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?