${taskforce.name} Avatar
  1. OMG Task Force

SPEM 2003 RTF — All Issues

Open Closed All
All Issues

Issues Descriptions

Constraint [C46] in section 8.5 contradicts definition of Discipline

  • Key: SPEM11-6
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5643
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Osellus, Inc. ( Vivienne Suen)
  • Summary:

    Constraint [C46] in section 8.5 contradicts the definition of Discipline in the previous section. The standard says:

    "[C46] Disciplines only categorize Activities."

    However, in the previous section, Disciplines are defined as categorizing Activities, Guidances, and WorkProducts. We should consider getting rid of [C46].

  • Reported: SPEM 1.0 — Thu, 12 Sep 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPEM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    see below

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

Figure 2.4 Foundation Core Package

  • Key: SPEM11-7
  • Legacy Issue Number: 6623
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: N-Soft ( Nadia Szucs)
  • Summary:

    The Figure 2.4 Foundation Core Package - Backbone will look "cleaner" if the element "Feature" will be moved to a position in between elements "Parameter" and "Constraint". This would allow to adjust the diagram so that the composition association between "Model Element" and "Namespaces" may stand alone, not crossing the inheritance association.

  • Reported: SPEM 1.0 — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPEM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    This is a diagrammatic change, with no alteration to the text or metamodel.

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

Need for a minimal extensibility mechanism in the SPEM metamodel.

  • Key: SPEM11-4
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4888
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: France Telecom R&D ( Mariano Belaunde)
  • Summary:

    4. Need for a minimal extensibility mechanism in the SPEM metamodel.
    When using the SPEM UML profile one can use tagged values to
    annotate model elements. In order not to loose this information
    when expressing the SPEM model in terms of the metamodel, we need
    an equivalent mechanism in the metamodel counterpart.
    Suggestion: add a Property metaclass with a name and value attributes
    to be attached to any model element.

  • Reported: SPEM 1.0b1 — Fri, 22 Feb 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Closed; No Change — SPEM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    No Data Available

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

definition of what constitutes a development method

  • Key: SPEM11-3
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14075
  • Status: open  
  • Source: The Marlo Group ( Wayne Jenkins)
  • Summary:

    think it is crucial that the definition of what constitutes a development method is added to this specification. Observe that many concepts within the document define aspects of a method (e.g. method plug-in, method content, method configuration, etc) but at no stage is the concept of a method defined. The reason I think this is important is that the concept of "enactment" (seen in section 16) should be applied to a method rather than a process. For example, when I enact a development method I create a code repository and processes for its use — I do not just enact the processes. To support this model Figure 6.1 could change the configuration statement to "Configure a cohesive method customized for my project needs". The reason I need this alteration is that I am using the TOGAF method plug-in with the Eclipse Practice Framework. Here, the enactment of the TOGAF method for an organisation requires the creation of an architecture repository (in direct analogy to a code repository above). The current SPEM conceptual model does not seem to adequately cover this scenario

  • Reported: SPEM 1.1 — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Trace should not apply only on WorkDefinition but on every model element

  • Key: SPEM11-5
  • Legacy Issue Number: 5331
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Softeam ( Philippe Desfray)
  • Summary:

    The SPEM standard says :

    "A Trace dependency acts between WorkDefinitions and is mainly
    used to trace requirements and changes across models. It has the same
    semantics as UML Trace."

    Trace should not apply only on WorkDefinition but on every model element. We
    could have for examples a requirement on process, and trace a specific
    activity to the requirement, thus expressing that we have defined this
    activity to fulfill the requirement. This is in line with the UML semantics.

  • Reported: SPEM 1.0 — Wed, 29 May 2002 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — SPEM 1.1
  • Disposition Summary:

    This is a change to the specification text, with no change to the metamodel.

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

Explicit relationship for WorkProduct composition

  • Key: SPEM11-1
  • Legacy Issue Number: 4832
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Adaptive ( Mr. Pete Rivett)
  • Summary:

    In 7.1 (Associations): Using UML aggregation to represent WorkProduct
    composition is painful in the metamodel since it requires Association,
    AssociationEnd and Multiplicity objects etc. To link 2 WorkProducts will
    thus take 7 objects (Association, 2 AssociationEnds, 2 Multiplicities, 2
    Ranges) none of which carry any useful information. In contrast,
    WorkDefinition has a direct subWork association.

    Proposed resolution: introduce a new recursive association on WorkProduct
    with ends subWork(0..) and parentWork(0..).

  • Reported: SPEM 1.0b1 — Tue, 12 Feb 2002 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

figure 12-4 page 85

  • Key: SPEM11-2
  • Legacy Issue Number: 9515
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Anonymous
  • Summary:

    The representation of "Example of Activity Diagram" is weird. It mixes data
    flow and control flow.

    Between two activities there should be a plain arrow if one comes after the
    other, and not a dashed arrow going from the 1st activity to an artifact and
    then another dashed arrow going from the artifact to the second activity. The
    fact that one activity comes after another is a control flow, the fact that a
    part from that one artifact is passing from one to the other is different.

    Because of this confusion, the strangest thing happens: synchronization bars
    are showed to synchronize activities with artifacts! This has no meaning.
    Only plain arroaw should leave and arrive to synchronization bars. They would
    go to or from activities, showing that two activities happen concurrently.
    The flow of data between the activities (artifacts and dashed arrows are
    something different)

  • Reported: SPEM 1.1 — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 05:00 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT