[Sea-sa] SEA-SA RASDS Meeting Notes & 42010 info

[Shames, Peter M (US 312B)]

Dear SEA-SA RASDS team,

Thanks for your contributions to the third in the series of SEA-SA working meetings on RASDS.  We have made some really good progress and your contributions to this are really appreciated.

As scheduled we had a meeting of the SAWG today, 19 May, to discuss the RASDS edits.  Attendees were: Ramon Krosley, Fred Slane, Costin Radulescu, Robert Rovetto, Christian Stangl, Peter Shames.

Discussion points:
·                     Status: Ramon is studying the Eclipse framework preparatory to trying it out with the OML plug-in.  He will report on this evaluation at the next regular 2’nd Monday of the month, working meeting, 13 June 2022.
·                     Fred reported that Koki Asari, the author of the new slide shown on pg 87 of the RASDS++ deck, was completely comfortable that we use that slide, as adapted, in the new RASDS++ Sec 11, Deriving other views …

     *   Koki apparently stated that he was just reusing the concepts we had provided and that no acknowledgement was required
     *   Peter suggested that this diagram was, in itself, an intellectual contribution that should be acknowledged in some way
·                     Peter reviewed his proposed edits to the Concept sections in the draft ToC outline for the RASDS++ revision.  This included: Basic Concepts, sec 3.1; Functional Viewpoint, Sec 5.2; and Communications Viewpoint Sec 7.2.
·                     Basic Concepts, sec 3.1

     *   Clean up some of the specific language used in the draft
·                     Functional Viewpoint, Sec 5.2

     *   Made changes to some of the language relating to Correspondences between Functional views and Information views
     *   Addressed a concern raised by Robert as to whether the “data” that may be shown on the Functional view is the same as, or different from, the full data description in the Information view that it corresponds to
     *   Reached agreement that the data/information object shown in a Functional view is essentially an identifier for, and a reference to, the fully defined object in the Information view
     *   We do not specify model implementation formalisms, but it was pointed out, and agreed, that these identifiers could be, in some instances, a URI or an ISO OID, and thereby a direct link to the full definition
     *   Robert also asked if we were planning to make reference to the “semiotic triangle” or concepts related to it, cf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_of_reference.  The agreement is that we will not get into this M4 (meta, meta, meta level) of discourse in this document, largely because it would be a distraction to the audience, but that we should be aware of the distinctions that might be present between what we mean by the words we use and what the reader understands based on what they read and their perceptions.  This is true of words and also other symbols, one reason for wanting to specify clearly the symbols that we used and their assigned meanings, and why “using a rectangle for every kind of object” is a bad idea.
·                     Communications Viewpoint Sec 7.2

     *   There were not many changes to this viewpoint concept set
     *   Christian noted that it is often the case that protocol PDUs, while they nominally belong to the layer in which they are created and processed, may be passed to application entities and not just created/consumed down in the protocol stack
     *   Peter pointed out that these PDUs could also be treated as formal Information Objects, defined as such, and referenced as needed anywhere in the system.  This was accepted.
·                     Costin presented some of his concerns re the Operational viewpoint referencing the materials we have generated in the RASDS++ PPT deck, starting at pg 62

     *   We revisited the issue of naming and decided that this should consistently be termed the “Operational Viewpoint”, but that it would contain Operations Views.
        *   Operational viewpoint defines the objects and relations and rules for constructing views
        *   Operations views are used to address specific concerns and represent activities, processes, and behaviors.
     *   In the context of pg 65 we revisited the issue of just what methods / tools / graphics we would use throughout the document to provide representation of the fundamental ontologies of the terms we utilize.
     *   It was agreed that what we need to do in this document is to provide clear diagrammatic representations of the objects and their relationships such that they are easily accessed by our readers.  If we can also produce textual files that may, in a separate step, be machine processed that would be an added benefit.
     *   After some earlier explorations with OWL, the open source Protégé too, and various graphic plugins, we are currently exploring the Ontology Markup Language (OML), which is relatively easy to read and can be exported int OWL and used in Protégé.
     *   Robert suggested that we look into Fact Based Reasoning (FBR), which is being used in some European projects.  He was asked to evaluate this in comparison with OML, its ease of reading, and the availability of free, fully functional, open source tools.
·                     Ramon presented what he had prepared for the new, combined, Sec 6, Physical Viewpoint.

     *   One issue is the language to use to describe the relationship between the ”core” Physical viewpoint and the Connectivity and Structural “sub-views”.
     *   Various terms have been tried out, “sub-views”, “Specializations of the View”, “aspects of the View”, none seem quite right (yet)
     *   Peter pointed out that there had been some complications with the term “aspect” introduced with one of the recent edits to ISO 42010.
     *   => See the CCSDS CWE “Background Material” folder: https://cwe.ccsds.org/sea/docs/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2Fsea%2Fdocs%2FSEA%2DSA%2FDraft%20Documents%2FRASDS%20%2D%20Systems%20Architecture%20Background%20Materials&FolderCTID=0x012000F83FD93BEFF45E4FB5D1769B01CA762F&View=%7BA709F322%2D0E67%2D45C7%2D932D%2DCB78C55CE268%7D
     *   Peter has uploaded the most recent version of ISO/IEC DIS 42010 – 2021 that he has.  The issue with “aspect” appears to have been resolved.
Action Items:

  *   Peter to provide merged version of the ToC, including provided draft Concept sections, and the updated PPT file.  See RASDS Revisions Model materials<https://cwe.ccsds.org/sea/docs/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2Fsea%2Fdocs%2FSEA%2DSA%2FDraft%20Documents%2FRASDS%20Revisions%202020%2FRASDS%20Revisions%20Model%20materials&View=%7BA709F322%2D0E67%2D45C7%2D932D%2DCB78C55CE268%7D> folder: https://cwe.ccsds.org/sea/docs/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2Fsea%2Fdocs%2FSEA%2DSA%2FDraft%20Documents%2FRASDS%20Revisions%202020%2FRASDS%20Revisions%20Model%20materials&View=%7BA709F322%2D0E67%2D45C7%2D932D%2DCB78C55CE268%7D&
  *   Fred to produce his proposed drafts for the Enterprise Viewpoint (Sec 4 edits to the existing text) and Services Viewpoint (new Sec 9 text drawing on existing PPT materials).
  *   Costin to produce his proposed drafts for the Information Viewpoint (Sec 8 edits to the existing text) and Operational Viewpoint (new Sec 10 text drawing on existing PPT materials (as revised))
  *   Ramon to produce his proposed drafts for the Physical Viewpoint (Sec 6 edits to existing text, plus new Physical /  Structural changes).
  *   Peter to review ISO 42010 and ensure we have the latest ISO DIS.
  *   Robert to review FBR compared to ML & Protégé, the abilities, readability, tools & portability, clarity, compactness, and graphical features of the two approaches


  *   Please provide any proposed edits, corrections, or additions to these minutes of other materials no later than CoB, Monday, 23 May 2022
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sea-sa/attachments/20220519/0ed17638/attachment-0001.htm>