[Sea-sa] SAWG - RASDS Subset, schedule of Spring Working Meetings, Meeting 2

Shames, Peter M (US 312B) peter.m.shames at jpl.nasa.gov
Fri May 13 23:17:11 UTC 2022

Dear RASDS group,

As scheduled we had a meeting of the SAWG today, 13 May, to discuss the RASDS edits.  Attendees were: Ramon Krosley, Fred Slane, Costin Radulescu, Karl Vader, Peter Shames.

Discussion points:

  *   Peter reviewed the draft ToC outline for the RASDS++ revision.  Revisions to that based on today’s discussions are attached (along with writing assignments).
     *   The change to the RASDS document outline to better accommodate the primacy of the Physical Viewpoint has been accepted, modulo the following issues that were noted.
  *   Fred identified some issues that will be of particular relevance to SC14: naming of Physical Viewpoint objects and support for certain SC14 work items
  *   In Physical Viewpoint SC14 would prefer the terms Component and Connector to Node and Link.
     *   This led to a discussion of the importance of adopting a consistent terminology and that while RASDS adopts a certain set of terms and representation this is not the “mandated” one, just a self-consistent one.
     *   Observation is that two sets of terms have variously been used, sometimes is a rather “fluid” fashion (blame the editor)
     *   Agreement was to include both Component / Connector and Node/Link terminology and to clarify where each might be best applied
  *   Fred raised an issue, based in part on the SC14 program of work, that verification and design engineering are important topics to be able to address.
     *   Observation is that these activities are usually carried out as part of Enterprise behavior
     *   Agreement is to include reference to standards like ISO 15288 and other agency process/requirements and to assert that these engineering and SE-V processes are already well documented
     *   Further observation is that what most of these SE document do is to state “you need to have an architecture”, but then to be silent on just what an architecture is or what it should look like.  This recommended practice provides that guidance.
  *   Peter presented two revised RASDS++ ontology views made using the MindMapper tool.
     *   A Physical Viewpoint that riffed off a diagram that Ramon had produced a while ago.
     *   The RASDS overall info model showing terms like viewpoint, view, and the selected RASDS++ viewpoints.
     *   The team liked these diagrams and their easy of understanding.
     *   That said, it is not clear that we will want to expend the energy to create figures like these for all of the viewpoints.  TBD.
  *   Fred brought up an example of an SC14 use of RASDS the Quality of Life (QoL) materials provided by Koki Asari of Japan.  We studied the materials he provided (attached).
     *   Everyone was impressed by the adaptation of RASDS to this problem.  We were particularly interested in pg 6 which showed the RASDS viewpoints, some relationships among them (correspondence, but not named as such), a timeline axis, and a scope axis.
     *   Fred is going to ask if we can include this figure, or a variant of it, in the revision to Sec 9, “DERIVING OTHER VIEWS FROM THE BASIC VIEWPOINTS ”
  *   Ramon Krosley presented the additional work he has done to use the Ontology Markup Language (OML) to model the ISO 42010 baseline systems architecture ontology and also the Functional Viewpoint.
     *   The OML language and tools are described at https://www.opencaesar.io<https://urldefense.us/v3/__https:/www.opencaesar.io__;!!PvBDto6Hs4WbVuu7!diOB9wlne_EGleAEcsVuLNs4GeRzIJvd5jmUhR3Ag0Es2WltUftxjXNKaFy8PSL0JpKoyljW$>.  There is a downloadable spec and also a set of tools that will plug into the Eclipse framework.
     *   Ramon showed a representation of the Functional Viewpoint and related it to the various Attributes and terms included on pg 4 (42010 framework), pg 14 (top level ontology),and then pg 19 (Functional Viewpoint).
     *   This cross-checking and analysis pointed out some inconsistencies in these different separate views.  Blame the editor (me) and the choice of “SE Tools” (PPT) which provide no inherent consistency checks across the model.
     *   This is an indication of the challenges inherent in this sort of modeling and a pointer to the need for a further careful reading and cross checking of the document and figures.
     *   Doing this sort of analysis, backed up by use of the more formal OML restatement, will help ensure consistency.
     *   The inclusion of these OML mappings in an Annex is another option that has been proposed.  This would be especially valuable if they can be imported into a tool that will provide OWL output.
  *   Ramon plans to continue to elaborate these OML descriptions, to check them against the documented figures, and to explore the Eclipse tooling for OML and OWL export.
  *   We discussed just what sorts of diagrams / figures and supporting materials we might include.
     *   Fred argued for pragmatism and getting a working document out sooner, not delaying for added figures.
     *   Peter suggested at least including something like Ramon’s OML files, in an annex, because that would provide a useful, machine readable, artifact in the document.
     *   SysML diagrams have also been proposed as a separate representation in an Annex.  TBD.
Action items:

  *   Ramon to continue to revise / extend the OML representations and to explore the Eclipse plug-in for visibility
  *   Fred to see if Koki will allow his diagram, or a modification of it, to be included in the RASDS++ document in Chap 9 (examples)
  *   Writing Assignments for the next meeting: Produce a paragraph, as assigned (see updated ToC), for the Concept sections of the document.  These may draw from existing RASDS text or replace it as needed.
Next Working Session: 19 May 2022.

Thanks, Peter

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sea-sa/attachments/20220513/2927ef02/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: RASDS++ ToC draft - writing assignments 13May22.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 23099 bytes
Desc: RASDS++ ToC draft - writing assignments 13May22.docx
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sea-sa/attachments/20220513/2927ef02/attachment-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: MM Physical Viewpoint 13May22.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 30288 bytes
Desc: MM Physical Viewpoint 13May22.pdf
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sea-sa/attachments/20220513/2927ef02/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: QOL Architectuer 220509-SAWG mods.pptx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation
Size: 2034580 bytes
Desc: QOL Architectuer 220509-SAWG mods.pptx
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sea-sa/attachments/20220513/2927ef02/attachment-0001.pptx>

More information about the SEA-SA mailing list