<html><head></head><body dir="auto" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;"><div dir="auto" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Hi Dave,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Please find below my very initial review of the current CSRM Submission. The quality has substantially improved, but, and I’m sorry to say that, the current document is still somewhat disappointing.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I still need to go through the other parts, but are at the moment a bit crippled by a hardware failure.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Kind regards,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Manfred</div><div class="">___________________<div class=""><div dir="auto" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div dir="auto" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div>Manfred Koethe</div><div>88solutions Corporation</div><div><a href="mailto:koethe@88solutions.com" class="">koethe@88solutions.com</a></div><div>+1 (619) 736-1001</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div><div class=""><div class="">Initial AB Review: Cube Sat Reference Model [ Part 1 ]</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">General Note</div><div class="">-------------------</div><div class="">The whole document needs a "gramar refurbishment" for improved readability. As a non-native (and in particular German) speaker, I don't feel qualified to provide fully detailed instructions. I wil try my best, however. :-)</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Clause 1 Scope</div><div class="">----------------------</div><div class="">In general, I find the the Scope clause rather washed-out and confusing. Length is not the criterion here, but clarity is.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The 4th paragraph is particularly confusing:</div><div class="">"A mission-specific CubeSat team will download the CSRM normative Specification XMI file from OMG and import it into their own graphical modeling tool. It is anticipated that the mission-specific CubeSat team will use non-normative material to guide development of their Mission-Specific Model (MSM). The mission team identifies the systems engineering methodology to be followed and revises the MSM organization, elements, relationships, and diagrams as needed."</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">It should at least make clear that the CSRM Specification consists of a normative profile that defines the necessary stereotypes (and is supposed to be used as-is), and an unpopulated, educational CSRM model skeleton as a starting point for a project-specific cube sat model.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">In summary, Clause 1 Scope should just state three things:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">- This is a specification to aid the development of CubeSat Space-Ground Systems Models</div><div class="">- It consists of a normative Profile defining all required stereotypes</div><div class="">- And it consists of an unpopulated skeleton CubeSat SysML model as starting point for project-specific development.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">If you can find some nice words around these three key points and get rid of all that stakeholder blah blah, that would make a nice, concise and attractive Scope clause.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Clause 2 Conformance</div><div class="">--------------------------------</div><div class="">The only normative part of this specification is the CSRM Profile, which is fundamental to everything else. Therefore, you need to state that:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">"Conformant implementations must implement the CSRM Profile in its entirety."</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">[ ideally, the Profile should be usable "as-is, out of the box", however experience shows that some form of customization by tool vendors could improve the usability of the Profile in the respective tool, therefore it is valid to refer to an "implementation" here. ]</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">For the "educational" part of CSRM, you can legally only state:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">"CubSat model developers are strongly encouraged to use the provided skeleton model without altering its structure to maximize the opportunity for reuse and/or interchange."</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Since the provided csrm model itself is not normative, you cannot put more force here.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Clause 3 Normative References</div><div class="">-------------------------------------------</div><div class="">Besides citing SysML, I believe you need to cite domain-specific documents too. I saw a message from you including such kind of documents, you need to reference them here in Clause 3.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Clauses 4 and 5</div><div class="">-----------------------</div><div class="">Both clauses should point to Annex B, therefore Clause 5 needs correction.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">[ it would improve the structure of the document to make abbreviations, references and glossary three separate annexes ]</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Clause 6 Additional Information</div><div class="">-------------------------------------------</div><div class="">It would be good style to start Clause 6 with an "How to read this specification", pointing to the various parts, and in particular enumerate which part is normative, which part is informative, and which part is educational.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Then, if you really want to talk about all the stuff around stakeholders, etc., which you stuffed into the Scope, here would be the right place to clean all that stuff out of the Scope and consolidate it in a subclause of Clause 6. And since Clause 6 is implicitly non-normative, you don't need to mark the moved stuff as informative.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Clause 7 CSRM Profile</div><div class="">--------------------------------</div><div class="">Since this specification is a collection of normative, informative and educational parts, I recommend to mark Clause 7 explicitly as "normative".</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">In the first sentence of 7.1, replace "the sysML" by "SysML".</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Figure 2 is not readable. Please use (and provide) a SVG vector graphic.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Subclause 7.1.1: The first sentence is incomplete. Also, I'm not sure if the whole stakeholder discussion needs to be repeated here, I find it rather confusing. Brevity would be helpful. Maybe eliminate thee first paragraph, or at least substantially compact it.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Subclause 7.1.3: If MissionNeed "drives everything else", and you are not using alphabetic ordering, then why not starting Clause 7 with MissionNeed? [ just a thought...]</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Subclause 7.1.5: It does not "define the system's expectations" but the "expectations on the system's capabilities".</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Subclause 7.16: describing "CubeSatRequirement" as "Requirement of the CubeSat system" is rather lame and not helpful. Also, shouldn't it be "requirements on the CubeSat system"? Your sentence is semantically the inverse direction....</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Reading on, I have a rather fundamental question:</div><div class="">You are using the language (in 7.1.6 and following subclauses) "XYZ Requirement is a requirement of XYZ", which means XYZ requires something. Are you not meaning "XYZ Requirement" is a requirement that XYZ needs to fulfill? Then the phrase should be something like "XYZ Requirement" is a requirement on (or for) XYZ". Please clarify, this is very important.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Reading on even more, ALL the requirements descriptions are very lame, and implying the inverse semantic direction. This MUST be corrected since it confuses the reader.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Subclause 7.1.11: What is a "space segment"? This is really in need of a few more senseful words.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Subclause 7.1.12: "This element is not intended to be refined, verified, satisfied, or verified." What? What does that mean?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Subclause 7.1.13: The description does (IMHO) match the element is is supposed to describe.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Subclause 7.1.14: "SegementRequirement : A requirement of a segment" - really???</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">IN SUMMARY OF SUBCLAUSE 7.1: ALL descriptions (and I really mean ALL) of the requirements MUST be redone. What you provided is terse to the extreem, as if every character would cost extra. Also, from my understanding, ALL given description describe the semantic inverse. The descriptions in the current form are not acceptable, since no user would understand them correctly.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Subclause 7.2.4: The description misses some words to make it fluently readable.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Figure 4 is not readable. Please use (and provide) a SVG vector graphic.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Subclause 7.3.3: The description misses some words to make it fluently readable.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Figure 7 is not readable. Please use (and provide) a SVG vector graphic.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Annex B</div><div class="">------------</div><div class="">Why are specific tools mentioned here?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">"Clean XMI File" is *not* a tool artifact, but an XMI file free of any tool-specific notations and/or extensions.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">==> I need to do another pass through the Annex B, so expect more comments...</div></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br class=""></div></div></div></body></html>