The VDML 1.0 specification integrates with SMM 1.1. Meanwhile SMM has been upgraded to SMM 1.1.1. But, as VDML needs to be revised, to a new revision VDML 1.1, and meanwhile SMM is revised to SMM 1.2, the integration of VDML 1.1 should be with SMM 1.2

*Integrate VDML 1.1 with SMM 1.2 *

This impacts both the VDML 1.1 xmi and the specification. In the specification, both the reference in the references list is updated and the Package diagram that shows the integration.

Sub-clause 8.4 (Activity Network), in the caption of Figure 8.20, page 90, says “Shape of OutputPort, with ValueAdd, on boundary of Activity OutputPort”. It does not seem correct. The word ”OutputPort” at the end should be removed.

Remove the wrong word from the Figure's caption

Remove the wrong word "OutputPort" from the Figure's caption

Sub-clause 7.2.4.1, right above Figure 19, on page 59, says: "This diagram begins to show integration with SMM, discussed later.". But already in an earlier sub-clause, about Analysis Context and Scenario, integration with SMM was specified (to Observation). So it is not true that "this diagram (i.e., Figure 19) begins to show integration with SMM". Removing the sentence would be the easiest way to fix this.

Remove incorrect statement

Remove the incorrect statement. It can safely be removed without losing essential information.

VDML 1.0 integrates with SMM 1.1. In the SMM specification, in Figure 71, it is demonstrated that Element (CMOF) does not own measurement (the opposite association end, but rather the association owns it. However, when the same association is shown in the VDML 1.0 specification, in Figure 7.19, on page 59 of sub-clause 7.2.4.1, it shows with the measurement owned by Element (CMOF). This does not seem correct. The same problem is there in Figure 7.29, on page 82, in sub-clause 7.2.6.2.

Fix SMM association in diagrams in VDML

Show SMM association correctly in two diagrams in the VDML specification.

Figure 7.16, in sub-clause 7.2.2.4 (Capability Methods), page 51, shows the class “Performer”, but it appears that it is never defined. Consider adding its Class definition to the VDML specification.

Define the class Performer

Add a new Sub-clause to define the class Performer

There must be consistency between the Capability Method to which an Activity delegates (in a particular Delegation Context) and the Capability Offer that is applied by the Activity. A constraint, to enforce this consistency, is missing in the specification. It should be added.

Add missing constraint

Add the missing constraint.

Constraint “Activities that are performed by a Role MUST be contained in the same Collaboration that also contains the Role.” in Constraints of sub-clause 7.2.1.1.5 (Role Class), on page 31, is redundant with constraint “The Role that performs an Activity MUST be contained in the Collaboration that also contains the Activity.” in Constraints of sub-clause 7.2.1.2.1 (Activity Class), on page 34

Remove redundant constraint from Role

Remove the redundant constraint from the Role Class.

The VDML specification specifies that the name of the deliverable on the Deliverable Flow is shown alongside the connector that represents the Deliverable Flow. This is bit limited, and can easily be extended to make it more useful.
Furthermore, the text that specifies connectors in Activity Network Diagrams contain a few text errors, such as "along the alongside the connector", as well as a redundantly repeated phrase "Also here, the name along the alongside the connector represents the name of the deliverable.". Please fix that also.

Extended form of text alongside connector

Extend text alongside the connector with state of the deliverable.
Fix the text errors in the text about connectors in Activity Network Diagram.

The explanation of Figure 7.2 (Capability Offers), in last paragraph of sub-clause 7.1.8 (Capability Method), is a bit difficult to read (page 19). Can the readability of it be improved. Similarly, the first paragraph of sub-clause 7.1.9 (Activity) is a bit difficult to read (also on page 19). Can you improve readability there as well.

Improve readability of sub-clause 7.1

Update text, so that things are more clearly explained.

In sub-clause 7.1.8 (Capability Method) the specification talks about CMMN, but it is not listed as reference.
More-over, BPMN is included as reference twice.

