[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] REMINDER: call tomorrow 17 October 2012, 1130 AM ET
Jeff, In RAF section 1.3.1, we note six elements of architectural description and quote of definitions for - architecture - architectural description - system - system stakeholder - view - viewpoint - model I’m assuming that we did not use everything on 1471, so if we just concentrate on the items directly referenced, where are there significant changes? It seems like what we really need are view, viewpoint, and model; architecture would be nice. Note we also reference TOGAF 9 and I’d guess that specific reference has also been superseded. Ken --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Kenneth Laskey MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 McLean VA 22102-7508 From: Estefan, Jeff A (3180) [mailto:jeffrey.a.estefan@jpl.nasa.gov] Ken et al., Agree on accepting Danny's comments and updates to the visual models since these are relatively minor editorials and that Danny was the original author of those particular sections of the RAF. With respect to Rich Hillard's comments, we have a problem of phasing here. The 2011 update to the 2007 version of the 42010 standard (which was an ISO fastrack of the original IEEE 1471) is not an insignificant change. Even the word "architecture" has been redefined and the core conceptual model has also changed, e.g., the addition of model kind and model correspondence to a name a few changes. It would take quite a bit of effort to really assess our compliance with the 2011 update to 42010 and I do not believe there is sufficient resources to do so. So my question for our resident expert in standards evolution, Peter, is how do we handle such an evolution of standards when one standards organization makes reference to an other standards organization's work and/or vice versa? We have invested n years in development of our work around an existing standard and now at the 11th hour, that standard has changed. (Incidentally, the new update to the standard is not yet a year old.) Just as an FYI, we have NOT adopted the 2011 update to the 42010 in our work at the Laboratory because we have not had the opportunity to measure the impact, i.e., cost for us to transition to that new standard. It does not matter top us that a particular standards organization has deprecated an existing standard. I can assure you that the cost issues are raised when it comes to standards audit time. Wish I could have made the call today, but since I'm the one who pressed us to go with the 1471 in the first place all those years ago, it is important that I express my concerns. Please give me a call. My contact number is below. Cheers… - Jeff (818) 393-5280 (office) From: "klaskey@mitre.org" <klaskey@mitre.org> I have two additional sets of comments that I propose we accept: 1. Rich Hilliard (IEEE RA work) is providing some updates in referencing ANSI/IEEE 1471-2000 (and its ISO/IEC counterpart) 2. Danny Thornton provided comments against changes in a section he originally authored. The .xlsx and .png attachments to this email are from Danny. The Word attachment is a save of Rich’s comments. We can discuss whether for tracking purposes we would want to transcribe everything into a single spreadsheet. Ken --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Kenneth Laskey MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 McLean VA 22102-7508 From: Peter F Brown [mailto:peter@peterfbrown.com] Ken, all, Only one comment was received during this 60-day review and that was from me: Issue 312: We tend to avoid the term “user” in the document and are usually careful to employ either “actor”, “participant” or “customer”, depending on the context. These distinctions are becoming increasingly understood and accepted. However, we don’t always avoid the term “user” and where it is still used (20 or so occasions) it probably should be another term. I think this falls well within the editorial clarifications allowed under the non-material changes rule Attached is the proposed disposition, tracked in the issues list and marked as a series of tracked changes in the attached edited .docx file (do a Ctrl-F search for the word “user” to find all occurrences). If these changes are accepted, I think we are good to go. Regards, Peter From:soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Ken Laskey Agenda 1. Review results of 60-day review 2. External interactions 3. Plans for moving forward Ken --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Kenneth Laskey MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 McLean VA 22102-7508 |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]