key: SPTP-42
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5003
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Francois Terrier)
  • Summary:

    we add this expression definition in order to contrast with this one of “Logical model”

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Tue, 19 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

Appendix B- Thread

  • Key: SPTP-41
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5001
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Francois Terrier)
  • Summary:

    we think that “thread” is a too much ambiguous term and propose to use “flow” instead here.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Tue, 19 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

Appendix B- Execution Engine

  • Key: SPTP-40
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5000
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Francois Terrier)
  • Summary:

    we think that “thread” is a too much ambiguous term and propose to use “flow” instead here.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Tue, 19 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

Section 15.1; Appendix B- Clock

  • Key: SPTP-39
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4999
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    Appendix B- Clock

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Tue, 19 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

tagged values to reference modeling elements

  • Key: SPTP-36
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4996
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Universidad Politecnica de Madrid ( Miguel de Miguel)
  • Summary:

    6. UML extensions use tagged values to reference modeling elements. This can create problems in the consistence of the models because of the creation or destruction of modeling elements. This is not a problem specific of this profile, this is a general problem of extension techniques, but in these profiles this solutions is used very often to represent associations.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Tue, 19 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

engineering model” introduced on page 34

  • Key: SPTP-35
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4995
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    In a first correction, I have mentioned I disagree with the proposed terms of “engineering model” introduced on page 34 in order to define the layer which is more technology-specific. In his reply Bran Selic answers me it was because of the RM-ODP terminology mandated by the OMG. But even if this term is conserved, we could at least put an asterisk explaining it. Because, according to my mind, people who build the logical model are also engineers, I prefer to use terms like: “operational”, “execution”, … instead of “engineering”.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Tue, 19 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    See issue 4990 for disposition

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

Modeling Resources, 2nd paragraph, page 14

  • Key: SPTP-34
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4994
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: U.S. Army Cecom-CSE ( Tom Wheeler)
  • Summary:

    Modeling Resources, 2nd paragraph, page 14. This RFP response uses the phrase “required QoS” for identifying the QoS a client demands from a resource. To me, the word “required” implies an “all or nothing” response which I do not think is the right connotation if these QoS values are to be used at run time as well as during analysis. I believe that eventually we will want auto-generated software embedded with these QoS values where the values are exposed and acted upon by the run time infrastructure. In this case, clients may get less than optimal resource service. Recommend the phase “required QoS” be replaced with “desired QoS”. This phrase is used throughout the RFP response.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Tue, 19 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

Cclarify what is meant by "hard" real-time

  • Key: SPTP-27
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4987
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    clarify what is meant by "hard" real-time (i.e., is it regarding timeliness or criticality?); add examples of the types of systems that are covered.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Tue, 19 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    see above

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

Section 3.3: paradigm

  • Key: SPTP-33
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4993
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    introduces the model-processing paradigm. The problem that we find in this paradigm is that some evaluation method (included scheduling analysis) can produce result that cannot be represented with UML elements. For example graphics of resource usage, preemption diagrams and other results that cannot be represented with tagged values, that is the method used in the profile to update the results in the model.

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Tue, 19 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

Make the notion of return values from Model Processing more explicit

  • Key: SPTP-32
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4992
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Simula Research Laboratory ( Bran Selic)
  • Summary:

    Make the notion of return values from Model Processing more explicit and potentially add new material about meta-level replies

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Tue, 19 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

example of priorities not being relevant to availability analysis

  • Key: SPTP-31
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4991
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    The example of priorities not being relevant to availability analysis sounds wrong (since it turned out to be quite relevant for availability in the case of the Mars Pathfinder); choose a different example that is not likely to be misunderstood

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Tue, 19 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

“engineering” is a too much general term

  • Key: SPTP-30
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4990
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    “engineering” is a too much general terms that may designate any kind of enginnering activity and not especially this one that consist in designing an real-time execution model. I propose also to substitute this terms by “execution” or “operational” or “operating” or why not “real-time engineering model”

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Tue, 19 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

difference between layered and peer interpretations

  • Key: SPTP-29
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4989
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    The difference we understand between layered and peer interpretations is that in first case, the client is in the logical model whereas its resource(s) are part of one underlying execution model. In second case, they are at the same level of modeling. Is it right?

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Tue, 19 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

concurrency package

  • Key: SPTP-28
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4988
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Commissariat a l Energie Atomique-CEA ( Sebastien Gerard)
  • Summary:

    do not know where you are within this task, but we should be interested to work with on the concurrency package?

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Tue, 19 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

Chapter 14.2

  • Key: SPTP-38
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4998
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Esterel Technologies ( Jean-Paul Rigault)
  • Summary:

    "The bibliography is abundant and relevant. It would be even more usable if there were
    links in the text (I know, it’s quite a job!)."

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Tue, 19 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

Chapter 14.1, reference 10 issue

  • Key: SPTP-37
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4997
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    The reference should be the standard or at least should also include a reference to the standard itself

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Tue, 19 Mar 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Closed, no change

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

Appendix B

  • Key: SPTP-3
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5874
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: The MathWorks ( Alan Moore)
  • Summary:

    Update Appendix B to align the specification with RT CORBA 2.0

  • Reported: SPTP 1.0b1 — Fri, 28 Feb 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPTP 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    see below

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