[Moims-mp] Updated MPS Information Model (Draft G)

[Roger Thompson]

Dear All,

 

I have placed an updated version of the MPS Information Model (Draft G) on
the Google Drive.  The Enterprise Architect model can be found at:

 

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1D4YhgM-HJagGt5eYCdHhsV09_5Lx8rl5

 

and the RTF diagram report at:

 

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1D4YhgM-HJagGt5eYCdHhsV09_5Lx8rl5 

 

The principle changes are:

 

-          Representation of MPS COM Objects changed to use the UML Template
class approach discussed during the last telecon and subsequently via email
with various members of the WG.  The COM Object Body is now an attribute of
the COM Object itself, and parameterised as a UML Template Parameter.  This
is then bound to various UML Classes representing the Object Body
corresponding to each of the concrete MPS COM Objects.  Each MPS COM Object
now has a derived Class representing it (as before) that shows the
relationships to other MPS COM Objects and Data Items, while the structure
of its Object Body is represented as a separate "Details" class, that is
bound to the COM Object template class as the Object Body.  To keep the
representation as simple and compact as possible, the Object Body is shown
inside the COM Object.

Each MPS Data Item (Planning Requests, Plans, Planning Activities, Planning
Events, Planning Resources and Functions) may have up to four distinct COM
Objects representing Identity, Definition, Instance and Update according to
the identified COM Object Patterns.  The body of the Identity object is
typically a single attribute corresponding to a MAL Identifier, so there is
no specific Object Body "Details" structure.

Each concrete MPS COM Object will require specification of the Area, Service
and Number elements of the COM Object Type.  I have not yet added this to
the model, but it can be done as constraints on either the COM Object class,
or the binding relationship to the COM Object template class.  I would
suggest that this is better represented in the Blue Book Information Model
section as a table listing all the COM Object Types.  We need to agree a
numbering scheme within the WG first.

There is a complication that two MPS Data Items (Events and Resources) have
multiple sub-types of Definition, Instance and Update.  There is more than
one way to represent this and in the current model I have used different
methods for Event and Resources to illustrate possible approaches.  For
Events, as there are only two subtypes representing Event Groups and Single
Events, I have created two separate "Details" classes that each contain the
common attributes, which avoids the need for a second level of "Details"
classes for the sub-types.  These are then directly bound to the COM Object
template class.  For Resources (where there are many more subtypes), I have
used a second level of UML Templating to include the sub-type specific
attributes.  I assume that in practice there will need to be distinct COM
Object Numbers for each concrete sub-type.

 

-          Representation of Plans and PatchPlans has been merged, as
discussed in the last telecon.  All Plans (Plans or PatchPlans) are now
represented as PlanVersions, which has a flag to indicate if it is a
PatchPlan and relationships to both Predecessor (Source) and Target Plans,
with associated constraints on how these can be used in conjunction.

 

-          I have included the proposed Pointing Constraint types from
Peter's note.  However, please note that this was based on the note he
released in February and not the new version released today.  I have noted a
number of discussion points within the model on this topic.

 

-          I have included a new summary diagram for Planning Configuration
Data

 

 

Best regards,

 

Roger

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/moims-mp/attachments/20190405/d1802a3b/attachment.html>