[Oslc-steeringcommittee] Other OMG related notes

Thu Sep 12 15:47:22 EDT 2013

That is correct.  This particular interchange format is not related to the UTP per se and is coming out of the C4ISR special interest group.  In any event, it had slipped my mind but I did attend their meeting last year and we had talked about OSLC at that time so at least I know they are aware of it.  I think this particular format was only looking at test lifecycle tools really and trying to resolve the problem of executing tests and working with test data across disparate tools.  That is one specific facet of the larger issue but was a special focus for this community.

As another point of interest, I think I had mentioned that the Systems Engineering group would be spending some time on OSLC at the upcoming meeting in a couple of weeks.  I thought I would just put the agenda down for those discussions here as an FYI.  Some of you may already have access to this info.

[cid:image004.png at 01CEAFC6.E192C200]

The SE Domain Special Interest Group at the OMG has been monitoring the OSLC standard as one of the key technologies relevant to systems engineering modeling approaches and issues.  They have been moving to identify a key set of standards to focus on to be pared down later to a core set of standards that are keys for MBSE for some other work they are engaged in.  OSLC is on that watch list which I thought was encouraging.

From: Steve K Speicher [mailto:sspeiche at us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 3:16 PM
To: Schulte, Mark D
Cc: oslc-steeringcommittee at open-services.net
Subject: Re: [Oslc-steeringcommittee] 15-day Public Review for Product Life Cycle Support V1.0

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<http://open-services.net/>

From:        Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM
To:        "Ersch, Rainer" <rainer.ersch at siemens.com<mailto:rainer.ersch at siemens.com>>,
Cc:        "stc-private at open-services.net<mailto:stc-private at open-services.net>" <stc-private at open-services.net<mailto: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<http://open-services.net/>

From:        "Schulte, Mark D" <mark.d.schulte at boeing.com<mailto:mark.d.schulte at boeing.com>>
To:        "Ersch, Rainer" <rainer.ersch at siemens.com<mailto:rainer.ersch at siemens.com>>, "oslc-steeringcommittee at open-services.net<mailto:oslc-steeringcommittee at open-services.net>" <oslc-steeringcommittee at open-services.net<mailto: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<mailto: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.”

[cid:image001.png at 01CEAFC6.40A36AC0]
[cid:image002.jpg at 01CEAFC6.40A36AC0]

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<http://www.boeing.com/>
mark.d.schulte at boeing.com<mailto:mark.d.schulte at boeing.com>
Office: +1 314-777-7331
[CopperMedallion]

 _______________________________________________
Oslc-steeringcommittee mailing list
Oslc-steeringcommittee at open-services.net<mailto: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/20130912/7042230e/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 89241 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-steeringcommittee_open-services.net/attachments/20130912/7042230e/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 18847 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-steeringcommittee_open-services.net/attachments/20130912/7042230e/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 4317 bytes
Desc: image003.gif
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-steeringcommittee_open-services.net/attachments/20130912/7042230e/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 20631 bytes
Desc: image004.png
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-steeringcommittee_open-services.net/attachments/20130912/7042230e/attachment-0001.png>