PLMWorkgroupMainMeetingsMay11052010 < Main

This wiki is locked. Future workgroup activity and specification development must take place at our new wiki. For more information, see this blog post about the new governance model and this post about changes to the website.

TWiki>

Main Web>PlmHome>PLMWorkgroupMainMeetingsMay11052010 (20 May 2010, GrayBachelor) (raw view)

-- Main.GrayBachelor - 06 May 2010

*PLM Workgroup Main Meeting -* *May 11* *th 2010 11am Eastern Time /5pm CET*

*Agenda:*

   1 Roll call and brief introductions- welcome new members
   1 Objective for today's meeting - Scenario walkthrough
   1 Summarise PLM Workgroup meeting of April 20th and review progress of the [[PLMWorkgroupMainActions][Action plan]]
   1 Comments upon and matters arising from the last PLM Workgroup Main meeting
   1 Review available posted [[PlmScenarios][PLM scenarios]]
   1 Focus on the Systems Engineering scenario
   1 Summarise discussion ahead of proposed working session
   1 Proposal and plans for a meeting at Innovate 2010
   1 Proposal for next meetings - Working session May 17th 11am EST
   1 Covenants
   1 Any other business
   1 Next steps

*Attendees:*

Rainer Ersch<br />Gray Bachelor <br />Mike Loeffler<br />Charles Krueger<br />Brenda Ellis<br />Scott Bosworth<br />Steve Speicher<br />Pascal Vera<br />Kieran McEnery

*Minutes:*

Agenda was followed - most discussion was around item 6

1. Today a combination of ad-hoc plus formal requirenents and modelling is used - the aim is more use of consistent way to handle requirements ellaboration including modelling in SysML - hence modify the screiption of step 2 to and/or

2. A SysML diagram will need "decortaion" and text descriptions to back it up

3. References to System Engineer could be System Architect or System Designer

4. The scenario doesnt really bring out the underlying assumptions about configuration, effectiveity and variants but we agreed to start simpler then build out to explicitly address these aspects

5. We agreed that some focus on specific artefacts to follow through the scenario would be useful for instance in Step 3 to identify the relationship between a requirement and existing design artefacts

6. We clarified some terms around behavioral, functional, logical and physical viewpointsto conclude that behavior and function are equivalent here

7. On the topic of traceability we need to evaluate what RM and AM Specs are supporting for the PLM Context

8 Step 4 to include Modify - DONE

9. Add logical to Step 5 & 6 - DONE

10. Step 5: Assume Req and RM traceability spans all relevant representation

11. Agree to use Activity diagrams to document the scenario

12. Need to review scope wrt to RM

13. Agree to use an open-source tool to write Activity, text use-case, then sequence for details e.g. ww.websequencediagrams.com or topcase

14. Agree to elevate the selected scenario to the 1st Workgroup PLM Scenario - DONE

15. Aim to pull in the othere workgroup leads at Innovate 2010 to review scope and alignment - RainerErsch

16. Rainer to confirm room at Innovate 2010 - DONE

7. Confirm working session as May 25t - In plan

Attachments

Topic attachments
I	Attachment	Action	Size	Date	Who	Comment
xls	ALM-PLM_scenario_1_analysis_V0.3.xls	manage	23.5 K	11 May 2010 - 11:33	GrayBachelor	Working file to analyse the scenario submitted
pdf	OSLC_PLM_Workgroup_May_11_2010_V0.2.pdf	manage	77.8 K	11 May 2010 - 11:35	GrayBachelor	Today's agenda

Topic revision: r4 - 20 May 2010 - 15:59:34 - GrayBachelor

Main

Webs
Main
Sandbox
TWiki

Copyright � by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Contributions are governed by our Terms of Use
Ideas, requests, problems regarding this site? Send feedback