<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear SEA SA team, RASDS subset,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have been given the opportunity to present the RASDS++ methodology to a senior JPL Systems Architecture team and spent some time reviewing (and condensing) the materials we had prepared. In the process of going over these materials I
realized that we had missed an opportunity to add further clarity, so I have rectified it in this slide deck.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A while back we added a consistent set of informal ontology diagrams, one for each Viewpoint, that centered the main object and also showed related objects and correspondences. It’s sort of a small thing, but all of these diagrams were
done in the default shades of blue. The realization that I had was that we were missing the opportunity to further emphasize that certain objects, such as Information, belong to their home viewpoint, but are referenced by correspondence in other views. So
I colored all of the objects, in all views, to match their home viewpoint.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Taking the time to do this caused me to also consider situations where ancillary objects appeared in these models (because ontologies are inherently information models themselves) and to make sure that these other objects were correctly
associate with the correct “home” viewpoint. An example of this shows up on pg 21, where Functions offer Services, but Services, and the Service Table Entries, are now assigned to the new Services Viewpoint. There is also, I believe, a useful distinction
between the Data exchanged among Functions in a Functional View and the specification of the full Information Model that is done in the Information Viewpoint.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">At any event, I encourage you all to review these revised materials and see if this approach works for you, and if you believe it adds any further clarity to these ontology models and their description of correspondence. It would also
be really useful if someone else could cross-check the assignments of “home viewpoints” for all these objects and that I got the color assignments correct. The “color code”, of course, is pg 13.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best regards, Peter<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>