Add reference to CMMN

Add a normative reference to CMMN to sub-clause 3.1, and remove redundant reference to BPMN from sub-clause 3.2.

Sub-clause 7.1.7 (Organization Unit) says "A Capability may produce value directly for a customer or it may contribute value when it is engaged in a specific Activity of a value stream.".
It is unclear what the first half of the sentence means. The second part of the sentence talks about concepts that will be dealt with, and will be dealt with more clearly, in later sub-clauses, and are referred to too early here therefore.

Remove confusing and redundant sentence

This sentence will be removed, as it is indeed unclear and redundant.

Sub-clause 7.1.6 (Business Networks) talks about the net economic value for a party, and how it can be modeled. This statement is a bit fuzzy and is influenced by some elements in the VDML beta1 meta-model around Value Propositions and Business Networks, that got changed in VDML 1.0.

Make statement about net economic value more clear

Make statement in sub-clause 7.1.6, about net economic value, more clear, and more obvious in the light of the meta-model.

In the VDML 1.0 specification, the definition text in the specification assumes the UML predefined type “String” (with capital “S”), however, the meta-model diagrams expose the type “string” (lower case “s”). This means that the meta-model (and so the XMI) actually use the type “string”. This has several problems. Firstly, it is not a predefined UML type, and the VDML specification neither defines it, so, it is basically undefined. Secondly, SMM 1.1 is integrated into VDML 1.0, and SMM 1.1 uses the predefined UML type “String” (with capital “S”). Hence VDML has better also use the UML type “String”.

Replacing string by String in diagrams and in the model

Replacing undefined "string" type by the predefined UML type "String", in the model (and hence in the XMI) and in some diagrams in the specification.

In sub-clause 7.2.5.1 (BusinessItemLibrary), in Figure 7.23, page 68, the multiplicity on end of BusinessItemLibraryElement (of association to Characteristic) is not shown. It should be shown as (0..*). The same problem also occurs in the following three places:
1) In sub-clause 7.2.5.2 (ValueLibrary), in Figure 7.24, page 70, the multiplicity on end of ValueDefinition (of association to Characteristic) is not shown. It should be shown as (0..*).
2) In sub-clause 7.2.5.3 (CapabilityLibrary), in Figure 7.25, page 73, the multiplicity on end of Capability (of association to Characteristic) is not shown. It should be shown as (0..*).
3) In sub-clause 7.2.5.5 (RoleLibrary), in Figure 7.27, page 79, the multiplicity on end of RoleDefinition (of association to Characteristic) is not shown. It should be shown as (0..*).

Show multiplicity on association ends in four places

Add the missed visualization of multiplicity on the four association ends.

In sub-clause 7.1.9 (Activity), page 22, it says: "Conversely, all values can be traced back to their contributors. This is possible, because VDML is not representing the actual paths of each unit of production, but rather the statistical use of various Activities that contribute to results achieved over some period of time. That representative set of results includes some Activities that are only active for some units of production due to product features, operating exceptions, defects, repairs, sample testing, machine failures, and so on." The word "includes" (see above in bold) sounds strange to me. Because Activities are not included in a set of results. Is maybe a different verb meant or was it meant to say something different ?

Revise imprecise statement

Imprecise statement about Activity Value contributions revised.

In sub-clause 7.1.9 (Activity), page 20, it says: "A BusinessItem (...) may flow through a delegation to a sub-Collaboration, or be the input or output of a Collaboration." How is the following meant: "be the input or output of a Collaboration" ? Is that only saying in other words what is said with "may flow through a delegation to a sub-Collaboration"? Similar doubt regarding the immediate next sentence: "Flow of BusinessItems into and out of Activities as well as Collaborations is depicted by DeliverableFlows." The phrase of "as well as Collaborations" is a bit arguable. As known, DeliverableFlows do not connect Ports of Collaborations directly.

Revise unclear statements

Unclear statements about Business Items and Deliverable Flows revised.

The second and third paragraph of sub-clause 7.1.14 (Staff Collaborations), on page 26, are suggesting that VDML can be used to model transformation work, involved in transformation of the business that is also modeled. This is bit misleading and tends to overpromise.

