Standards
Stephen J. MellorChief Scientist
2
Why Standards?
Increases choice for customers Increases the size of the market Promotes competition Increase available tools
3
Mentor’s Interest
Increases choice for customers Increases the size of the market Promotes competition Increase available tools
4
Standards Activities
ETSI OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG ….
Neil Henderson, GMOMG Board member
Stephen MellorCandidate for Architecture Board
Vote for me!
5
Technical Activities
Action Semantics QVT SysML UML 2.0 Metamodel-to-Text Executable UML Action Language
6
ETSI
“Action Language”(Actually, a form of
Executable UML definition.)
Steering Committee Technical Committee
7
Executable UMLBuild a system specification semantic backplane: Build a model in your favorite UML subset Export that model Import into a tool that
Verifies, or Compiles, or Builds test cases, or…
your model Re-import the model Re-export to another tool… etc…
What’s the problem?? We have
XMI already!
8
Scope
The scope of this RfP must support concurrent execution (to support concurrent systems), and so provide a computationally complete concurrent system specification language.
This RfP does not require any change to the UML metamodel, or a change in version number.
9
Size Does Matter!
The Executable UML semantic backplane should be as small as possible and support: As much of UML as practicable Any implementation
How?
UML Model variations
Multiple Implementations
Executable UML
10
Reducability and Translatability
Action model was careful to separate functional computation from implementation.
Implication is small so as to enable a large number of tools.
UML Model variations
Multiple Implementations
Executable UML
From Executable UML ‘down’, the backplane must be defined to allow multiple implementations (aka “translatability.”)
11
Reducability and Translatability
The elements of UML must be such that they can be reduced to Executable UML (aka “reducability.”)
UML Model variations
Multiple Implementations
Executable UML
What if an element in UML is reducable to the backplane?
Extend backplane (bad!) Ignore element (depends)
12
AB
Detailed review (sent to ADTF) by email. Is it a “profile”?
Philosophical discussion followed No one argued against the RfP A few detailed technical issues remain
13
The Way Forward
Require an Executable UML without explicit reference to state, but…
With a concept that can be mapped to ‘state’, then
Build another RfP (if required) to incorporate state behavior explicitly.
Cuts scope and increases likelihood of success.
14
Questions?Questions?