[Sea-sa] Brief meeting notes for SEA-SA RADS Working Meeting on 14 June 2021

[Shames, Peter M (US 312B)]

SEA-SA RASDS working meeting on 14 June 21

Attendees: Huang, Krosley, Radulescu, Shames, Slane, Stangl

Review of TC20/SC14 issues – Fred Slane

  *   Reviewed the outcome of the TC20/SC14 meeting held on 21 May 2021
  *   Focus is on how the RASDS++ framework will support the SC14 needs for a descriptive framework / methodology
  *   SC14 expects to leverage existing ISO 42010 and 15288 documents, along with RASDS and some references from NASA SE standards
  *   SC14 has two existing documents that represent its plan of work: a spreadsheet showing all of the projects, one line per document, showing the WG responsible, and a PDF file from Akiro-san that sorts the documents according to what might be described as “categories”, as in “ICD”, “SE”, “Management”, “Design”, “Operations”, and “Debris/disposal”.   These roughly align with what ISO 15288 describes as “stages” in a mission’s lifetime.
  *   In the Project Spreadsheet Fred has added four new columns: “Element”, “Tier”, “Viewpoint”, and “Technical Area”, with the intent of providing the means to tag each of these standards as to what role they play along these different dimensions:
     *   Element: space, ground, launch, or some combination thereof
     *   Tier: Mission, Segment, System, Subsystem, Unit, Assembly, materials
     *   Viewpoint: Physical, Operational, Enterprise, Functional, …
     *   Technical Area (maybe really ISO 15288 “Stage”): Mgmt, Design, Engineering, I&T, V&V, Operations
  *   We had some further discussion on how these two spreadsheets might be related and what needs to be  done to reconcile them.  This is really SC14 work that we might be able to assist with.
  *   => Action item: Request that Fred try adding an “Akiro-san” column to the existing SC14 spreadsheet to see how these “categories”, which seem most closely related to “15288 Stages”, align with the four columns he already had added

Operations Ontology / Presentation Discussion  – Radulescu

  *   Costin presented an example of an Operations View, using a sort of UML Activity diagram style.  This one was focused at a high level on mission planning through execution and archival processing.
  *   The obvious question is: “Just what gets represented on these kinds of diagrams?”  Is it just flows of data with some sense of precedence or does it show a timeline?  What do the “swimlanes” represent: systems, functional groups, organizations?   What are the objects:  functions, activities, processes?
  *   How do the elements in these Activity diagrams relate to the systems, functions, processes, information documented elsewhere in the model?
  *   We reviewed some of the functional viewpoint decomposition diagrams in the ASL GB (371.0-G-1) that helped sort out a viable approach
  *   Approach:
     *   Use horizontal swimlanes
     *   Assign a swimlane to each of the functional elements to be represented (functional groups, functions, or even teams if that is needed)
     *   Within a swimlane proceed in time order, left to right, starting at the top left
     *   Represent the process steps (or lower level activities of actions) as the items in the swimlanes
     *   Show the flows between process steps in time order, and name the data types that get exchanged (described in the Information Viewpoint)
  *   Fred also wanted to see a “singing and dancing” pair of diagrams, where the functions from the functional view are numbered and matched with the activity view.
  *   => Action item: Peter agreed to produce one of these “singing and dancing” pair diagrams, showing a few steps of the “dance”
Physical Viewpoint / Ontology Discussion – Krosley

  *   Ramon discussed the issues he has seen in trying to use Magic Draw, or other UML/SysML tools to manipulate and display OWL knowledge representations
  *   Apparently some of the UML/SysML tools are not capable of ingesting OWL, although some can do this
  *   Even though these tools use adaptations of XMI for their own export/import, in none of these tools do the XMI export formats preserve drawings in a form that can be exchanged with other tools.  The objects and relationships are preserved, the drawing representations are not.
  *   Ramon reviewed the updates he made to the Physical ontology view, which also added some
  *   => Action item: Costin and Ramon to continue to pursue evaluation of good tools to represent the ontology with clean presentation and labelled arcs
  *   => Action item: Peter to produce simple examples of system and process decomposition profiles
Next Working Meeting, 12 July 21 @ 0700 AM PDT
Agenda:

  *   Briefly review these notes
  *   Review Fred’s spreadsheet with Akrio-san additions and results of analysis
  *   Review Peter’s “singing and dancing” diagrams
  *   Review Costin & Ramon’s explorations into updated diagrams and representation approaches


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sea-sa/attachments/20210614/f585074e/attachment-0001.htm>