Remove false expectations about modeling of actual transformation work

Rewrite sentences to remove false expectations about modeling of the actual transformation work

In sub-clause 7.1.13 (Scenarios and Contexts), page 25, right above Figure 7.5, it says: "Since Assignments can also be context dependent, the delegations of one Scenario can differ from those of another Scenario thus forming a different tree." But the phrase "Since Assignments can also be context dependent" is irrelevant here, because: delegations of one Scenario (i.e., sub-Collaborations in DelegationContext nodes in the Scenario tree) can be different from those of another Scenario anyway.

Give statement on Scenarios and context trees better meaning

Give statement on Scenarios and context trees better meaning, by removing some words.

In sub-clause 7.1.11 (Resources and Stores), page 22, it says: “The cumulative duration of these uses will determine the consumption of available resource time. This, along with the rate of production, will determine if the Pool of resources will always have resources available or will introduce some additional wait-time for assignment of a resource.”. This only talks about assigning a resource. But before it can be assigned, one may need to wait till it gets released. Can this be worked into the sentence, to make it better reflecting that also.

Make statement about resources complete

Make statement about the use of resources more complete, referring also to the concept of releasing of a resource.

Sub-clause 7.1.12 (Measures), page 22, says: “A Measure is applied to a Characteristic, such as weight of a part, to determine a Measurement that expresses the value of the Characteristic for a particular VDML model element.” And a bit further, on the same page: “VDML Characteristics reflect statistical Measurements per unit of production.”. In the light of Figure 7, this does not seem correct. Because VDML has MeasuredCharacterstic, referring to Characteristic in SMM. Strictly spoken there is no "VDML Characteristic".

Use MeasuredCharacteristic instead of Characterstic in two sentences

Fix two sentences, by referring to MeasuredCharacteristic, instead of Characteristic.

Point 3 in sub-clause 7.1.15 (Model Integration), and the last paragraph of that sub-clause, both on page 27, contain incorrect and confusing statements. It talks about "direct and indirect delegations" and "non-delegation inputs and outputs". In the context of the meta-model, it is unclear what these mean. It also says: "A branch of a delegation tree in one Scenario may then be assigned as a delegation from an Activity in the other Scenario.” The word “assigned” is mis-used here, as, in the VDML specification this term is reserved for assignment of a role. It is also unclear, with the actual meta-model in mind, what the sentence actually means.

Making explanation more clear and consistent with the meta-model

Making explanation more clear and consistent with the meta-model.

Sub-clause 7.2.1.2.3 (Assignment Class), page 36, has a constraint that says, page 37: “A Role MUST NOT be assigned to more than one Participant that is a Collaboration, unless the additional Assignments are context-based, i.e., contained by DelegationContext”. This constraint has several problems. It ignores the fact that participations can be indirect, through a chain of assignments (“roles of roles”). It also ignores the fact that context-based assignments are not only possible with delegation contexts (i.e., children in the context tree), but also with scenarios (the top of context tree). Furthermore, this constraint was written with Position roles in mind, but leaves too much room for invalid situations for other types of roles.

Replace constraint

Replace the problematic constraint by three other constraints.

Sub-clause 7.1.13 (Scenarios and Contexts), page 23, says: “When the Activity of a Collaboration delegates to another Collaboration in order to engage a shared Capability, that particular use of the sub-Collaboration may be one of many.” It is confusing to talk about “the” Activity of a Collaboration. A Collaboration may contain any number of Activities.

Withdraw false suggestion from the text about Activities

Fix the text, so that it no longer attaches false connotation to Activities.

Clause 8 (Notation) is not mentioned in sub-clause 6.3 (Guide to the Specification).

No change needed

This missing information was actually added in the formal VDML 1.0 specifiation, though it was missing in the Word version that was delivered by the submission team and that was the basis for adoption. We just overlooked that. So this issue is actually no issue.

Add VDML logo to the VDML specification

Add VDML logo

The VDML logo is added to the front page of the VDML specification.