[Oslc-steeringcommittee] 15-day Public Review for Product Life Cycle Support V1.0
Steve K Speicher
sspeiche at us.ibm.com
Fri Sep 6 16:16:05 EDT 2013
Hi Mark,
I think what you reference is different than the OMG UML Testing Profile.
I had a look at it back in February/March and can only find my initial
response (included at end of my signature). I don't think my final
response was much different than below. Base on TestIF is does state a
design goal as supporting UTP.
OMG Specs:
UML Testing Profile -> http://www.omg.org/spec/UTP/
Test Interchange Format -> http://www.omg.org/spec/TestIF/
I'm not sure I have the contacts, I was just making the connection between
what we have seen.
Thanks,
Steve Speicher
IBM Rational Software
OSLC - Lifecycle integration inspired by the web ->
http://open-services.net
From: Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM
To: "Ersch, Rainer" <rainer.ersch at siemens.com>,
Cc: "stc-private at open-services.net" <stc-private at open-services.net>
Date: 02/19/2013 04:51 PM
Subject: Re: OSLC-QM
Hi Rainer,
I'm no expert on the OMT UTP (UML Testing Profile) as I just cracked it
open now to get a quick look. I do however, understand UML, UML Profiles
and the Testing/Quality domains much better. UTP appears to follow the
120/-20 rule (over specify and have extensions possible as well) ;-). It
appears the use cases and technology basis for UTP are much different than
what motivates the current OSLC-QM spec (which follows more of the 80/20
rule). Perhaps there are concepts in UTP that overlap, in fact UTP
includes mappings to JUnit and TTCN-3.
I must confess I'm not sure how one would use UTP. Perhaps one would then
take an existing UML model, apply the Testing Profile, then create
sub-classes/instances to identify their test specifics? Then some tool
would consume that and be able to drive testing based on UML constructs
alone? If so, then this is fairly different use cases but resource types
may overlap some. I don't see the UTP being of particular interest,
unless of course your scenario and technology base match.
I might suggest that if there is interest from the UTP or MBAT members to
pursue using these resource type definitions in a Linked Data like
scenario, then they should collaborate through the OSLC-QM WG. If needed,
we could host a call (other than a regular OSLC-QM call) between these two
parties if UTP group is interested.
Also, I will connect with the QM folks that I know to double check my
understand and put a little more thought into it.
Thanks,
Steve Speicher
IBM Rational Software
OSLC - Lifecycle integration inspired by the web ->
http://open-services.net
From: "Schulte, Mark D" <mark.d.schulte at boeing.com>
To: "Ersch, Rainer" <rainer.ersch at siemens.com>,
"oslc-steeringcommittee at open-services.net"
<oslc-steeringcommittee at open-services.net>
Date: 08/30/2013 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Oslc-steeringcommittee] 15-day Public Review for
Product Life Cycle Support V1.0
Sent by: "Oslc-steeringcommittee"
<oslc-steeringcommittee-bounces at open-services.net>
Another interesting related standard that came up is for a Test
Information exchange Format (OMG) that looks very similar to what we
probably are covering (based on metamodel description, use of XML, some
information provided below) under Quality Management. This standard has
been approved and is in Final Revision so should be available soon. I see
that IBM, INCOSE and some DoD customers are on the voting list for that
(Naval Surface Warfare Center, Office of the Secretary of Defense). This
is coming out of the C4I group and it might make sense for me to make them
aware of the OSLC discussions around the Systems Engineering Group at the
next OMG meeting in order to develop some synergy there, unless someone
else already has made a contact on this or knows more?
Any thoughts?
Directly from the specification:
“The goal is to achieve a specification that defines the format for the
exchange of test information between tools, applications, and systems that
utilize it. The term “test information” is deliberately vague, because it
includes the concepts of tests (test cases), test results, test scripts,
test procedures, and other items that are normally documented as part of a
software test effort.
The long term goal is to standardize the exchange of all test related
artifacts produced or consumed as part of the testing process, however,
the current document is primarily focused on artifacts used or produced
outside of test execution. The following are specifically in scope:
The format of information artifacts related to testing to enable data
exchange.
· Description of test specification entities including mandatory
and user defined attributes.
· The logical relationships between the test information entities.
· Specification of a MOF compliant Platform Independent Model
(expressed in UML) to cover test information data exchange.
· A simple XML schema for validation of test data being
exchanged.”
From: Ersch, Rainer [mailto:rainer.ersch at siemens.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 10:57 AM
To: Schulte, Mark D; oslc-steeringcommittee at open-services.net
Subject: RE: [Oslc-steeringcommittee] 15-day Public Review for Product
Life Cycle Support V1.0
Hi Mark,
thanks for bringing this up. I had seen it before, but I forgot to ask
during the StC meeting what we want/should/could do with it. Although
their technical approach is quite different from the OSLC approach, we
should have an opinion how to deal with our “sister” organization at
OASIS.
We could e.g.
a) simply add them to the candidate list of partner organization we
may want to build a relationship with or
b) we could do a more intense analysis of their approach to figure
out where it complements OSLC and where it overlaps
From my point of view a) would be enough for now, but consider b) at a
later time.
Any comments from our technical coordinator? others?
Bye and have a nice day
Rainer
From: Oslc-steeringcommittee [
mailto:oslc-steeringcommittee-bounces at open-services.net] On Behalf Of
Schulte, Mark D
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 1:19 PM
To: oslc-steeringcommittee at open-services.net
Subject: [Oslc-steeringcommittee] 15-day Public Review for Product Life
Cycle Support V1.0
I was just curious as to whether others had seen this.
The OASIS Product Life Cycle Support (PLCS) TC (which I know nothing
about) sent out information on a review last week that sounded like it
would have some relationship to the same things we are doing here with
OSLC, although perhaps that is not quite the case. Is this a concern?
“to establish structured data exchange and sharing capabilities for use by
industry to support complex engineered assets throughout their total life
cycle. The OASIS Product Life Cycle Support (PLCS) standard is defined by
Data Exchange Specifications (DEX) that are based upon ISO 10303 (STEP)
Application Protocol 239 Product Life Cycle Support. This draft includes
the PLCS library, templates, derived SysML and XML models and associated
reference data.”
Is there any synergy needed between this effort and the OSLC work?
Mark D. Schulte, Associate Technical Fellow
Systems, Software, PLM & ESML Engineering
Boeing Defense Systems
The Boeing Company
mark.d.schulte at boeing.com
Office: +1 314-777-7331
_______________________________________________
Oslc-steeringcommittee mailing list
Oslc-steeringcommittee at open-services.net
http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-steeringcommittee_open-services.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-steeringcommittee_open-services.net/attachments/20130906/33553f1e/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 89241 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-steeringcommittee_open-services.net/attachments/20130906/33553f1e/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 18847 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-steeringcommittee_open-services.net/attachments/20130906/33553f1e/attachment.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 4317 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-steeringcommittee_open-services.net/attachments/20130906/33553f1e/attachment.gif>
More information about the Oslc-steeringcommittee
mailing list